A serious question about anti-gunners

Gun control people and I are OPPONENTS. Our views are mutually exclusive, regardless of how rabid they are. If they are pushing for more gun control, they are attempting to take something AWAY from me. I have no "negotiation" or "back down" to offer anyone. I see as much point in trying to convince them that they are wrong, or to change their views, as there would be to convince my cat that it is a dog.

I think your question hinges on how you define 'gun control advocate'.

Click to expand...

Bingo... me too.

They respect their version of gun rights/2A which comes in various interpretations just like the pro gun rights / 2A side does.

I am a respecter of voter rights. I think everyone has the right to vote in some elections. I just don't think everyone has a need to vote in all elections, particularly national elections, just the military and police should vote in those. I think everyone should undergo a background check that they have to pay for each time they want to vote, then get registered and present the voter registration ID that they pay for each time they want to vote, then have a ten day waiting period to vote. You should not be able to vote if they have mental health issues, not be able to vote if they are under a restraining order or have committed certain crimes, and should have mandatory testable education on government and on the candidates (at least a 10 hour class) that they pay for. No more mail in ballots either, if you cross the state line your voting rights are abrogated. None of this is an infringement as you can still vote.

I interpret Joe Biden's statement about double barreled shotguns as, that's all you really need guys. They want semi automatic weapons as heavily controlled and regulated as fully automatic weapons. So, they'll accept some guns to heavily regulate others. So I answered 'Yes' to the poll question.

Someone took exception to me calling gun control advocates uneducated and cited their wife as an example. I would cite the same (their wife, not mine) as an example of willful ignorance and hypocrisy. Nobody needs a gun until SHE needed a gun.

And we have our very own rocketmedic on this board. "Reasonable restrictions" until everyone poked holes in his premise and logic. Then he concluded that we (I'm sure exempting himself) can't be trusted with "assault weapons" which he was unable to define.

That's your gun control advocates. Maybe not bad people at all. Just incapable of reasoning according to principle and fact. Emotion drives them.

This conversation is too undefined and unbounded to have any real conclusions or relevance.

If the term "gun control advocate" means someone involved politically in a movement to ban firearms, then we might be closer to being able to say they don't respect the 2nd Amendment*.

If "gun control advocate" means someone who will casually ascribe to a belief that certain guns shouldn't be allowed to the public, or IN public, or in some places, or should be heavily regulated and available only with some degree of background checking, etc. then we all know MANY of them. Heck, there are quite a few of them here. Go back and search threads on whether the machine gun registry should be reopened, or abolished. Find threads on whether silencers should be legal or illegal. Read threads on bumpfire stocks (just in case you have an amazingly short memory...).

Is a person who carries a Glock some days when they go out to the store, and has a small collection of M1 Garands, and old Winchesters -- but who would be ok with universal background checks and maybe some kind of registration of AKs and ARs -- a "gun control advocate?" Well, they're right here among us.

So, saying "I've never met a...." and "those people are all...." etc., is not really very honest or at least very reflective. Sure you do.



* -- And what does "respect" mean here? Believe in the 2nd Amendment in all it's implications? Very, VERY few people do. Any thread that gets into "just how far does the 2nd Amendment go?" will show you that. Believe that it's generally a good thing ... but up to a point that society is more or less comfortable with? Well, that's a LOT of people. Believe that it's generally a good thing, but it's taken too far and shouldn't apply to really dangerous military hardware? Well, that's probably MOST of society! Where is the line drawn that defines what "respecting" the 2nd Amendment means?

DT Guy said:

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

Without discussing my impressions of that statement, I'd be interested in hearing the responses of those who frequent this board.


Thanks,

Larry

Click to expand...

Respect an opinion or belief regarding a different point of view while opposing its practice or implementation? - sure. Respecting a RIGHT, another person's protected and guaranteed thought or action, while doing the same? - I don't think so!

This being said a person's objection to gun owner ship might be a sincerely held belief. If I or my loved one experienced being harmed or killed by a firearm as in the case of Gabrielle Gifford I would think it very reasonable to have an anti gun bias and desire some limits on gun purchasing and/or use. This view naturally is exacerbated by an emotional outpouring that can overcome reason.

But, sincerity in an of itself is not a guide nor indicator to correct thinking. It just shows pure motive devoid of political lies, deceits, or political calculation. And, in the absence of clear and rational thought it can be a WRONGLY held belief.

One of the issues is that the definition of the right itself is up for grabs.

One strand of thought still popular although historically inaccurate is that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right of states collectively to have militias. Another is that the 2nd Amendment itself is obsolete or that it only applies to firearms made at the time of the amendment (if so, I want my privateer ship with cannons). Still other viewpoints are that yes, it protects firearm ownership for individuals but not the ones scary to that particular person or that you cannot carry them outside of the house. Most of the arguments sum up is "you don't need that" and anyone who does claim that need is suspect.

