• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Why do we WAIT to get attacked on the Second Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

2@low8

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
205
I seems that we always take a defensive posture when it comes to the Second Amendment. The antis launch one attack after another, and while they don’t usually win, there are a host of concessions that have been made to them.

The antis playbook is simple: Take us apart piece by piece. You can’t get a concession unless you attack.

Since it has been working for them lets give it a try. SCOTUS has ruled that we have a right to bear arms, but they are still fuzzy on the interpretation of “… shall not be infringed.”

Our thrust should be the enforcement of “… shall not be infringed.” Having this decided in our favor should stop most of the incessant attacks… akin to a preemption law.

Your thoughts? If you agree, how do you think we should go about it?
 
Every gun owner in the country should start openly carrying whatever firearm he or she feels comfortable with wherever they go. Create a few million test cases. That should do it...as long as the first one to make to SCOTUS is decided favorably. If not, we're all in trouble.
 
Why do we WAIT to get attacked on the Second Amendment?
Because we are lazy and cheap.

Too lazy to take the offensive against our 2nd Amendment enemies.

Too cheap to join the only organization large enough to fight our political enemies, the NRA.

I've seen our actions, or rather our lack of action, for over 60 years.
I doubt we will change now.
 
Most smart gunners will maintain operational silence until verbal dueling is absolutely necessary. I like to just let the antis talk and respond by simply nodding my head. It happened last week at work, and I let that immature, misinformed and utterly silly person keep on talking.

There is absolutely no way to win an argument with such a person without looking like them. Let's save our facts, figures and logic for reasonable foes who have proven their ability and willingness to hear the facts.
 
Just what proactive steps do you imagine we can take? And sorry, hordes of citizens engaging in open carry is not going to happen. Yes, I've heard all the arguments before: the more people who do it, the more people will get used to it and see it as normal and realize armed citizens are no threat.

Folks, this is not going to happen. There are two obstacles, a practical one, and one of perception. The practical one is that you not going get that many people doing it. Even back in the days when there were essentially no restrictions on the purchase and ownership of firearms, and guns hadn't been stigmatized by a liberal media for generations, only a miniscule number of people in most areas carried openly. It's not going to happen folks. Most people in our culture are not that "warriorlike" for lack of a better word. Most of those who can and do carry, will not carry openly when we can carry concealed, because we consider concealed carry tactically smarter, and it doesn't alarm people.

The problem of perception is the second difficulty. To be frank, the idea that citizens will eventually embrace open carriers as ordinary joes is naive. Folks, most people are not "gun" people. They aren't part of the culture, and they wonder why we think we need them at all let alone carried openly. They do not look at this the same way we do. They have a different perception entirely. As evidence of this, I reproduce here, an editorial letter from my local paper, "The Virginian Pilot" after he saw an open carrier in the grocery store.

RECENTLY, I ENCOUNTERED for the first time someone openly carrying a gun. I'd stopped by a grocery store at nearly 9 p.m., almost closing time. As I approached the door, a man in his late 20s or early 30s stood near the entrance, texting. He had a large handgun holstered on his hip, with his jacket hiked up over it.

He nodded, and I entered the store. For a moment, I thought he might be a guard, but he was not wearing a uniform, nor did he have the manner of someone on duty.

He came and shopped in the produce section. I moved away, because I found his presence disturbing. When I went to check out, he was at another register, chatting with store employees. He left the store at about the same time I did. He tried to engage in small talk with me and asked if I needed help. I thanked him for his offer and said my husband waited for me in the car.

I was thinking: 'What a pathetic loser.' I wondered whether he really thought that his 'hail-fellow-well-met' approach and his openly carried gun made me feel more secure, not less. And I wondered whether he really cared. Do promoters of 'open carry' laws instruct otherwise presentable young men to appear armed and act nonchalant and cheerful toward store clerks, shoppers and others, as a way to desensitize the public to openly carried guns?

Virginia has a lenient open-carry law. Why did the General Assembly loose this on the public? What does it say about our state that residents are forced to go about our mundane tasks in the midst of armed strangers?

I grew up around guns. I enjoy target practice. But I was brought up to believe that guns are to be respected, not flaunted. They are not toys. They are not fashion items. For a private citizen to carry a handgun openly in public is deliberately confrontational.

