A House Divided

[1911 guy]

As a general note, it is interesting how those with the clout to shape opinion have worked hard to ascribe connotation to certain phrases. When i say "creeping incrementalism" you immediately think I'm a conspiracy theory kook and wear a tin-foil hat. But when you study the history of the government of man, it is littered with just such examples. Discredit an idea and you have won the war of ideas, regardless of facts.

So, when someone fears "creeping incrementalism" in gun law or any other exercise of liberty, they are labelled whackos and ignored. However, history is on their side. Those who mock them are casualties in the war on free thought.

Plant me firmly in the camp of fearing, or at least being aware of, the possibility of government curtailing rights. Not that our government is particularly evil or bad, but that is simply the nature of government. All governments. Which is why the Founders sought, above all, to check the power of the government they had formed. They were far better educated in the habits of government than 99% of the world population today and 99.99% of Americans. While we have a generally good government, we place far too much faith in it to do the right thing and that is used against us.

 

[kwguy]

As a general note, it is interesting how those with the clout to shape opinion have worked hard to ascribe connotation to certain phrases. When i say "creeping incrementalism" you immediately think I'm a conspiracy theory kook and wear a tin-foil hat. But when you study the history of the government of man, it is littered with just such examples. Discredit an idea and you have won the war of ideas, regardless of facts.

So, when someone fears "creeping incrementalism" in gun law or any other exercise of liberty, they are labelled whackos and ignored. However, history is on their side. Those who mock them are casualties in the war on free thought.

Plant me firmly in the camp of fearing, or at least being aware of, the possibility of government curtailing rights. Not that our government is particularly evil or bad, but that is simply the nature of government. All governments. Which is why the Founders sought, above all, to check the power of the government they had formed. They were far better educated in the habits of government than 99% of the world population today and 99.99% of Americans. While we have a generally good government, we place far too much faith in it to do the right thing and that is used against us.

Very well said.

 

[Sol]

As a general note, it is interesting how those with the clout to shape opinion have worked hard to ascribe connotation to certain phrases. When i say "creeping incrementalism" you immediately think I'm a conspiracy theory kook and wear a tin-foil hat...

As an official member of the Supreme Order of the Benevolent Brotherhood Reynolds Wrap Headwear Association, I wouldn't exactly say that is tin foil hattery.

Everybody knows feathers get really ruffled if you eat the whole damn cake in one bite. Small enough bites over a long period of time takes the sting out and eventually after enough time, people wouldn't even remember there was a cake in the first place.

 

[Twiki357]

Originally Posted by thirty-ought-six
When the right labels "gun regulation" as "gun confiscation", that is nothing but fear born from ignorance.

Try telling that to the Australians, French and British. Or how about the Germans in the 1930’s? If you what to get a little more current, try California today, at least for non-prohibited persons that CA thinks should be.

 

[1911 guy]

While technically correct, I think you'll agree that waging a was in the arena of thought is far preferable to civil uprising.

The purpose the of amendments is to enshrine in the public consciousness that these rights are part of our society. Again, winning the war of thoughts and ideas. When you have won that war, convinced the other side of your right to free speech, religion, firearms, etc, you no longer have to campaign for them.

When someone has an agenda to push, whether you agree with it or not, take note of what the first step is. They attempt to convince any and all opponents that they are right and justified in their agenda. The next step is to silence critics by either demonizing them or gaining legal status so opposition becomes a crime. Again, the war for hearts and minds. The war of ideas and thought. Win that and you'll have no real opposition.

All of which is why legislation protecting the 2A is important. It conveys the IDEA that persecution of gun owners is wrong because the law is on our side.

 

[MrMoss]

Aluminum Headwear may not be so unfashionable these days

One has to look at England, Australia and NYC to where the increasing legislation controlling access to firearms ends up. The state is naturally inclined to assume more power and control over the population. We are only one major election from losing rights that have been recognized, not granted , since the founding of this great country.

To me, firearms represent the essence of rugged individualism that brought the first group of settlers here. Those who chose to stand up to the power elite or who wanted to forge their own path to a destiny of their own choosing. The fact that the government spends so much of its time and our own tax dollars attempting to legislate what is a natural right is concerning to me.

