Bipartisan gun control bill passes through Senate: Is there fear that small compromises will lead to bigger compromise?

If you really want to understand what is being passed with the gun compromise act you should read the The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in full. There are things like mental health help, background checks, red flag, funding, etc.. Thus, there was an effort of our leaders to address an issue and put forward a solution. We will have to see if The House will pass it as it is seen as less supported in this arena. 

Just to clear out my own bias I have no problem with people having hunting guns, target practice guns, antique guns, self defense oriented guns and in some cases more powerful guns. I am just not sure when higher military grade guns are needed by the average person in society (I am also not an expert in all the different uses for guns but am descent at absorbing different perspectives. This is just a post to help myself and others think through some options. ). 

I do understand the fear of some gun owners who feel that things they view as sacred are being taken away. Some may feel that if they compromise a little then people are going to compromise more and that will erode their rights. Perhaps in their perspective once the door is open it will lead to a flood of changes. This is where trust needs to come into play. Trust is something that seems to be on decline at an institutional, political and/or person level in society. 

You would be hard pressed to make an argument that everyone regardless of criminal background, mental health, reasoning ability, etc... needs high powered aggressive oriented guns under any and all circumstances. On the flip side, you would be equally frustrated in making the argument that no one needs a gun ever under any circumstance or purpose! (Notice I'm really putting it out there! Its meant to be bold for illustration purposes of solutions being in the middle.)

Even most people that are gun advocates are likely to sort of agree with the above paragraph that not everyone needs a gun but fear that any compromise will lead to many compromises. This is where we need people to respect the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment (Not play childish games with controversial and potentially dicey issues that range from gun rights to abortion. We need politicians that get the big picture and don't just trample others arguments simply because their party expects them to do so. We need critical thinkers in leadership positions.). 

Leaders/politicians (That is making the assumption they are they same of which some are and some are not.) should only consider that which will truly have an impact on helping protect lives and will drop the non-practical aspects of any ideological push (Meaning its not about winning arguments but about realized gains to lives. We should explore the solution options. ) We would then seek to tweak laws to find the right balance between gun ownership and gun responsibility; also called value homeostasis.

What we (as a general generic term) would want is only those restrictions that would have a positive impact be considered. That both sides should respect the 2nd Amendment and do their best to keep it as in tact as possible. From free of constraint as possible. These rights carried us forward in some difficult times and we should avoid letting people who shouldn't have guns use them inappropriately and in turn reflect negatively on law abiding gun owners (Its always the bad apples that damage it for everyone. The laws are designed to protect against the unreasonable in people's behavior and choices.).

(This isn't really an argument for or against gun or gun control, it is an argument of a type of logic where we know there are exceptions but don't trust another {the other} party enough to be reasonable in action/thought. Trust comes from experience. Highlighting how extreme views can be destructive to decision making through polar thinking and that can damage future opportunities. What seems reasonable is sometimes misused by others to win political arguments instead of saving lives {the purpose of a bi-partisan approach anyway}. Thus, if our politicians orient their focus past the politics of present to the central essence of human needs {feeling of safety} then we can make better decisions and in turn sew more trust We build trust be taking into consideration the different stakeholder's of society's need. Compromise becomes easier when you trust that the people on the other side are "reasonable" and respect your opinions and values {Instead of focusing on winning arguments.}. In other words, rigidity of political polarization impacts the ability to compromise. Failure to compromise we get stuck in the lower {versus higher} modes of thinking. Everything is all this or all that and rationality is lessened! Maybe not? 🤷)

Let us see what happens. Notice I am not leaning in one direction or the other because I want to understand how the legislative process is influenced by personality and emotional attachment to certain topics (Gun control is a big thing just like abortion. People will go into a rage when they hear these terms and that has even deeper causes. Its not what the answer people have that is important but the process they used to get to that answer that counts. )There is going to be a lot of debate in The House over this issue. Everything will work out as it should but we should be polite and thoughtful in our discussions on thorny issues.

Gun control....