Has anyone changed their position on the 2A?

I've become an absolutist. I'd rather that a criminal get a gun (as was always the case anyway) than a lawful citizen be denied.

In NYC you're a disarmed serf and criminals still have no trouble getting guns.

"We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself" is a philosophy of pure evil.

I have. I used to be ok with certain "sensible" gun laws, now I see that they are all a slippery slope and if you give an inch they'll take a mile.

Whether or not anyone would believe me, I've become an absolutist myself.

Twenty years ago, shortly before I retired from the military and got into my current career, I believed that my state was wrong in not requiring any form of training prior to issuance of a concealed pistol license. I wanted only "trained" folks out on the streets packing.

My beliefs evolved after years of noting documentation that a training requirement to own or carry firearms had no discernible effect in any location or nationwide on reducing accidents, injuries, homicides involving firearms. Then there's the interesting history of most of the lawful uses of firearms for self-defense/defense of another/home in my state involving persons with absolutely zero training. An "aha" moment.

To sum up, I no longer believe that the state can eliminate stupidity or criminal intent through legislation. As Aim1 above notes, there may have been a time when I thought there could be "sensible" gun laws, but you know the rest ...

When you say "any aspect of the 2A," are you asking about views on constitutionality of laws and the meaning of that particular constitutional amendment? Or do you mean views on gun control generally?

I would answer "yes" to either question, but I'd like to know which one you're really asking.

I think suppressors should be available for anyone that can pass a background check, completely non-NFA.

But I've come to think that bumpstocks should be NFA, as well as that the pistol braced AR's should be SBR's. If anyone had an actual disability, getting an NFA to use an SBR isn't such a big deal. We're poking the bear on that one. (as I build yet another pistol AR, LOLz)

And the auto response,or binary trigger are skating a fine line. But I think I'm OK with that one.

CCW's shouldn't require a sheriffs signature anymore IMO.

That's about all, that I've flip flopped on.

I am still ashamed to admit it, but in junior high (7th grade- 1988ish), I had some absurd notions that "modern" semi-autos, like AK, AR, Uzi, should be restricted, but "vintage" semi-autos like M1 carbine, M1A and various Thompson clones were OK.

Luckily, by high school, my stupidity had cleared, and I realized what the goal of gun control was, and always will be...

My views on guns haven't changed, but my views on gun owners have -- and not for the better. This is exemplified by the NRA (of which, BTW, I am a Life Member) which has gone completely off the rails identifying itself with the extreme political Right. It's difficult to be a liberal, or even a moderate independent, and still make common cause with most of the pro-gun crowd.

AlexanderA said:

My views on guns haven't changed, but my views on gun owners have -- and not for the better. This is exemplified by the NRA (of which, BTW, I am a Life Member) which has gone completely off the rails identifying itself with the extreme political Right. It's difficult to be a liberal, or even a moderate independent, and still make common cause with most of the pro-gun crowd.

Click to expand...

That's because the liberal position on gun control always starts with"I support the 2nd Amendment, but we need "reasonable restrictions"...and that quickly morphs into confiscation at some point.

375supermag said:

That's because the liberal position on gun control always starts with"I support the 2nd Amendment, but we need "reasonable restrictions"...and that quickly morphs into confiscation at some point.

Click to expand...

It is pure historical accident that, at this moment in history, reduction in the individual right to arms is mostly aligned with increases of other individual rights and certain views on discretionary government spending. There is no reason that someone who favors a more generous social safety net has to also favor gun control at all, much less confiscation. Conflating those things is precisely what Alex' is talking about.

The NRA hasn't gone off the rails and today's conservativism is more liberal than the liberalism of the 60s. Unfortunately liberalism and gun control cannot be separated.

Casefull said:

The NRA hasn't gone off the rails and today's conservativism is more liberal than the liberalism of the 60s. Unfortunately liberalism and gun control cannot be separated.

Click to expand...