Even more concerning is the the tactics that that they choose to use. Would you be comfortable with being required to register your computer at the nearest precinct? How about having to get approval from the local LEO to carry one (like your smart phone) around on your person? Or even being restricted from having an internet connection that is fast as the one that one that your local PD uses? How about having FBI check done before you can host a blog or website?

If the above seems to restrict the first amendment (and it does), then why would anyone willingly give up rights that are recognized for nothing in return? What new freedoms will gun owner receive in return for compromise? Will the machine registry be reopened? Will there be a permanent moratorium on new legislation regarding firearms?

'Common sense' is a specifically vague term. A career legislator is not a 'common' man, and lots of laws don't make any sense, even to the people that draft and vote for them.

Power seems to flow toward the government and once they have it have it takes great effort and sometimes bloodshed to return it to the rightful owner.

 

[Radagast]

Yup. In my lifetime Australia went from mail order machine guns to legislation that specifically states that ownership of guns is a privilege, not a right, and that ownership of guns for self defense would not be allowed.

Funnily, the Australian constitution doesn't allow the States to raise armed forces, so police are exempt from the statute and carry guns under the common law right to be armed for self defense.

 

[Old Dog]

Well said, MrMoss (post #32) ... you may not be the most prolific of posters here (5 posts in 3 1/2 years), but you summed things up nicely.

 

[HammsBeer]

You have several groups of people regarding firearms:

1) There are the hard line anti-gunners that spout off "We want a safe society, and gosh golly guns are dangerous, so we should ban guns!" I've met them, and they are often from another restrictive country or think only the Military and LE should own guns, so they can't fathom why you would need a gun at all. They are perfectly willing to let the state do the dirty work of "protection", as long as they don't have to see it.

2) Then there are the compromise anti-gunners. They go hand in hand with the compromising traditional sportsmen and women who like their classic shotguns or a bolt action deer rifle, but think no one needs an AR15 and anyone who does is a conspiracy nut job. I've met them too, and they are ready to throw the MSR shooters to the wolves of congress as a sacrificial lamb to "spare" their hunting guns from regulations, and their idea of compromise is gradually stripping our rights bit by bit, with nothing in return. That's not compromise, that's theft, and they are amongst us.

3) Then you have the passionate gun-rights group, that I fall into, who believes that we have a natural inalienable right to own firearms regardless of looks or capacity or function. We realize that gun restrictions do little or nothing to curb crime, we fight against any new regulations, work to repeal laws we view unjust, and pressure to expand gun rights and freedoms. However, and it's just my opinion, some sub groups in this category go about it the wrong way with sensationalized demonstrations or over-the-top displays of guns in inappropriate situations and this damages our voice in the eyes of the fourth and largest group...

4) ...the general public that doesn't own guns, doesn't really care about guns, don't know the gun laws, and pretty much rely on the media soundbites to make any kind of opinion on guns. I'm still surprised at how misinformed the general public is about guns and laws, and how easily they will repeat the same skewed "facts" or "polls" that the anti's spout off in the media. However, they are curious about guns, so when they meet a passionate gun owner like myself they listen very intently to what we have to say. They are the ones we need to show an informed, logical, fact based discussion, dispelling any myths about guns, in a clear and concise way without the catch phrases, TEOTWAWKI, conspiracy theories, or "shocking" public gun toting display non-sense. They are the ones that we need to show that gun owners are law abiding and value freedom and individual responsibility. They are the ones that we need to take out to the range and introduce them to guns in a slow and relaxed environment.

Preaching to the choir does us little good, yelling at the anti's will just harden their resolve, reaching out to the general public is our best option. Public opinion is key to ensuring that our liberties remain intact.

 

[mnrivrat]

For those who might have trouble finding it :

www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

That will pull it up.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The two are not identical but history shows us that the former often leads to the latter. Some more suggested reading: Ok. I'll play.. That's from the LawDog files, and the best part is at the bottom with the analogy of the cake.

If I may be so bold, I'd like to amend your statement here:

"The two are not identical but history shows us that the former [strike]often[/strike] leads inexorably to the latter."


