I do indeed get the point, but my take was that while I totally agree 100% with the points, I felt the smoking side of the argument was just an OK example. One I have heard while trying to engage a liberal fool. I did pass it on to some folks who may find it speaks to their habit as well as their weak understanding of our Bill of Rights

An exceptionally well thought out premise, illustrating gun control. I've used the smokers example for years, and I know at least one Conservative talk show host that has used it.

The gun control argument is only one example of the same strategy the Left has used for decades to accomplish their agenda...incremental change.

One legislative session after another, one Leftist goal after another, one decade after another, inch by inch, they seize whatever power they can to further erode Constitutionally recognized rights...and the problem is that for those too young to remember or those indoctrinated by the Left, they see each individual compromise as a first reasonable one...never really seeing how much has been previously ceded.

I oppose the banning of Bump Stocks, in part because of the framework that could be set in place for future bans, but also on principal. The Second Amendment has already been significantly eroded over time, and the Leftist utopian view of a murder-free society has yet to be realized...and won't.

NOT ONE MORE DAMN INCH...and certainly not without receiving something in return.

quote:

Originally posted by TRshootem:
Certainly this is a picture of many products deemed unhealthy, but the difference couldn't be more clear. Second Amendment rights are not product dependent, but rather based on personal and societal security. I fail to see how this comparison helps make our stand to not give up any ground, as smoking is a choice, not a right.

While I take your point that smoking isn't a Constitutionally recognized right, the tactics used by the Left in each instance are the same...an incremental ceding of freedom.

The attacks on the tobacco industry/ smoker bans, are a good example of the difference between diffused interests and concentrated interests.

The tobacco industry/ smokers were a diffused interest, loosely associated and never strongly organized. It was relatively easy for the Left to attack them.

The Left frequently organizes itself into concentrated interests...environmental groups, labor unions, LGBTQXYZ, Moms Against Whatever We Feel Is The Issue We can Exploit At This Moment...etc...

As 2A supporters we need to keep this in mind. We are somewhat a concentrated interest, but we can do a better job of becoming even more of one, and need to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by TRshootem:
Certainly this is a picture of many products deemed unhealthy, but the difference couldn't be more clear. Second Amendment rights are not product dependent, but rather based on personal and societal security. I fail to see how this comparison helps make our stand to not give up any ground, as smoking is a choice, not a right.

Private Property rights are as old as self-defense rights. Look at the the progressive chipping away of the restaurant owner's rights in the OP's article and then look at the timeline below for how many rights gun owners have already had chipped away:

1934 National Firearms Act - gun banners give up nothing in their "compromise"

1968 Gun Gontrol Act - gun banners give up nothing in their "compromise"

1986 The Firearm Owner's Protection Act - gun banners give up nothing in their "compromise"

1993 The Brrady Handgun Violence Act - gun banners give up nothing in their "compromise"

1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - gun banners give up nothing in their "compromise." Fortunately, it had a 10 year sunset in it.

To say nothing of the state and local laws that have additionally eroded the 2A. I've used all these examples myself when trying to explain the "not one more inch" position...

...and thanks for posting the cake cartoon, I've never seen it before, and it illustrates the argument perfectly.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
One legislative session after another, one Leftist goal after another, one decade after another, inch by inch, they seize whatever power they can to further erode Constitutionally recognized rights...and the problem is that for those too young to remember or those indoctrinated by the Left, they see each individual compromise as a first reasonable one...never really seeing how much has been previously ceded.

They continually do the very same thing with local tax increases and levies.

"We need X number of dollars for whatever and it'll only mean that your property taxes will go up by a few dollars per year. Surely you can afford just a few dollars per year for this worthy cause".

That doesn't sound so bad until you realize how many "few dollars per year" there has been in the past. There's no need to wonder why your property taxes are in the thousands per year.

I am proud to say that I have never voted for any tax increase and never will. Not one.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
One legislative session after another, one Leftist goal after another, one decade after another, inch by inch, they seize whatever power they can to further erode Constitutionally recognized rights...and the problem is that for those too young to remember or those indoctrinated by the Left, they see each individual compromise as a first reasonable one...never really seeing how much has been previously ceded.

They continually do the very same thing with local tax increases and levies.

"We need X number of dollars for whatever and it'll only mean that your property taxes will go up by a few dollars per year. Surely you can afford just a few dollars per year for this worthy cause".

That doesn't sound so bad until you realize how many "few dollars per year" there has been in the past. There's no need to wonder why your property taxes are in the thousands per year.

I am proud to say that I have never voted for any tax increase and never will. Not one.

Exactly! Budgets and tax increases, another prime example of the Left's use of incrementalism.

I voted for one local tax increase, but only because it was requested by a Sheriff that I both trusted and respected, and because it was done appropriately. He laid out the case for the tax increase and as it had been a problem in the making for years I agreed with his view of the issue, he worded the measure so that the funds from the tax increase could only go to the issue and nothing else, and most importantly to me, he put a specified sunset in the bill so that the tax increase would end after a specified number of years.

I will, grudgingly and hesitatingly, support a modest tax increase if I see a true need for it (not some dog and pony show with slewed projections), if it is worded so that the funds ONLY go to the specified limited issue, and above all else, the measure includes a tax sunset so that the increase will automatically die unless reauthorized by the voters.

The problem is that for the one tax increase I might support every 10 or 15 years, 30+ local and state tax increases are proposed and a quarter to a third of them are passed.

People are far too generous with their neighbor's money.