In 2014, Georgia had a race for governor. Both of the candidates - Deal for the GOP and Carter for the Democrats - had A ratings from the NRA. Carter had co-sponsored the so-called "guns everywhere" bill that greatly reduced the list of prohibited-by-law places GA CC'ers couldn't carry. But the NRA chose to go all in for Deal. After that election, Deal then vetoed a campus carry bill (he ultimately signed a more restrictive one the next year). Meanwhile, having been told in no uncertain terms by the NRA that no matter what their position on gun control, the NRA was against them, the Democrats turned around this year and nominated a literal advocate of confiscation - and she almost won.

If liberalism and gun control are now inseparable, that's been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if that is accurate at the moment, we should stop positioning it that way.

My view has only strengthened. I will not become an absolute slave. Not sure much else needs to be said. The BOR were rights granted by God and therefore cannot he taken away by man. It’s pretty simple.

On the other hand, my wife who used to get that has become somewhat swayed as now she thinks man can and has the right to take those core rights away. I’m not sure why she changed her mind or doesn’t get the concept now but there are definitely some out there that have changed their mind on that.

Truthfully, at this stage I’m not sure what you do, just like politics and the country in general people are becoming more and more polarized even on just the 2A. And, because of that I fear there will be conflict someday. I really do worry about what my kids are going to inherit. I’m not even really that old, at 36 years of age, but I can already tell the current state of the USA is not the country that I grew up in and it certainly seems that it’s not going back to that. Freedoms are getting eroded. The 2A will be the same one day unless the younger generation can be swayed. I’m afraid all may be lost, including the 2A. It won’t be overnight but it’s slowly being eradicated and those that believe in it are inching ever closer into being labeled terrorist and mad enemies of the state. I’m pretty sure we can all figure out what the next stage of the end game is. Its just a matter of how fast they bring it down the pike.

I changed my mind in that I once thought that eventually people on both sides of the issue could eventually reach some sort compromise between well meaning people who want to limit a criminals or mentally disturbed person's access to firearms and the good, practical, self reliant people who are preserving our rights as citizens. I also used to think that anyone who thought that there was an "anti-gun agenda" that went beyond peoples general fears or ignorance was just being paranoid and that it is was just politicians trying to capitalize on people's fear.

I now believe that its pretty evident that there are some very, very rich people in this country that do not want regular people to have access to firearms. That they are organized and are manipulating the fears and ignorance of people for their agenda and they are not concerned with reducing crime or terrorism, which for them it is just something to sensationalize and a tool for their end.

I do still truly believe that there are good people who don’t like guns, that would normally be able to understand the practical need for firearms, but they are being manipulated and hammered with hysteria.

By hysteria I mean that the way thing are talked about it sounds like shootings are out of control, and people are scared, meanwhile in the real world the amount of illegal shooting and violence have been going down for years are actually lower than they have ever been.

I haven't changed my views about weapons in a very long time because I studied history when I was young.
The sumptuary laws that decided who could carry swords, knives, guns, or even wear certain colors or types of clothing were all imposed by aristocratic autocrats to keep down the undesirables.

Modern gun control has its roots in Jim Crow laws, expanded during the Progressive 1930s and '40s (often at the request of the major gangsters of the time), and brought to full bloom by press-inspired legislation after a series of rather suspicious political assassinations.
(One of the most dangerous things a person could do in the 1960s and early '70s was to run against Dick Nixon, for example.)
Now we have a bunch of octogenarian would-be revolutionaries that want to complete their dream of conquering the USA.
That's wht there is the big push for "Gun Control Now!"

So to continue, because of this, I am now against things that I might have accepted in the past.

Before, I honestly would not have cared if bump stocks were banned. Now I see that as another step and more red tape added in their effort to ban all guns.

Not at all!

My opinion on 2A hasnt changed in a long time. I’m an absolutist and have resigned myself to the idea that the conditions I believe are “right” will never again be available to Americans.