As for this issue about such matters as "President Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, but wants safety" and "He DID, want to Reinstate the Assault Weapons ban, but NOT a total weapon ban":

President Obama does NOT support the Second Amendment. And he does NOT want to simply reinstate the AWB but without a "total weapon ban". Every single one of his statements on the matter were nothing but political hype over incremental increases in gun control which work towards the common goal by the political platform, which is ultimately to remove all legal rights to own firearms by citizens PERIOD.

If he were TRULY supportive of the Second Amendment, then the first words out of his mouth whenever all the gun control people start crawling out of the woodwork would be something like:

"Whoa, whoa, WHOA folks! We ALREADY have over 20,000 gun laws in this country, some of which quite frankly are in direct violation of our Second Amendment! We need to start dropping the hammer on the CRIMINALS who commit heinous acts with firearms and quit shafting Joe Plumber and his guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms!"

But instead, NOTHING of the sort happened. He supported yet MORE gun control measures.


It's not really that difficult, honestly:

Bad guy committing crimes with guns: BAD

Good guy NOT committing crimes with guns: GOOD


The system is supposed to prosecute bad guys. Which presupposes someone had to have FIRST committed an offense.

It's not supposed to prosecute people in general who have NOT committed an offense.


I don't know where people get this idea that the world is supposed to somehow be this namby-pamby place where everybody just magically lives a utopian life wherein everybody "just gets along" and that to MAKE this happen we have to be FORCED into it by ever increasing stringent rules and regulations that, quite literally, CRIMINALIZE us for exercising our basic rights!

Here's a very serious clue:

If the solution to "Utopia" involves strangling the population into submission and taking away their rights...then Utopia ain't just around the corner. Distopian slavery is.


We live in an amazing country, and make no mistake about it: Much of the rest of the world pales in comparison to what we have here. But there is great truth in the saying "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

That phrase, by the way, appears to have originated from a statement by John Philpot Curran in 1790:

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."


It is our duty as citizens NOT to be "indolent".

 

[mnrivrat]

Follow up

Just a note to indicate that some of what the report contains has answers and or opinions that seem to lodge themselves in almost any discussion regarding the RTKABA subject. Including some in this thread.

Information you might find regarding the subject of safety and crime. This is not a report that left out opinions of the anti gun folks. They gave space, time and weight to organizations , that were advocates for more restrictive laws.

They also concluded (as part of the study) that there had been no evidence presented to indicate that stricter laws would reduce crime. or have a significant effect on safety.

And just one more little tidbit for those who won't take the time to read without predudous. There is a comment made about going back to do a review of the 1968 GCA with the implication that it had at least elimints that may be in violation of the constitution.

That's it for me on this subject for awhile at least. Those willing to read it may find some enlightenment in some area's. Nothing the matter with trying to improve one's knowledge.

As I stated earlier - no other report in the history of this country spent as much time and effort to include all opinions, and review all aspects of the second amendment. The report was basically ignored and forgotten.

 

[Radagast]

Not necessarily. 4 years later FOPA was passed against the wishes of the House leadership. That was the first Federal turning point in favor of gun rights.

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

This entire thread is what drives a wedge in between gun owners. There have been so many quotes in this thread about deep study and greater knowledge I want to vomit. The first time you look someone in the eye and say I know more than you or convey that attitude the conversation ends. Look at all the highly educated people stuffing groceries. There is huge difference in acquiring knowledge and being able to put it to use.

 

[HammsBeer]

Some people have clearly done a lot of research and are just trying to show the big picture that conceding a "compromise" to the anti's is akin to a retreat. You may spare yourself a fight today, but keep retreating and eventually you'll lose everything.

As far as educated folks bagging groceries, are you implying they are incompetent? Maybe the guy bagging your food never finished high school, maybe his programming job was outsourced, maybe he had a severe injury and couldn't do heavy equipment repair anymore. I fail to see how this has got anything to do with the division between different gun owners and the anti's.

 

[mnrivrat]

This entire thread is what drives a wedge in between gun owners.

