@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Start by looking at what the right is all about.
Currently the Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment is only about having guns for self defense. There is a strong case to be made that this is way too narrow, but for simplicity let's just assume that the Second Amendment is only about self defense in this post.
If a gun regulation does not impede self defense, how does it infringe on the right to have a gun for self defense?
If gun regulations prevents people from having guns, it would impede their ability to use guns for self-defense, wouldn't it?
I think the main reason the NRA, etc. staunchly fights against every little attempt to regulate gun ownership is that they realize the left is not going to stop building on previous achievements until they have eliminated as many guns as possible from the landscape.
They do this for a simple reason, which is to protect criminals and organized crime business from danger. Crime is basically just an option for people to circumvent the regular economy, which they view as discriminatory and inadequate because they see business as not giving workers and 'the oppressed' their fair share of 'the pie.'
So when poor people rob and steal, they take their side against 'the haves' they are stealing from, i.e. because they see the economy as unfair and thus they attribute the desperation that drives people to crime to those who benefit from the economy.
So they don't want poor people deterred from stealing by the threat of guns. Gun-control opponents see this socialist tendency and try to nip it in the bud by stopping any and all attempts to pursue further gun regulation.