Jeeper
October 23, 2003, 02:32 PM
Just curious who people think is the biggest threat to gun rights in the US. I am speaking of whoever is the most powerful with the message against gun rights or who is harming us quietly.
Who is the biggest threat to gun rights?
If you enjoyed reading about "Who is the biggest threat to gun rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
foghornl
October 23, 2003, 02:33 PM
Loudest would be the VPC/Brady Campaign/MMM.
Those quietly selling us out would be the NRA.
NRA= Not Repealing Anything
Those quietly selling us out would be the NRA.
NRA= Not Repealing Anything
.45Ruger
October 23, 2003, 02:34 PM
I would probably say Hillary Clinton. She is setting herself up to be the Dem's nominee in 08 and at that level she could be as bad as her hubby.
Mike Irwin
October 23, 2003, 02:36 PM
Gun owners.
StLGlocker
October 23, 2003, 02:55 PM
Gun owners who don't get politically involved in the RKBA.
TheeBadOne
October 23, 2003, 02:56 PM
What Mike said.
MuzzleBlast
October 23, 2003, 04:16 PM
The popular media. Nearly every movie or TV show the general public sees is very much against gun ownership by civilians, to the point where they NEVER show a gun owner in a positive light. This has a very real effect on public perceptions and opinion.
cuchulainn
October 23, 2003, 04:46 PM
Certain self-styled RKBA advocates who don't understand that they do nothing but give ammunition to our enemies and push away potential RKBA-allies with their vituperative, self-indulgent rants -- who don't understand the difference between no compromise (good) and chest beating (no purpose).
In contrast, for example, GOA is a very professional organization IMO. It usually walks very well the fine line between no compromise and self-destructive whining and teeth gnashing. Larry Pratt is a smart guy. He knows when to speak out, but he -- and his troops -- also know when to shut up and let attacks or criticism roll off them.
Edited to fix GAO. I meant GOA. GAO is something altogether different.
In contrast, for example, GOA is a very professional organization IMO. It usually walks very well the fine line between no compromise and self-destructive whining and teeth gnashing. Larry Pratt is a smart guy. He knows when to speak out, but he -- and his troops -- also know when to shut up and let attacks or criticism roll off them.
Edited to fix GAO. I meant GOA. GAO is something altogether different.
Bartholomew Roberts
October 23, 2003, 04:57 PM
I decline to answer on the grounds that my response would be both intemperate and divisive.
manwithoutahome
October 23, 2003, 04:58 PM
I hate to agree with the others above:
We are our worse enemies :(.
M
We are our worse enemies :(.
M
Edward429451
October 23, 2003, 05:02 PM
The biggest threat is the people themselves. Gunowners for not demending their rights, and non gun owners for not understanding the bigger picture.
Had a bully walk up to me once...Said "I want your money" Bigger intimidating type. I said "I guess we fight for it"
He said "cool" and walked away. Yes he was big. Yes he had the advantage. But for some reason, when he realized I would be willing to fight, he relented. Hmmm.:scrutiny:
Had a bully walk up to me once...Said "I want your money" Bigger intimidating type. I said "I guess we fight for it"
He said "cool" and walked away. Yes he was big. Yes he had the advantage. But for some reason, when he realized I would be willing to fight, he relented. Hmmm.:scrutiny:
DaveB
October 23, 2003, 05:05 PM
Worst Enemies? We do more harm to ourselves than anybody on the outside.
Around here, 'Slob hunters' put more people off than anything else - I think that most anti-groups preach mostly to their own choirs, but gunowners (hunters) acting like idiots or drunks make enemies.
db
Around here, 'Slob hunters' put more people off than anything else - I think that most anti-groups preach mostly to their own choirs, but gunowners (hunters) acting like idiots or drunks make enemies.
db
Jeff Timm
October 23, 2003, 05:16 PM
As I recall we compromised in 1968.
Ever since then we are told to compromise and compromise and compromise again.