I am angry, disgusted and disturbed.
Minnie Fleming
Virginia Beach

And in today's paper, there were two letters in response.

Re 'No need to bring a gun to buy groceries' (letter, April 17): The man is well within his rights to 'open carry.' It is, however, a foolish thing to do. Most of the people who practice 'open carry' are trying to intimidate others.Why is 'open carry' a bad idea? One day, someone is going to be drunk or on drugs, and that person will challenge someone who is openly carrying a gun. They might even turn the gun carrier's gun on him.

My advice to those who 'open carry': Go to class. Learn to carry a concealed weapon and get a permit. Then you won't stand out at the grocery store.
Warren Brogren
Norfolk

Re 'No need to bring a gun to buy groceries' (letter, April 17): The young man described by the letter writer is apparently within his rights to openly carry a firearm at his local supermarket.

But I say this as a gun owner: Was it a smart move? No. It was stupid and immature.

Yes, state law allows such 'open carry.' However, if enough people are scared by people like this man, who openly flaunt their weapons (in a supermarket, no less), then the privilege of 'open carry' in Virginia will just go away.

Presumably the young man in the letter will have to content himself by wearing his precious sidearm while parading in front of the mirror at home.
Jack Meagher
Southern Shores
I am not posting these letters because I agree with everything written in them, I am posting them to draw your attention to what people who are not gun enthusiasts, even though they may be gun owners, think of open carry, and it's not what a lot of people here think. They see a guy carrying openly, and they think "mall ninja," "Rambo wannabe," and "pathetic loser." That last is a direct quote from the first letter. Their perceptions may be widely off the mark, but they are still their perceptions, nonetheless. And people with these perceptions got their legislators to rescind open carry laws in Florida (birthplace of "shall issue" no less) and California recently.
 
Actually I think the reason is that most gun owners fall into a life style/ political outlook of being more self reliant/liberterian/rural. What I've seen in this group of people is that as long as you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. Kinda a do what you want as long as it doesn't bother me, and I'll leave you alone. We don't want to force our will on others. The same is not true of most progressives/liberals. They want you to think/live the EXACT same way they do.

I've been involved in the four wheel drive community and the same is true there. We all have just started to learn that if we don't take proactive steps, then we will lose out to the "loud minority".
 
I find that alot of the problem is the demonizing. Like someone said before its hard to win arguments and talk sense into ignorant people. People are brainwashed. Ct is technically an open carry state. But if you take 2 steps outside your house with a gun of your hip you are going to find yourself face first in the grass and in handcuffs before you make it to your car. There has been cases where someone challenges the law and operates within their rights, but getting a lawyer and going to court to fight your breach of peace and brandishing a firearm charges is out of the question for 99% of gun owners.

Growing up in a very anti gun state,its hard for me to believe that 99% of America's pro gun citizens don't live in ct. In my own little world it feels like we are vastly vastly outnumbered.
 
I say take the fight to them; make them go on the defensive. Start proposing legislation that is 2A friendly. Bring up bills that reopen the 1986 machine gun registry. Do whatever is possible to make gun ownership as easy and enjoyable as possible.
 
I say take the fight to them; make them go on the defensive. Start proposing legislation that is 2A friendly. Bring up bills that reopen the 1986 machine gun registry. Do whatever is possible to make gun ownership as easy and enjoyable as possible.

+1.
 
We are fighting back. In recent years SAF and others have won court battles chipping away at the laws the antis had put in place. Concealed carry in 49 states (about to be 50) is no small victory. Handgun bans ruled unconstitutional? That is enormous. The tide is going against the antis, but we must keep up the fight. Donate to SAF.
 
Alabama is moving in the right direction by introducing Bill 286 clarifying keeping a firearm in a vehicle, converting from may issue to shall issue and creating a 30 day approval time, allowing for reciprocity between Alabama and other states.

Getting on the offensive in terms of the 2nd amendment is difficult because of the reasons cited above and almost impossible without strong grassroots support.
 
I disagree. We have made BIG gains in the last 20 years. Heller, McDonald, the '94 AWB lapsed without a whimper, all 50 states now have some form of carry, several headed to Constitutional Carry, gun legislation caused the biggest upheaval in decades, Di-Fei gets one shot at this, the throws everything she has at us and it crashes and burns, there are half a million new NRA members, anti-gun sheep/wolves are fully exposed, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, we have gotten guns back into national parks........