Essentially, guns are viewed by many anti-gunners as taboo and in the deep seated recesses of their minds, view firearms as dangerous things that should be banished. Guns themselves are viewed as having the magical ability to act by causing innocent people to snap. Thus, the solution is easy--ban guns and societal violence itself is banned. The whole Lockean social contract basis for natural rights of individuals which can only be abridged due to bad conduct by individuals is not for them--most of them would deep down prefer Hobbes and pre-emptive strikes on those they believe threaten society's (really their own) wishes regardless of what formal rights exist. A similar type of attack on the first amendment is to label speech that people disagree with as "hate speech" which justifies silencing and punishing people for "bad speech".

Thus, if they think of the 2nd Amendment at all, it is subtly molded in their definition so to them, it allows them to do as they wish on restrictions. Defining it as a collective right means that all of society gets a say in what the right means and majority rules. Thus, the old idea of inalienable individual rights are turned into legal privileges that can be revoked by ordinary law. This is Locke turned upside down but that is what most of the world believes--rights are granted by the rulers of a society--not by a Creator and not by nature. Thus, any "rights" are determined by whatever the ruler (people, dictators, kings, etc. ) believe fit society at any moment in time.

Most arguments in favor of gun control fall apart if you simply ask "how?" enough times... the magical idea of "no guns" sounds nice as an absolute concept, but getting from present day to that "gunless utopia" is practically impossible (without Civil War, unfortunately- no hyperbole needed), if you really dig into the nuts and bolts of the issue.

As for the actual thread topic/question, as others have said, many/most of those looking to limit freedoms related to firearms would claim that they respect firearm rights, but when you get down to it, they only view firearms ownership as a privilege, that can be taken away (piece by piece) if need be "for the greater good", with no regard for the critical Constitutional role that the 2nd Amendment has as a check on tyranny. Viewing the RKBA as a privilege and not a right would by definition eliminate their ability to "respect gun rights", as they don't view it as a right.

Sam1911 said:

If the term "gun control advocate" means someone involved politically in a movement to ban firearms, then we might be closer to being able to say they don't respect the 2nd Amendment*.

Click to expand...

That's what I take it to mean: someone who actively works for it, not just the holder of a certain opinion. An online dictionary search comes up with this: "a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy."

“GUN CONTROL OR GUN VIOLENCE”. No.

Violence prevention and folks who really want to discuss things that can be done to mitigate violent crime....absolutely. The problem is addressing the root causes of violence and enacting real barriers to violence is hard, costly and in some cases requires folks to think very differently and beyond simple answers.

Just an example of what I am talking about. Let’s say you want to drive gun crime down. The reality is you need to aggressively police / attack the low level violence in society instead of using those things as throw away charges. Most folks don’t grab a firearm and gun another person or people down as their freshman crime. They usually have a fairly long list of offenses with many of them being violent in nature. Aggressively police these people BEFORE they become murderers.

That’s just one approach of many. There are also many social factors etc.

Point is you want to talk to me about GUN CONTROL then you have likely lost me because you are naieve at best and malicious at worst. You want to discuss violence prevention in our society I am on board.

If gun control advocates respect my gun rights, then why do I feel like Rodney Dangerfield?

I do not believe in gun control, but I do believe in people control. Those they have committed felonies, domestic abuse, the mentally ill are examples of people who should not own/have guns. Since guns themselves do not commit crimes, why is all the focus on the gun? Using the sins of others to further restrict/hamstring the type/ownership of guns to law abiding citizens does not engender respect.

DT Guy said:

"Gun control advocates can also respect gun rights."

Click to expand...

My feeling about this is they may respect my rights to a point. I think the problem arises when I say I have a right to own a insert firearm and they say I don't. I can remember back in the 70's and 80's the AG crowd had a campaign against handguns. Now it seems like ones right to own and carry a handgun has been "respected" by many more state law makers and a lot more people carry. Back in those days the evil firearm was a handgun, now it's a rifle. What's next, shotguns? Gun control advocates respect what they want to respect, depends on the media and political discourse at the time.

Lets say the US is in serious jeopardy from a foreign country. I'll use Mexico here as an example because we have a common border and there seems to be a lot of clamor for a wall to protect us. I also know a bit about the country and what goes on along the border. Lets say an armed faction crosses the border from Mexico and attacks a small border town (again hypothetical). Because local law enforcement is overwhelmed and military response is slow at best many people are killed. The only thing that saves many lives is the fact that some of the citizens are armed with SA rifles and have trained themselves to use them effectively. Do you think this would change the view of many who think it irresponsible to own an AR?