As a younger man I thought giving a little ground here and there made sense. However, now, I do not want to give an inch. Yes, there are things that I don't appreciate or am not into, or think are pushing the laws. However, I do not want to give anything up as it is clear that the left wants to take all our 2A rights away. Negotiating with someone who comes from a dishonest position simply is not an option. Tired of their PC speak of "common sense gun laws since it implies I'm a moron if I don't agree with them, same for the "reasonable" argument.

I am not giving another inch to them and get angry with other gun owners who simply sit around and whine about the NRA yet haven't put their money towards any 2A organizations. Join the Pink Pistols if that is your thing, but do something and put a little money on the table rather than whine and complain while doing little to nothing.

Zerodefect said:

I think suppressors should be available for anyone that can pass a background check, completely non-NFA.

But I've come to think that bumpstocks should be NFA, as well as that the pistol braced AR's should be SBR's. If anyone had an actual disability, getting an NFA to use an SBR isn't such a big deal. We're poking the bear on that one. (as I build yet another pistol AR, LOLz)

Click to expand...

I agree on suppressors, but have the complete opposite opinion on SBR's. The whole concept of needing to go through the NFA process for a SBR is obsurd in my mind. If a person can buy a pistol they should be able to buy and SBR without any additional hassle.

375supermag said:

That's because the liberal position on gun control always starts with "I support the 2nd Amendment, but we need "reasonable restrictions"...and that quickly morphs into confiscation at some point.

Click to expand...

Casefull said:

The NRA hasn't gone off the rails and today's conservativism is more liberal than the liberalism of the 60s. Unfortunately liberalism and gun control cannot be separated.

Click to expand...

We need to clarify our political taxonomy. The above comments assume that the liberal/conservative or left/right divide is a one-axis continuum. It's far more complicated than that. In reality, there are two or more axes. One axis can be state intervention in the economy vs. unregulated free market capitalism. Another can concern social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and guns. Even there the picture is confused. A person can be libertarian on guns, for example, and at the same time want state intervention to outlaw abortion. These are all independent determinants.

What has happened in recent years, in America, is a polarization in which all these choices have boiled down into just two camps. You can't pick and choose your issues any more. You must subscribe to everything your "tribe" advocates, even though some of it goes against your strongly-held personal views. To say this is tragic is an understatement. Maybe we would be better served by a multiparty system, rather than the two monstrous conglomerates that we now have. Ultimately, this polarization will lead to civil war, unless something is done to moderate the extremes on both sides.

ATLDave said:

It is pure historical accident that, at this moment in history, reduction in the individual right to arms is mostly aligned with increases of other individual rights and certain views on discretionary government spending. There is no reason that someone who favors a more generous social safety net has to also favor gun control at all, much less confiscation. Conflating those things is precisely what Alex' is talking about.

Click to expand...

While you may claim no reason for a liberal to favor gun control, I think you will be hard pressed to find a liberal politician that if given the opportunity wouldn't vote for total confiscation of all privately owned firearms.
You may wish it wasn't so, but in my experience you can't trust very many politicians and not a single liberal one.
The Affordable Health Care Act is all the proof I need on that point. Those who voted for that abomination didn't even know what they were voting for including the Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi. It was all a lie, endorsed by liars and foisted off on the American people by a President, Barack Obama, who campaigned for it's passage by lying about it every time he spoke about it.

ATLDave said:

It is pure historical accident that, at this moment in history, reduction in the individual right to arms is mostly aligned with increases of other individual rights and certain views on discretionary government spending. There is no reason that someone who favors a more generous social safety net has to also favor gun control at all, much less confiscation. Conflating those things is precisely what Alex' is talking about.

Click to expand...

IMPOSED agendas like socialized medicine and restrictions on speech REQUIRE armed force.

The availability of private arms is a THREAT to IMPOSED agendas.

An overweening, oppressive state is ALWAYS hostile to the idea of those whom it would suppress being able to resist.

Yes. I oppose all new gun control measures, and many of the current ones, because the antis and liberal crowd has no interest in enforcing existing laws, and no interest in making us safer that doesn't infringe on my rights.