Compromise is based on the assumption that Hitler and company killing 3 million Jews is a good thing.
Geoff
Who doesn't compromise
Ever since then we are told to compromise and compromise and compromise again.
Compromise is based on the assumption that Hitler and company killing 3 million Jews is a good thing.
Geoff
Who doesn't compromise
Poodleshooter
October 23, 2003, 05:29 PM
The public. Notice I did not say "non-gunowning public". There are plenty of gunowners out there who think that guns are fine....for them only
Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.
Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.
manwithoutahome
October 23, 2003, 08:46 PM
Jeff Timm, I didn't compromise, that was the day that I jumped into the fight with both feet, that year I was born :)
M
M
BamBam
October 23, 2003, 09:38 PM
Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.
BINGO!!!
BINGO!!!
F4GIB
October 23, 2003, 11:06 PM
Many (most?) hunters who are to lazy to get involved in the politics of saving their guns.
Atticus
October 23, 2003, 11:10 PM
Gun mis-users. The Harris and Kliebolds of the world.
jimpeel
October 23, 2003, 11:19 PM
Apathetic gun owners; and the ones who think the government will never ban their favorite firearm.
SteelyDan
October 24, 2003, 12:38 AM
I'm missing something here. The question asked "Who is the biggest threat to gun rights?", and the majority of the responses said, in one way or another, "gun owners."
I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun owners are mounting a campaign to repeal gun rights, so it seems you are suggesting only two other possibilities:
1. That gun owners are so sloppy or irresponsible that there will be a public backlash against gun ownership in general. If this is your point, my impression is the opposite. I think gun owners have become less sloppy and more responsible over the past 10 or 20 years, probably in large part because of sensitivity to public opinion; or
2. That gun owners lack the backbone to stand up against assaults on gun rights unless those assaults threaten to take away, for example, the duck hunter's Rem 870. If that's your position, then even if the predicate belief is true, I think there are still two problems with this position. First, we all do this to one degree or another. Do you want a Mideast terrorist who becomes an American citizen, and who lives next to a big oil refinery, to be able to buy a howitzer? Neither do I. So we can probably agree that "the line has to be drawn somewhere," but we should be honest enough to admit that the mere act of drawing the line means that we are impairing our right to bear arms. Second, and more importantly, even if the "duck hunters" have no backbone, they're still not the "threat" that was asked about. Your point would be that they won't stand up against the "threat," but they are not the threat.
I'm really not trying to play semantic games here. I think there are forces out there that wish to disarm American citizens. But I also think it's counterproductive to suggest that current gun owners are to blame for those forces. I think we need to focus on who the our opposition really is, rather than blaming those who should be our allies.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun owners are mounting a campaign to repeal gun rights, so it seems you are suggesting only two other possibilities:
1. That gun owners are so sloppy or irresponsible that there will be a public backlash against gun ownership in general. If this is your point, my impression is the opposite. I think gun owners have become less sloppy and more responsible over the past 10 or 20 years, probably in large part because of sensitivity to public opinion; or
2. That gun owners lack the backbone to stand up against assaults on gun rights unless those assaults threaten to take away, for example, the duck hunter's Rem 870. If that's your position, then even if the predicate belief is true, I think there are still two problems with this position. First, we all do this to one degree or another. Do you want a Mideast terrorist who becomes an American citizen, and who lives next to a big oil refinery, to be able to buy a howitzer? Neither do I. So we can probably agree that "the line has to be drawn somewhere," but we should be honest enough to admit that the mere act of drawing the line means that we are impairing our right to bear arms. Second, and more importantly, even if the "duck hunters" have no backbone, they're still not the "threat" that was asked about. Your point would be that they won't stand up against the "threat," but they are not the threat.
