A serious question about anti-gunners

Sure, of course.

Everything is on a spectrum, including respect for the right and acceptance or approval of gun control.

Many, MANY people respect what they understand to be the right to bear arms and yet would never be ok with what many of us would call complete gun freedom. They would see no discrepancy between wanting to hold on to their deer rifle and preventing the common sale of machine guns to citizens, for example.

Out at the extremes of there are those anti-gun people who believe that guns have no place in society and that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. Just as there are those of us here who believe that gun control has no place in society and the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed.

Rhetorically, of course, many of us at our end of the spectrum would say that if a person doesn't accept a universalist view of the Second Amendment, then they do not respect the right to bear arms. Because to respect the right one must understand its purpose in our world, and it has no meaning if it doesn't mean exactly what it says to all extremes.

But I'm not sure that that argument can be considered literally true.

Listen to a gun control advocate talk. They are uninformed (or worse, misinformed) about guns, current gun laws, the second amendment, contributing factors to crime and violence rates, you name it. Any relevant topic, they are clueless.

Now imagine if i said "I respect Baroque music". But I cannot name a single composer, cannot give an example of a Baroque composition, Cannot define the Baroque style, have no clue what contributed to the era, what the era itself contributed to, etc. How much do I really "respect" Baroque music?

That is their position. Uneducated blathering.

ETA: Discussion of how to limit or eliminate access to guns to prohibited people is fair game, in my opinion. Discussing how to disarm a society is gun control as they define it. Unacceptable in my view.

DT Guy said:

I recently heard the statement that: "Gun control advocates can also respect gun rights."

Click to expand...

That statement reminds me of what gun control politicians say. Very similar to every politician that spouts off the phrase "common sense gun laws".

Edit to add (phone typing, pardon me):

My mom is a liberal anti-gunner. She always starts an anti-gun tirade about how "she grew up with guns" which she uses to qualify herself to speak on the topic. What that really means is that her dad and her brother had guns and she didn't need to.

My dad owns guns but isn't pro-handgun or pro-semi auto centerfire long gun. Although he does have a .38 special revolver. He would be an anti AR type rifle person easily as he doesn't use those sort of guns. When he was Army his issue rifle was a Garand.

My brother (ex-Army, issued M16A1) and I are pro-gun, and my mom has learned to accept that pro-gunners that are her sons aren't crazy. But she thinks all the other pro-gunners are. Such is a mother's blind love.

1911 guy wrote:
Listen to a gun control advocate talk. They are uninformed...

Click to expand...

Before we got engaged and she had her midnight "epiphany", my wife was a fairly staunch gun control advocate. She was raised around guns, could field strip a Browning Auto5 and assemble an AR7 in the dark. That didn't make her deaf to the statistics and the factors contributing to them. In fact, she would probably see you as the one who was uninformed and uneducated. Before an issue can be discussed dispassionately, both parties have got to get out of their echo chambers.

My experience with these folks usually reveals that they think a pump shotgun or two for bird hunting, or a bolt action deer rifle, is OK, but that's about it. Often they are hunters themselves. They don't like the idea of a person having many guns, or things like ARs or high-cap magazines. Buying ammo in 1000-round case lots is scary to them, since even a fairly active quail hunter sees no need for that quantity of ammo and thus suspicion arises that someone would want so many rounds. The comment frequently seems to be "But who needs a 30-round magazine to hunt deer?". The idea of carrying or using a handgun to defend themselves or others does not enter their world and they don't want it to -- I think they genuinely cannot fathom that a person would be willing to carry a gun for protection, at least outside the home, and so a person who does want to do that is not understood and is in some manner feared. That old line, "common-sense gun control", comes up frequently. I sometimes try to respond with the question, "What step do you advocate that would actually STOP criminal gun use, as opposed to just making it more illegal?" I never can get a "moderate" answer to that one (the "hard care" anti-gunner will advocate banning sales, or even confiscation, but not the "moderate" who professes a belief in the 2d amendment so we can hunt birds), or to the question of exactly how many and what kind of gun non-police should be allowed to have, and who would make the decision.

