Some times facts are a minor annoyance to the pro gunners too. Ever hear of the ninth amendment?
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which menas that the 2nd amendment doesn't strip the people who are anti gun of the right to a redress of grievances. Which means that every time some gun weilding lunatic goes on a rampage, he is putting the 2nd amendment rights we have in jeopardy. Same goes for every gang banger on the street doing a drive by.
I'm not sure I agree with that connection. Redress of grievances is one thing but seizure of private property (guns in this case) because of an emotion (fear or prejudice) as many of our opposition seem to want is a completely different matter.
Believe it or not, people have the right to move about freely, without living in fear of being brought down by assualt weapon type rifles. They don't see what the pro gunners see. They see maniacs with rifles that look like military rifles with some parts changed, mowing down innocent people, and they get upset. They go to the Government, and say, look what these maniacs are doing. And they are wrong? No, they are not wrong.
In bringing "the right to move about freely without living in fear" into this dialog you risk creating what is known as a "straw man" argument. Fear is an emotion and can not be regulated by laws (though God knows it seems like everybody is trying). Decisions based on emotion have no place in setting -any- sort of policy. So are they wrong? When people react in such a knee-jerk fashion while emotions are running high I think that yes, they are wrong.
Why the people who seem to be pro gun have no sympathy for the people who are afraid of this type of thing happening is a mystery to me.
I can't speak for others but I personally have little sympathy for irrational decisions made in the "heat of the moment". Something bad happens the the FIRST thing I hear people screaming about is removing/banning/eliminating the one thing that (at this time) is my best personal protection. Because someone else is afraid is NO REASON to embark on what amounts to an assault upon me (and other stable, law-abiding, citizens), especially when I have committed no crimes or threatening acts.
Are we supposed to advocate this kind of violence, or ignore it?
No, we are supposed to make sure that any response to this sort of violence is ACTUALLY TARGETED AT THE CAUSE, namely the person(s) who choose to commit these acts. The tools they use are, largely, irrelevant. But it's -hard- to catch criminals, they do all these sneaky things and even when caught it's hard to hold up a criminal and say "look at this evil thing!". Guns, as inanimate objects, are much easier to target because a gun can't do a thing about it only the owners can (see, on either side it's about the people not the tools).
While people who are pro gun are critical of the laws that are being made and the changes proposed, they are offering up no clear alternatives.
Okay, that is just wrong. I don't know if you are misinformed or what but you really need to do more research. If nothing else check out the grassroots level work by the VCDL.
The simple fact is that the many are being made to pay for the sins of the few. There's no doubt about that. But what would you suggest the Government do about the situation? What do you think the answer is? What do you think will stop the violence, and why?
1) Many being made to pay for the sins of the few... Yes, this is nothing new. But the damage (to all sides) can be minimized by removing the overly emotional and hoplophobic from the policy setting process.
2) What would you duggest the government do... Obey the Constitution, enforce the laws that actually target the criminals, stop creating laws and programs as PR tools so they look good.
3) What will stop the violence... First we need to move from fantasy to reality. We will never "stop the violence" there will always be some kind of violence because there will always be some segment of bad people out there. I don't think we can STOP it entirely, we need to learn how to minimize it and prevent repeats WITHOUT punishing those who never did anything wrong.
If you don't want your rights taken away, then maybe you need to have something to say if it hits the table. You're right about one thing, the last AWB didn't do all that much. Better have some good suggestions is all I have to say.
As mentioned earlier, a lot of us who are pro-rights DO have something to say and are often saying it at the tops of our lungs (and getting called kooks, rednecks, bubbas, gun-nuts, and far worse). If you think we're all silent then you have a LOT of reading to do.
Some examples...
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Armed Females of America, LLC
CCRKBA
Gun Owners of America
Pink Pistols
Alaska Machine Gun Association
Hollow-Point Defense
Firearms Coalition of Colorado
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
Georgia Firearm Owners Defense League
Kansas Sportsmens Alliance
Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed
Community Association of Firearms Educators
Maryland Shall Issue
Montgomery Citizens for a Safer Maryland
Wrentham Sportsman's Association
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
Shooters' Alliance for Firearms Rights
Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance
New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense
Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC)
NY State Rifle and Pistol Association
Genesee Conservation League
Grassroots North Carolina
NCGUN
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Oregon State Shooting Association
Johnstown Rifle and Pistol Club
Menoher Sportsmen's Club
Cambria County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
Grassroots South Carolina
Gun Owners of South Carolina
Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc.
Gun Owners of Utah
Utah Shooting Sports Council
Roanoke Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc.
Virginia Chapter Second Amendment Sisters
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
Washington Arms Collectors
Beckley Gun Club, Inc.
Allegheny County Sportsmens League
Have I made my point?
It may also be time to let the people who are anti violence know that yes, we are on their side too. We are anti violent as well. Liking carrying, and choosing to defend ourselves with firearms doesn't make us pro violent.
My personal experience has been this. When someone who is anti-gun is rational and willing to discuss the topic with me as a PERSON not with me as a gun-owner, then we can usually find a common ground for dialog. The fact that I am anti-violence comes through very quickly and even if wind up agreeing to disagree in the end some mutual understanding is usually formed.
However
When someone who is anti-gun bases their entire viewpoint on pure emotion, religious conviction, or is genuinely hoplophobic then the only thing they see me as is this icon labeled "GUN" with all their pre-set notions and prejudices. I have never been able to find any common ground with that type because, to put it bluntly, they don't want to find one. That type will NEVER believe that someone can own a GUN and yet be a non-violent person. It just doesn't fit into their mental image of the world.
<small snip> instead of sitting around calling them names like "sheeple". If they were posting in this forum it wouldn't be allowed. It shouldn't be allowed in their absence.
You know, on this point I have to agree. "sheeple" and similar comments are NOT "high road" and we shouldn't sit down in the gutter with those who bash us in the same way. To my own shame I am guilty of "sheeple" and other comments here and there (usually in a fit of pique) so I think that I will take this specific opportunity to apologize publicly to all for that behavior. It is embarassing and childish and I need to stop doing it.