I'm really not trying to play semantic games here. I think there are forces out there that wish to disarm American citizens. But I also think it's counterproductive to suggest that current gun owners are to blame for those forces. I think we need to focus on who the our opposition really is, rather than blaming those who should be our allies.
jimpeel
October 24, 2003, 02:17 AM
I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun owners are mounting a campaign to repeal gun rights ...No, they are standing by while those who are mounting a campaign to repeal firearms rights post sucess after sucess. The factionalization of the pro-firearms genre will eventually rob us of our right to arms and then our rights.
We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo
I posted this at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25038 some time ago but reprint it here for your perusal as it is germane to this subject. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph!
I was telling my wife yesterday that the reason we will lose the gun issue is that the anti-gun forces are made up of the extremist end of the anti-gun genre with a singular intent to be reached incrementally without compromise. In the mean time the pro-gun forces are made up of the fractured elements of the pro-gun genre that all have differing viewpoints. The compromiser, made up of those fearful that they will lose everything if they don't, are at odds with the hard-liners, who fear they will lose everything if they give any at all. While the anti-gun forces have but one common goal and are willing to stick together to accomplish it, the pro-gun forces won't even talk to each other. Some examples:
The NRA is fractured by the infighting and lawsuits between the forces of Neal Knox, et al, and the forces of LaPierre. http://www.urban-armory.com/nealknox010199.htm
JPFO is fractured by the current lawsuit by Jay Simkin against Aaron Zelman. http://jpfo.org/alert19990808.htm (DEAD LINK)
The NRA won't cooperate with anyone outside the organization calling everyone else "extremist".
Larry Pratt has sent a nasty-gram to Alan Gottlieb stating Gottlieb and his group are pro-gun control. http://www.saf.org/Prattresponse.htm
The NRA, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, et al, almost NEVER show up together, or in combination, at ANY function.
Conversely:
When was the last time you heard that Sarah Brady was upset at Josh Sugarmann?
That HCI was calling Stop Handgun Violence an extremist organization out of step with America?
When was the last news conference you saw that did not feature multiple anti-gun forces sharing the dais?
Yes, we have to lose eventually. Not because we won't try but because we have no commonality between our forces. We have no leadership on our end and no victims to parade. It is much more effective to parade a wheelchair-bound cripple of gun violence across the stage than to have a healthy person come bounding out on stage because he wasn't crippled by gun violence. There is no "pity" or "sympathy" element for the healthy whose lives were saved by the presence of a gun. "Pity" or "sympathy" is reserved only for those destroyed by the presence of a gun. That is how our society has been structured by years of Liberalism.
Remember, under Liberalism, the norm is the aberration. The many must shape their lives around the lives of the few. Hence, the healthy, those who make up the majority of the nation, are the aberration and the injured are the ones who get the press. Normality is the aberration while abnormality is vaunted. This is what I call the reverse effect of empathy. Those who see someone in a wheelchair have great empathy for them but have none whatsoever for those not so afflicted. Hence, there is no word for the lack of empathy for those undeserving of it. This is what the anti-gun forces have used, and will continue to use, to their great advantage.
So there it is. We MUST lose in the end unless we are somehow able to bring our forces together under a single tent just like the anti-gun forces have done. In the absence of that, get ready to line up at the local turn-in station.
We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo
I posted this at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25038 some time ago but reprint it here for your perusal as it is germane to this subject. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph!
I was telling my wife yesterday that the reason we will lose the gun issue is that the anti-gun forces are made up of the extremist end of the anti-gun genre with a singular intent to be reached incrementally without compromise. In the mean time the pro-gun forces are made up of the fractured elements of the pro-gun genre that all have differing viewpoints. The compromiser, made up of those fearful that they will lose everything if they don't, are at odds with the hard-liners, who fear they will lose everything if they give any at all. While the anti-gun forces have but one common goal and are willing to stick together to accomplish it, the pro-gun forces won't even talk to each other. Some examples:
The NRA is fractured by the infighting and lawsuits between the forces of Neal Knox, et al, and the forces of LaPierre. http://www.urban-armory.com/nealknox010199.htm
JPFO is fractured by the current lawsuit by Jay Simkin against Aaron Zelman. http://jpfo.org/alert19990808.htm (DEAD LINK)
The NRA won't cooperate with anyone outside the organization calling everyone else "extremist".