Find me a gun control advocate who is willing to discuss the myriad societal issues surrounding crime and violence. They aren't. Just want to jump up and down and scream about banning guns. Maybe they grow them more civilized in your neck of the woods. The ones i come into contact with both in the real world and the interwebz are willfully blind to any and all facts surrounding these issues. Reducing violence isn't their objective. It is simply an excuse for extensive or complete bans. We can all agree that reducing violence is a good thing. They just aren't willing to discuss anything productive.

I'm more interested in people control. Very few deaths are caused by weapons, most are caused by people that shouldn't have access to weapons... or cars... or tureens of hot soup... or coats with sleeves that don't buckle in the back.
Sadly, the people that push gun control think that these are the only folk that should have access to weapons.

My logical mind wants to believe there are reasonable individuals in the gun control camp who don't want to rob me of my constitutional rights.

Then I hear their arguments and my hope fades. I don't think I can vote.

Gun control advocate respecting gun rights is like someone who says they support your right to breathe, but they want to limit you to 10 inhalations per minute, make you submit your exhalations to the EPA for testing every month, not let you store any oxygen tanks, make you wait a year before being able to buy an inhaler, not allow you to breathe while in a school or GOV building, make you wear a tight corset so that you can only inhale 50% of your lung capacity, not allow you to have an automatic air purifier in your home, and tax you for every lb of CO2 that you exhale, you know "common sense breating control".

You need to press the conversation with an anti-gunner. They start with "All we really need is..".
But keep talking to them for a while, and eventually you are going to hear something like
"There really is no reason for anybody to have a gun, etc." It's an annoying, hours long
exercise, but eventually, they give you a peek at the real agenda:
1. Disarm you
2. Control you
3. Marginalize, imprison, exile, or exterminate you. Case in point: Rosie O'Donnell wants to imprison each and every law abiding gun owner, after disarming them . Her
own security detail excluded, OF COURSE, they need guns!



Let them legislate away two or three parts and gun types this year.

In the end, (if you're fortunate) they will be feeding you locusts and roaches, in your barb-wired
enclosure. 30 million Chinese victims of the gun control measures of the Progressive group
The Shining Path weren't so lucky.

When I hear the term "gun control advocate," I think of someone who has an agenda and aggressively pursues it. I have never encountered a person who self-identifies as a "gun control advocate" whose ultimate wish list doesn't include a total end to civilian ownership of guns. And that includes the ones who constantly talk about "reasonable restrictions." It's a meaningless phrase intended to disguise their incremental strategy.

Danoobie said:

"There really is no reason for anybody to have a gun, etc." It's an annoying, hours long
exercise, but eventually, they give you a peek at the real agenda:
1. Disarm you
2. Control you
3. Marginalize, imprison, exile, or exterminate you.

Click to expand...

For the blissful anti-gunner, yes they tend to finally come out with the fact that they think that no one should have a gun. Except for people that are authorized to do so. Such as military, police, government officials, bodyguards, etc.

I don't think every citizen anti-gunner is out to control the populace, but I'm sure some politicians wouldn't mind doing so if they could.

Is it possible that someone can respect gun rights but want to limit them? I suppose it's possible, I've just never seen it. Without exception everyone I've met who wants to limit guns rights is a combination of one or more of the following: an anti who wants to do away with gun ownership, is completely uninformed, can't coherently explain why they want to do so and/or the benefit of doing so. They range from politicians who want to ban all guns to soccer moms I know. The only reason I didn't vote no is because in theory there may be a person out there who fits the definition of the first choice. Notice I said in theory. I'm not counting on it.

No. I do not believe it’s possible. There’s two proverbs that come to mind...

1. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. (Start with something small and end in complete confiscation).

2. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (The successor to #1)

Whether they believe they respect gun rights or not, they are acting on behalf of those that do not respect gun rights. So therefore, they are NOT Pro 2A.

I do not have to own or even agree with someone for choosing to own a particular type of firearm. But I 100% support their right to own it.

The statement is oxymoronic. How do Control a Right (with respect)? It’s like saying I respect your right to choose any color you want but I decide the color options. Think Henry Ford.

Gun control does not control guns, it controls people. Do you respect people that want to control your right? Do you honestly believe the left respects your right to bear arms? As more control is achieved, will they still respect you in the morning? Rhetorical questions to think about.

Of course they can. The problem is we're already at (or past) the point where further gun control wouldn't respect gun rights. I don't think anyone here would argue that the current laws outlawing gun ownership for people convicted of domestic violence are a bad thing.