Because someone in CT doesn't feel a need to own an AR they insist that no one else should either. That's how I see gun control advocates. They don't respect ones right to self defense, or maybe they will a little bit if they can fathom the situation where one might need to defend themselves. Most of them can't because they live in a vacuum and are told what to think by the talking heads in the media.

The scenario I described actually happened in 1916 in NM and many who live on the border feel it could happen again.

1911 guy said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is spot-on.

To me, there is no reasonable restriction on weapons. On people, sure. As a society, we determine that some are unfit to be trusted with certain things based on their history; driver license, employment, ability to exist outside of prison. That said, I do not support 2A restrictions of any kind on free citizens. I'm of the opinion that if someone cannot be trusted with weapons, then they should not be free to to roam around in society where they can & will procure them, irrespective of laws.

The liberal mindset is that words on paper somehow prevent crime, that if we make an act illegal, it will cease to be committed, in spite of evidence to the contrary dating the entire span of human existance. Don't ask me to explain it, as I deal in logic, not fantasy.

I would say some casualties are the price of freedom, but it's actually just the price of existence. And if that sounds callous to you, bear in mind that I say it as a survivor of homicide; my own father & stepmother were murdered by a psychotic 17 year old with a handgun he could not legally possess.

Corner an ardent anti-gun advocate and they'll come thru with "Only the police and military should have guns".
In other words not one firearm of any type in private hands, even security/body guards.

I once had a gentleman cut in front of me in a line at a theater. I asked him why and he said that he had the right to do that because this was a free society.

Some people want the right to do what they please without respecting other's rights. I place gun control advocates in this bunch. They think AR's are bad so they believe they should be outlawed, notwithstanding my right to own one. They say the police are there to protect me, if you believe that call 911 and see how long it takes for someone to show up. I have had to call 911 and it took thirty minutes for an officer to arrive. My gun is used for target shooting and protecting my home. If you wish to face the world unarmed that is your choice but do not step in front of me and say I should be unarmed also.

Think of it this way. You have a disease that causes you much discomfort. There is a medicine that greatly reduces the pain, BUT, I get to choose when YOU get to use it!

Unless someone is extremely open-minded and immerses themselves into the realm to which they choose to regulate, I can't see this ending with those regulated having ANYWHERE near a fair vote in the process.

Of course a gun control proponent can respect gun rights, but this is an issue, while I think is very black and white, most others see a lot of grey area. For instance, who here is cool with background checks? Show of hands please!

Because that's gun control. I'm sure there's a lot of members here, maybe even the majority of members, who think background checks are a good idea, and yet those members certainly still respect "gun rights".

And what about the Gun Control Act of 1968? Or the NFA of 1934? Or even requiring a license to conceal carry?

To me, all of this is very clearly infringes on the 2nd Amendment, but to many others these are all just "sensible gun control measures". Most gun owners I've run into are cool with a certain amount of gun control, whether they realize it or not.

Its not a total yes or no issue. Its a sliding scale. Most people are some where in the middle with the gun grabbers at one end and most of us at the other. Personally, I'm not in favor of everyone having an M60 machine gun or felons having gun rights. Particularly felons having M60 machine guns. That seems like a bad idea to me. If you think the police are militarized now let that happen.

JohnBiltz said:

Its not a total yes or no issue. Its a sliding scale. Most people are some where in the middle with the gun grabbers at one end and most of us at the other. Personally, I'm not in favor of everyone having an M60 machine gun or felons having gun rights. Particularly felons having M60 machine guns. That seems like a bad idea to me. If you think the police are militarized now let that happen.

Click to expand...

Depends on the felon. I couldn't care less if somebody convicted of copyright infringement or tax evasion wants to own guns.

That’s like saying free speech advocates respect your rights by telling you to shut up.

I think there are some gun control advocates that may respect our right to own certain types and a certain number of guns, but that's not respecting our gun rights. I live in Connecticut, ironically called the " constitution state" . Our senator Chris Murphy was participating in a public anti-gun forum declaring a semi auto handgun displayed was a weapon that must be banned. He referred to it as an automatic weapon and when corrected, refused to believe it. He's on the forefront of the anti movement in our state and knows very little about guns. I've heard the antis go on about the fact that many gun owners own multiple firearms like there is something wrong with that and they find it disturbing. Today, there is an appeal being heard on the lawsuit against the gun manufacturer of one of the guns used in Sandy Hook. I used to work and live in Sandy Hook and I feel immense sympathy for the victims and their families. Horrific beyond belief, but if that nut's mother(legal gun owner) hadn't left a gun where her obviously disturbed son could get a hold of it things would have been different. It didn't take too long for the antis to start using the grief of the victims families as a tool for their agenda. Suing a gun manufacturer due to it being used in a crime makes about as much sense as suing a truck manufacturer for producing a vehicle used in a terrorist attack.

