XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   XPost: aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:58:28 +1100, Dechucka wrote:   
      
   > "RD Sandman"  wrote in message   
   > news:XnsA274A56142D5EHopewell@216.196.121.131...   
   >> "Dechucka"  wrote in   
   >> news:UYudnSRGbNeHgR3PnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:   
   >>   
   >>> as I said in the US even something as sensible as universal background   
   >>> checks is too hard. Refer to the subject line   
   >>   
   >> Yep, I was just telling you where some of that trouble came from.  Our   
   >> own government.   
   >   
   > who introduced sensible changes   
      
   I'm not sure in light of Sandman's comment that it matters whether   
   changes are sensible or not (entirely aside from the question of who gets   
   to define "sense"). What matters is whether people can be carried along   
   by those changes. Clearly there are some who never will - the "cold dead   
   hands" constituency. But libertarianism aside there seem to be two   
   principal hardships:   
      
   1. Distrust of government (Sandman's point), and   
      
   2. Willingness to accept the broader down-side consequences of an armed   
   society in order to retain the ability to provide for ones' own defence.   
      
   The second of these is a choice Americans are free to make - and as a   
   choice it is one that others are free to attempt to persuade against. But   
   such persuasion struggles because it essentially requires personal   
   security to be outsourced to government to some extent or another. And   
   when the government is distrusted that is not a good sell.   
      
   --   
   Murff...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)