That being said, as we've seen with the most recent incident, so-called "common sense" gun laws wouldn't have changed anything, because the system broke down long before it reached NICS. The current gun laws would have helped if he hadn't slipped through MULTIPLE cracks. And THAT is where the blame should be placed.

Do I feel that Democrat politicians can respect gun rights while supporting gun control? For the vast majority, no.

Can reasonable people join together to address the varied causes of violence occurring across our country (including those in which firearms are illegally used)?
Yes.
Can a person afraid of becoming a victim of violence (including that in which firearms are used illegally) join with others to find solutions while supporting firearms rights as stated in the 2A?
Yes.

But an anti-gunner claiming to respect gun rights is as logical as a cheating spouse claiming to be monogamous. They can only sell it if you choose look the other way on the facts and truth.

It becomes grayer when you flip the First and Second Amendments for comparison. Many here using the same logic they do with the Second should be OK with Robert Mapplethorpe, Aubrey Beardsley, and others who present things most consider vile (and yes, I do too; I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate here) as art protected under the First. This sadly, is how many Anti's see NFA items, AR's and such. (like Mapplethorpe's PissChrist or Beardsley's pedophilic prints) Coupled with their emotionally driven lack of logic and the 'factotums' of the left being very light on the 'fact' part and playing loosely with them, is it any wonder they parrot the lies told them and irrationally refuse to actually think about the issue?

We get plenty of examples - the media finds gun owners who say that certain guns shouldn't be in the hands of the public and puts them front and center in the news after every shooting.

They find FFL's and gun shop owners to go along with their slant all the time. And if you want to see some come out of the woodwork, rapid fire an AR15 at a range. You will find all sorts of Range Officers and other denizens who did that in the war but who will tell you your evil black rifle can't do that on their range, it's not the correct way. You must slow fire it one shot every minute or so.

All sorts of gun banners and many own firearms, sell firearms, shoot firearms all day long. Their guns are ok, your guns aren't, and you shouldn't have it or shoot it the way it was designed to shoot. And if you try to quiet it down, some will tell you that its only for evil intent and you need to be registered on the pre-offender list. If you try to import certain guns for sale, they tell you that you can't because it doesn't have "sporting purposes" as it's evil. People might find them readily concealable and hurt someone with it. Or worse.

Some will tell you that you can't buy them from certain countries and they are already banned outright. Others will say that certain guns aren't made good enough, you shouldn't pay less than a minimum amount, as if price is a determination of quality. Yet they have a collection of $1,100 guns which can't feed hollow points reliably for self defense.

If we could just get our own ranks in order it would be a lot simpler.

''Can gun control advocates can also respect gun rights?''

Oh yes. They do it very regularly. The respect the rights of uppity-ups, police & military (well, sometimes not) and absolutely their personal security staff to be armed. Heavily armed. Just not you or me, or Joe 6 pack. You know, the lesser people.

Just like their positions on ga-lobal warming, taxes,diet etc. ''Restricted for thee, not for me''

460Shooter said:

My logical mind wants to believe there are reasonable individuals in the gun control camp who don't want to rob me of my constitutional rights.

Then I hear their arguments and my hope fades. I don't think I can vote.

Click to expand...

+1 amen brother. we have reasonable gun control: the mentally ill and criminals aren't SUPPOSED to have guns as it is. no full auto weapons without a fed. permit (1930s) no buying guns through the mail (1960s), now in many states people with restraining orders have NOW lost their rights( in some areas on just the complaint not through a legal finding).

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT "REASONABLE" KEEPS GETTING REDEFINED.

I think your question hinges on how you define 'gun control advocate'. Do you mean someone who is actively trying to pass new legislation? Or someone who simply supports current legislation in place?

I knew a guy who didn't think any citizen needed a rifle, but that handguns and shotguns were fine for the law abiding, and more than adequate for self defense and hunting. He was also in favor of universal background checks. But he knew quite a lot about guns and did enjoy shooting. Strange opinion for sure. But he'd thought about what he wanted to see, and his reasons for it.

I practice gun control every time I go to the range.

I once had a coworker that was very anti-2A. Turned out that he was a former gun owner turned prohibited person by way of domestic violence conviction. If he couldn't own a gun then nobody else needed one either. Go figure......