I think it depends on how flexible you are on the issue. For instance, I had an academic debate with a friend of mine. She is an aristocratic Australian but a huge fan of the US. However, our gun culture puzzles her. She's not rabidly against it, just very curious.

So she and I discussed the issue for fun. I explained the idea of arming ones self stems back to our rambunctious idea that we are a free people who would not be under the yoke of anyone, and that it is possible to own and enjoy multiple guns without being a danger to society.

Long story short, we came to an academic theoretical compromise on her biggest hang-up, the idea of owning an Ar-15 type rifle. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating this as a fix. We weren't factoring slippery slope. This was not a serious discussion as she has no bearing what happens with US policy as she is not a citizen or ever plans to be. Just two friends, one pro gun, one had never fired one in her life.

We both agreed that the US needs to enforce the laws on the books. The church shooting should not have happened. Had everything gone to plan, had every rule and law been followed, that monster would not have been able to buy a gun. I am totally fine with what many here are dubbing "people control".

When she and I started our conversation, she could not fathom someone being allowed to own a gun for "killing people" which is all she saw the AR as. However, she is open minded. After explaining to her how it is modular and adaptable, very accurate and quiet reliable that it IS a viable sporting arm in some situations. I asked her to imagine it with a small 10 round magazine in place of the 30, wooden furniture, and taking off the carry handle. She agreed that it would look and function like what she would consider a hunting rifle. So we were able to pair her fear down to capacity and "looks scary". She could get over the looks, but the idea of a 30 round magazine still was tough to wrap her head around.

Without getting into 2 hours of debate (it really was a fun conversation between friends from very different worlds), we came to an academic agreement: Guns are OK if the laws on the books are followed to a T. Convicts should have a hellova time getting hold of a gun, especially violent ones. She even suggested that those who have served in the military should be held to a higher degree due to their training.

She at first said that 30 round magazines should be illegal. I told her that I didn't believe that they were making the gun any more dangerous and should be readily available. We came to a compromise (once again, just debating between friends) that an AR-15 could ship with 2 10 round magazines. 30 rounders would be available with a background check. No tax stamp or foolishness of that. No Clinton AWB. Just like buying a firearm, straight up or down yes/no. No getting in the way of me purchasing a gun if I am legally allowed to, but if I want to purchase what could be considered a higher capacity, i would have to be cleared for it.

So, like i said, I don't agree with it, but she and I could have a very civil compromising debate about it.

I will be honest. I am more into gun control now than I was years ago before I shot. Since I took up pistol shooting a few years back as a serious hobby rather than a once a summer event, I have run into more mentally unstable people and training impaired people at the range than I ever new existed! I mean this seriously.

I have friends I have made over the years who carry and are not at all familiar with their weapon or shooting in general. I think these people are an outright danger. I also have friends who carry who laugh because they got away with taking the carry class with a guy who overloaded the class and only had each person shoot thirty rounds. I asked this person how much range time she has put in since then and she never went back to the range, but she carries. She has the permit but has no idea what she is doing. The thought of her out there with a gun scares me. It angers me that the instructor, under the guise of not wanting to deprive anyone of the rights to carry any longer than possible, beefed up what should have been a class of 12 to a class of 30.........at one hundred dollars a pop.

There is a guy who shows up at our range and routinely breaks all the safety rules you can imagine. Last week he was fiddling with his AR and was pointing it at the guy standing next to him! Suddenly the guy realized it and jumped back and spoke sharply to the gun. The guy laughed it off and said that the two of us, who both said he should keep the muzzle down range at all times, must be "Pink People." I assume he means we are gay because we did not want to risk getting shot?? I pack up and leave when he shows up, and yes I reported him but was told he had been a member for thirty five years and was a good guy.

I like guns and I think responsible adults should be allowed to have them and use them safely. But like with many rights, there have to be limitations so that the exercising of one's rights does not deprive others of their rights. It would be foolish, for example, to allow people to shoot fifty caliber rifles in densely populated areas unless that was done in a secure location. It is also a fact we can change our rules if we make them and then find they do not work.

I am constantly disappointed by the people in these discussion groups who say they never met a gun control advocate who made sense and those who go further and descend into stereotypes and name calling. Maybe these people need to look deeper into the issue or meet other people.

I have met lots of great people at the range and gun shops I go to. But there are a number of them that have made me support the idea of having some limitations and rules to protect the right to life of their fellow citizens.