Larry Pratt has sent a nasty-gram to Alan Gottlieb stating Gottlieb and his group are pro-gun control. http://www.saf.org/Prattresponse.htm
The NRA, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, et al, almost NEVER show up together, or in combination, at ANY function.
Conversely:
When was the last time you heard that Sarah Brady was upset at Josh Sugarmann?
That HCI was calling Stop Handgun Violence an extremist organization out of step with America?
When was the last news conference you saw that did not feature multiple anti-gun forces sharing the dais?
Yes, we have to lose eventually. Not because we won't try but because we have no commonality between our forces. We have no leadership on our end and no victims to parade. It is much more effective to parade a wheelchair-bound cripple of gun violence across the stage than to have a healthy person come bounding out on stage because he wasn't crippled by gun violence. There is no "pity" or "sympathy" element for the healthy whose lives were saved by the presence of a gun. "Pity" or "sympathy" is reserved only for those destroyed by the presence of a gun. That is how our society has been structured by years of Liberalism.
Remember, under Liberalism, the norm is the aberration. The many must shape their lives around the lives of the few. Hence, the healthy, those who make up the majority of the nation, are the aberration and the injured are the ones who get the press. Normality is the aberration while abnormality is vaunted. This is what I call the reverse effect of empathy. Those who see someone in a wheelchair have great empathy for them but have none whatsoever for those not so afflicted. Hence, there is no word for the lack of empathy for those undeserving of it. This is what the anti-gun forces have used, and will continue to use, to their great advantage.
So there it is. We MUST lose in the end unless we are somehow able to bring our forces together under a single tent just like the anti-gun forces have done. In the absence of that, get ready to line up at the local turn-in station.
jimpeel
October 24, 2003, 02:31 AM
I also posted this at TFL:The anti-firearms movement is made up of the fanatical faction of the anti-firearms genre. The person who is mildly interested in the gun control debate are not their members. They band together with a common goal.
We, on the other hand, are made up of several factions who are, in many instances, fanatical about their particular niche. We have the compromisers, the non-compromisers, the hunters, the wingshooters, the militia types, The cowboy shooters, the home defense types, etc. and they are never on the same page the way the antis are. Most own a particular firearm and couldn't care less about those who own anything else. "I don't own any of those <insert evil firearm of the moment>. They'll never come after my <insert currently "acceptable" firearm>."THIS IS WHY WE MUST LOSE THE DEBATE UNLESS WE COME TOGETHER AND UNITE AGAINST THE SCOURGE THAT IS GUN CONTROL, OR GUN SAFETY, OR WHATEVER THE POLITICALLY CORRECT TERM-OF-THE-MOMENT IS.
We, on the other hand, are made up of several factions who are, in many instances, fanatical about their particular niche. We have the compromisers, the non-compromisers, the hunters, the wingshooters, the militia types, The cowboy shooters, the home defense types, etc. and they are never on the same page the way the antis are. Most own a particular firearm and couldn't care less about those who own anything else. "I don't own any of those <insert evil firearm of the moment>. They'll never come after my <insert currently "acceptable" firearm>."THIS IS WHY WE MUST LOSE THE DEBATE UNLESS WE COME TOGETHER AND UNITE AGAINST THE SCOURGE THAT IS GUN CONTROL, OR GUN SAFETY, OR WHATEVER THE POLITICALLY CORRECT TERM-OF-THE-MOMENT IS.
telewinz
October 24, 2003, 06:46 AM
The next sniper/gunman who kills innocent people and threating slogans like "from my cold dead fingers". Keep daring people to knock the chip off you shoulder and they will. You don't walk away from a threat, you disarm it which explains what has been happening for the last 35 years. The idle threats/slogans may only scare small children but (in time) they can VOTE against us.