But one crisis pops up, and all you guys thing we are on the defensive?
 
The way our constitutional system is set up, it's a lot easier to stop legislation than it is to enact it (as the antigunners are constantly finding out). And whatever is done, whether it's playing offense or defense, takes resources. The pro-gun side is wise to let the antigunners waste their money and political capital on Quixotic quests which can be countered at a lesser cost. I'm all for rolling back antigun laws, but we have to be smart in the way we do it.

Regarding open carry as a supposed means to "desensitize" the public, in most places this would be highly counterproductive. Don't rile the soccer moms -- you might get more than you bargain for.
 
I disagree. We have made BIG gains in the last 20 years. Heller, McDonald, the '94 AWB lapsed without a whimper, all 50 states now have some form of carry, several headed to Constitutional Carry, gun legislation caused the biggest upheaval in decades, Di-Fei gets one shot at this, the throws everything she has at us and it crashes and burns, there are half a million new NRA members, anti-gun sheep/wolves are fully exposed, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, we have gotten guns back into national parks........

But one crisis pops up, and all you guys thing we are on the defensive?

What he said.

Only I'd go back a couple more decades, to the 1970's. Radical changes in gun laws started happening then. Yeah, yeah...the Gun Control Act of 1968 predates this, but the large social movement really gathered steam in the 1970's. Chicago, DC, and more started passing some of the strictest gun laws in history. Firearms ownership was stygmatized, and even the use of a firearm in self defense was no excuse in the eyes of law enforcement...or even in some of the courts.

Today is a far cry from those days...and we didn't get where we are by being solely on the defensive.
 
I have a feeling the communist heard is going to be thinned out quite a bit in 2014 due to gun owners and the shocking costs of Obamacare .
 
Most gun owners by nature are self-reliant. The self-reliant person generally prefers not to call attention to himself; he goes about his business without fanfare. But when threatened, he responds as needed. He feels no need to go on the offensive.

This way of living usually serves well; when it doesn't, the self-reliant have a hard time recognizing the problem because they are busy being who they are, paying attention to their own business and being far less focused on the troubles of others or the troubles of the collective. By the time they realize what's happening, the trouble has progressed to crisis levels.

Then the self-reliant have to act out of character to quell the crisis. That's why we often seem weakly prepared for the fight.
 
I disagree. We have made BIG gains in the last 20 years. Heller, McDonald, the '94 AWB lapsed without a whimper, all 50 states now have some form of carry, several headed to Constitutional Carry,

Agreed.

IMHO, the last decade has been the most RKBA-friendly decade in quite a long time.
 
Because you never know when or where the attacks are going to come from.

Protection of the status quo is ALWAYS a defense.

We are not seeking impetus for change.

Do you have any particular strategies in mind?
 
Most gun owners by nature are self-reliant. The self-reliant person generally prefers not to call attention to himself; he goes about his business without fanfare. But when threatened, he responds as needed. He feels no need to go on the offensive.

This way of living usually serves well; when it doesn't, the self-reliant have a hard time recognizing the problem because they are busy being who they are, paying attention to their own business and being far less focused on the troubles of others or the troubles of the collective. By the time they realize what's happening, the trouble has progressed to crisis levels.

Then the self-reliant have to act out of character to quell the crisis. That's why we often seem weakly prepared for the fight.

Beatledog summed it up perfectly. In other words, we have lives.
 
We were on the offensive for many years, and won many protections. With the people in office, we are now on the defensive, which we knew would happen.

The NRA was instrumental in the hard fought victories, and will be working hard to defend against infringements in the future. If you're not a member you need to be.
 
I also must agree with beatledog.

I particularly like the way this thought was written;
"This way of living usually serves well; when it doesn't, the self-reliant have a hard time recognizing the problem because they are busy being who they are, paying attention to their own business and being far less focused on the troubles of others or the troubles of the collective."
.
 
the reason the useless nra is always on the defensive is so they can scare everyone into giving them more money. that is ALL that matters to them and everyone else. if the nra was serious they would push for repeal of the laws on owning full auto, buying guns thru the mail without FFL etc. let the antis respond by going crazy defensive and spending their money
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top