Rabbit Hole

I know what you're trying to say.

What you're not reading is what us "people with the vapors" are trying to say.

We agree that locking your guns up is something you should do.

We disagree that locking your guns up is something you have to do by law.

Why is important.

While slippery slope is a debate fallacy, incrementally passed laws are real.

We properly decried the asinine rules that Washington DC had in place for firearms storage.  Those laws were built from the framework of reasonable rules.  Responsible rules, if you will.

Iowa started down this road (and stopped before it got far) while I lived there.  I remember this debate.  Guess who you sound like?  It's not the pro-gun side.

The reason you don't sound like the pro-gun side is because you're mentioning a certain event and particular politician who has said more on guns than just this one time.  They're advocating the path to DC levels of restrictions and you post we should be storing our guns under lock and key at all times?  They're advocating punishment and liability for gun owners who fail to store their guns in the manner you prescribe.  I know you didn't actually say it, but you did cite the event they're talking about as evidence of why you should store more securely.

Can you see how that looks?  If I have the vapors, you're tone deaf.

There's a world of difference between "should" and "must".  We're trying to explain why we oppose "must".

We're trying to explain that we've seen this line of reasoning before and where it leads too often.  But that worry is dismissed in an insulting manner.

Look, if I wasn't worried about every little anti-gun thing I would not have suffered through reading the fix-NICS bill and researching the language.  You've got to watch them like a hawk!

The reason we're getting on you about this is because nearly every time we get conciliatory with the anti-gunners on something reasonable, we often get fucked hard by it.  Don't give them the opening if you don't have to.