Ohen Cepel
October 24, 2003, 07:54 AM
I think the bow hunters and black powder hunters are going to do us major damage in the long run. Not that it is their fault.
In a few more years they will do away with rifle season almost entirely, if not entirely. Then the hunters will no longer matter in the vote and we will be done.
If the bow and black powder thing was about skill why don't I get a special handgun only season? Answer- they want to encourage people to hunt with pointy sticks and BP. Not with handguns.
In VA, where I'm from. Many young men don't even both to buy a rifle to hunt with. They only get 2 weeks with it. If money is tight you get a bow and a BP and get to hunt for months instead of weeks. It's far more cost efficient.
Just my 2 cents.
In a few more years they will do away with rifle season almost entirely, if not entirely. Then the hunters will no longer matter in the vote and we will be done.
If the bow and black powder thing was about skill why don't I get a special handgun only season? Answer- they want to encourage people to hunt with pointy sticks and BP. Not with handguns.
In VA, where I'm from. Many young men don't even both to buy a rifle to hunt with. They only get 2 weeks with it. If money is tight you get a bow and a BP and get to hunt for months instead of weeks. It's far more cost efficient.
Just my 2 cents.
stevelyn
October 24, 2003, 07:56 AM
I had posted comment on a similar thread that asked the same question and now I can't find it. But my comments went something like we are our own worst enemies. There are gun owners who start off with their disclaimer of being a hunter and a gun owner but..........
All I can say is BS. Anyone with a disclaimer like that is a traitorous mole in our midsts working for the enemy. Demonizing homeland defense rifles (EBRs, assault weapons, small concealable handguns, what have you) in an effort to save your own ox from being gored only slows down the inevitable. And that is the total banning and confiscation of all firearms outside government owned arms rooms.
The VPC, Bradiots, MMMs have all shown their hands as well as the politicians on their donor lists. This can be proven by reading the new and improved version of the AWB. These people don't play nice nor are they going to stop until their goals are reached. The worst thing we can do is to be divided as to what firearms are legitimate in citizens hands. I got news for you.........anything burning gunpowder and short of being towed and crew served, is legitimate according the U.S. Constitution. The sooner ALL gun owners learn and understand that the better.
2A has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with maintaining a free country. Hunting is nothing more than a side benefit of owning firearms.
All I can say is BS. Anyone with a disclaimer like that is a traitorous mole in our midsts working for the enemy. Demonizing homeland defense rifles (EBRs, assault weapons, small concealable handguns, what have you) in an effort to save your own ox from being gored only slows down the inevitable. And that is the total banning and confiscation of all firearms outside government owned arms rooms.
The VPC, Bradiots, MMMs have all shown their hands as well as the politicians on their donor lists. This can be proven by reading the new and improved version of the AWB. These people don't play nice nor are they going to stop until their goals are reached. The worst thing we can do is to be divided as to what firearms are legitimate in citizens hands. I got news for you.........anything burning gunpowder and short of being towed and crew served, is legitimate according the U.S. Constitution. The sooner ALL gun owners learn and understand that the better.
2A has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with maintaining a free country. Hunting is nothing more than a side benefit of owning firearms.
buzz_knox
October 24, 2003, 08:47 AM
Gun owners. If each time the media or a politician lied, they were publicly called on the carpet for it, they would get the point that they didn't dare try it. But gun owners are either too lazy to do so or wanting to win hearts and minds by being kind and considerate.
Smoke
October 24, 2003, 09:34 AM
The next sniper/gunman who kills innocent people and threating slogans like "from my cold dead fingers
Apathetic gun owners; and the ones who think the government will never ban their favorite firearm.
Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.
We do more harm to ourselves than anybody on the outside.
Gun mis-users. The Harris and Kliebolds of the world.
