Why the NRA hates smart guns

And how am I to do so? You have literally been acting out a predictable, tired pattern of sound-bite arguments which neither prove nor refute anything, and you've yet to actually answer the question I originally posed: what would be, in your eyes, a "reasonable compromise" on guns? If you adopt the logical consequence of your own statements on the Second Amendment, the only possibility you can offer is that no compromise whatsoever is possible; after all, who could countenance "compromise" with the sort of vicious disarming tyrant I must obviously be (or be paving the way for), in your eyes? Who could accept any "compromise" with a government over something alleged to be the sole protection from that government?

And since you've literally acted out a stereotype, why shouldn't I just say that's what you've done and leave it at that?

I don't know why you keep insisting I propose some nebulous "reasonable compromise" so you can batter down that strawman, I'm hardly the average "NRA type". If, however, that's what it takes for you to engage in civil discourse I'll again point out hga's list above.

Take, for example, nationwide reciprocity - this could actually further your apparent goal of universal registration and background checks, but appears to acknowledge some right to gun ownership which you also appear to vehemently oppose. "Shall issue" also falls into this category.

Allowing new machine guns is also inherently palatable to universal registration and background checks. Those weapons already require stringent registration and checks, and allowing manufacture of new ones would not change that, it would just stop artificially limiting the pool and accordingly the price. Long guns are already a minuscule part of crime rates and increasing the market without changing the registration requirements would not likely change the crime rate.

Repealing silly state-level ankle-biting laws regarding mostly cosmetic features that make it more dangerous for the law-abiding to keep and bear arms would have a positive effect on national standardization, which could also lead to an improved case for universal registration.

Reforming the BATFE would go a long way toward not continuing to alienate the gun-owning public with arcane, cryptic rules that place one at the risk of felony for simple acts, and would again be easy to align to a case for registration and checks. Streamline, simplify, control.

What do _you_ view as a "reasonable compromise"? This entire conversation has been one-sided, I've formed and expressed opinions, attempted to discuss what you wish to discuss, and you keep moving the goalposts. Seriously, let's get on with discussion of successful gun control in other countries. I've actually been seriously considering moving to a Scandinavian country and have, of course, been carefully reviewing the relevant statistics and requirements. I'd actually be able to take most of my guns.

Finally, ignore my assertions of what I think registration and checks are about. Tell me what they're about - how will they benefit us, what is the expected result, and so on? What's great about them? Why should we take another step toward the "you have zero rights" end of the spectrum?

I had to go back through the thread to see who used the word 'design' first, and it was actually me. But, given that I don't have an argument against guns, I'm confused. Is the design perspective one that's frequently used by gun regulation advocates? I used it only because when I thought of the question, 'for what purpose are guns manufactured?', 'killing' was the first thing that came to mind. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm surprised that the gun industry doesn't seem do anything to change people's perceptions of guns. They'd probably have a huge impact with a moderate campaign to soften the image of guns.

Also, it may be interesting for you or other readers to know that as a 3rd-party observer, I didn't feel an emotional response to the parent's point. To me, it seemed like a rational argument. On the other hand, your comment actually gave me a very strong negative emotional response. So, if the goal is to convince people like me to side with guns, you may want to alter your approach. Again, it could be extremely effective to your cause to soften the image of guns and gun owners. Personally (as someone who even grew up with guns), guns scare me, and strong gun advocates scare me even more. Where I live, the gun advocates display a very aggressive and dangerous image - from their vehicles, to their clothing and appearance, to their mannerisms and rhetorical approach. Softening that up would probably have a huge impact.

Every time a shall issue regime or better has replaced a more restrictive one, look at colleges as of late since we've run out of states with Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa joining the party, we're assured by our betters that this will result in "Blood in the streets!", "Dodge City!" and all that. You yourself referred to this change with the loaded term "proliferation", and have shown no sign you welcome it, so my limited defense ought to be enough.

And, no, I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates, which have raged through this entire modern Florida and on period of shall issue laws. You have a beef with them, address it to them.

Me, I don't "feel as uneasy about that proliferation" because before it happened I had more trust in my fellow Americans, and now with decades of hindsight and these laws or better (Constitional Carry in 10 states) now covering 43 states and 72% of the population, we know it's Mostly Harmless.