Gunowners for not demending their rights, and non gun owners for not understanding the bigger picture.
Gun owners who don't get politically involved in the RKBA.
I would probably say Hillary Clinton. She is setting herself up to be the Dem's nominee in 08 and at that level she could be as bad as her hubby.
Loudest would be the VPC/Brady Campaign/MMM.
Democrats
All true. All sad. Apathy will do more to destroy gun rights than all the VPC/MMM/Etc combined. The Antis are just gas for the fire.
Apathetic gun owners; and the ones who think the government will never ban their favorite firearm.
Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.
We do more harm to ourselves than anybody on the outside.
Gun mis-users. The Harris and Kliebolds of the world.
Gunowners for not demending their rights, and non gun owners for not understanding the bigger picture.
Gun owners who don't get politically involved in the RKBA.
I would probably say Hillary Clinton. She is setting herself up to be the Dem's nominee in 08 and at that level she could be as bad as her hubby.
Loudest would be the VPC/Brady Campaign/MMM.
Democrats
All true. All sad. Apathy will do more to destroy gun rights than all the VPC/MMM/Etc combined. The Antis are just gas for the fire.
Don Galt
October 24, 2003, 11:56 AM
The biggest threat to the right to keep and bear arms is the supposed pro-RKBA types who never met a gun law they didn't like.
The ones who will attack anyone proposing the repeal of previous laws. The ones who are so in love with the concept of law and order that they think cops can do no wrong.
The ones who, deep down, think any questioning of authority is criminal.
Those are the biggest enemies of the RKBA.
Unfortunately, they might even be the majority of gun owners.
The ones who will attack anyone proposing the repeal of previous laws. The ones who are so in love with the concept of law and order that they think cops can do no wrong.
The ones who, deep down, think any questioning of authority is criminal.
Those are the biggest enemies of the RKBA.
Unfortunately, they might even be the majority of gun owners.
Futo Inu
October 24, 2003, 04:43 PM
1. Judges who don't follow the Constitution and precedent, like the 9th Circuit.
2. VPC, HCI (BCPGV), & MMM - these are huge because they actively push the congresscritters for new laws, and without them the media would have much less to report on. They really stir the media and legislative pots.
3. Anti-gun congresscritter crusaders like Feinswine and Chumpy Chuckie, and McCarthy, who introduce hundreds of anti-freedom bills every year, that must be worked hard against to be shot down, by NRA, GOA, and the like
4. The anti-gun media, run by journalists who vote Democrat 85-90% of the time (that's been proven), and owners who are anti-gun.
5. "Duck Hunters", so to speak - gun owners who do nothing to protect their rights - won't join and contribute to a pro-gun group.
6. The compromise (controlling) faction within the NRA, with its shameful bribe-taking from Ruger, a notoriously anti-freedom, anti-gun company (except their own gun sales). The NRA does good work, for the most part, but has too many on its board who are compromisers - not nearly enough cajones among the NRA board and senior managers.
2. VPC, HCI (BCPGV), & MMM - these are huge because they actively push the congresscritters for new laws, and without them the media would have much less to report on. They really stir the media and legislative pots.
3. Anti-gun congresscritter crusaders like Feinswine and Chumpy Chuckie, and McCarthy, who introduce hundreds of anti-freedom bills every year, that must be worked hard against to be shot down, by NRA, GOA, and the like
4. The anti-gun media, run by journalists who vote Democrat 85-90% of the time (that's been proven), and owners who are anti-gun.
5. "Duck Hunters", so to speak - gun owners who do nothing to protect their rights - won't join and contribute to a pro-gun group.
6. The compromise (controlling) faction within the NRA, with its shameful bribe-taking from Ruger, a notoriously anti-freedom, anti-gun company (except their own gun sales). The NRA does good work, for the most part, but has too many on its board who are compromisers - not nearly enough cajones among the NRA board and senior managers.
If you enjoyed reading about "Who is the biggest threat to gun rights?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.