I am so very sorry you feel that way. My intent for starting this thread was an attempt to bring us together by starting from sort of a uniform base line on what the second amendment is.
Sometimes I feel as if it gets lost in the shuffle so to speak. Coming to some agreement as to just what the point of the amendment is, why it is there, and why it is important that it remains as an active and respected part of our constitution, and daily lives, may go a long way to keeping us from fragmenting into different groups. ( Or at least that's what I thought ).

It amazes me how so many can look at the same thing and come up with so many different opinions as to what it is. To me the 2nd amendment is plain and simple, with pretty much a single intent. An intent summed up fairly well in my signiture line. How hard is it realy to understand the word infringment if you take a moment to apply it to subjects other than firearms ?

Why should it divide us by wanting for all to start from the same page with the sense of purpose we need to bring together in order to make the 2nd amendment a respected part of being a US citizen.

 

[1911 guy]

Quote:
This entire thread is what drives a wedge in between gun owners.

Apparently, there is already a divide. Hence the discussion.

Quote:
There have been so many quotes in this thread about deep study and greater knowledge I want to vomit.

So actually thinking about something is bad? You prefer to just go with a gut feeling? Or follow the crowd? Take someone else's word for everything? If deep study and greater knowledge are offensive to you... I'm not sure where to go. Pathetic and idiotic come to mind.

Quote:
The first time you look someone in the eye and say I know more than you or convey that attitude the conversation ends

No. The first time you convey an attitude of individual superiority, the conversation ends. I meet people all the time who know more than I do in a given subject. Other subjects, I know more. Pretending that we all have equal knowledge about everything is false. If you walk away from everyone who knows more than you, you're going to spend a lot of time alone.

Quote:
There is huge difference in acquiring knowledge and being able to put it to use.

On this, we completely agree.

 

[jcwit]

My contention is and always has been that there needs to be some teaching/instruction regarding firearm ownership particularly in regards to carrying handguns, and in the keeping of handguns out of the hands of mentally deficient.

To many here this makes me anti gun???????????????

As far as to who is to set these rules and how far they should go, is not for me to say, its much higher than my pay grade.

I'm sure we all know individuals out there who have no business carrying a firearm, whether because of legal problems, which folks here think they should still be locked us, no idea who would pay for the increased prison population, or those who are just mindless.

To all the rest of society teaching would be worthwhile, IMO. Don't think so? Then quit complaining about the range problems, after all they should be allowed to act as fools, and trash your ranges.

Whats wrong with teaching? After all Christ spent most of his life doing it!

 

[stonecutter2]

That's because members of Group 1 often masquerade as members of Group 2.


The two are not identical but history shows us that the former often leads to the latter. Some more suggested reading: Ok. I'll play.. That's from the LawDog files, and the best part is at the bottom with the analogy of the cake.

So true, very often I see someone spouting they want "safety" when what they're proposing would only infringe, not make anything truly safer.

 

[Sam1911]

My contention is and always has been that there needs to be some teaching/instruction regarding firearm ownership particularly in regards to carrying handguns, ...

To many here this makes me anti gun???????????????

No one disagrees with you there. Even a little. We are all big training proponents here. But MANDATORY training, that is forced or required by the state becomes exactly the same thing as a poll tax: a barrier to entry for something that is supposed to be a fundamental right of all people. So training is great. Allowing the government to hold it over the people as a barrier to their RKBA is insidious and horrid. Anathema.

Fortunately, many folks do seek training of some kind, and even more fortunately, gun safety is on the rise and gun accidents are on the decline, so the system we have -- absent government forcing -- is working.

and in the keeping of handguns out of the hands of mentally deficient.

Ehhh... we have prohibited persons. Picking and choosing who else is "mentally deficient" enough to be stripped of their RKBA is a terrible thing to dig into. Mental health issues are poorly understood, and many times more "Mentally deficient" people are VICTIMS of violence than ever harm anyone. Fortunately, as scary as psychotic mass murderers are, they are very rare in society and really have no statistical impact on any of our risk levels.

As far as to who is to set these rules and how far they should go, is not for me to say, its much higher than my pay grade.

NO IT IS NOT. You CANNOT abdicate your responsibility like that. If you argue or work for increasing restrictions, YOU bear the guilt for every person stripped of their rights under that scheme. Don't hide your head and pretend that their eyes aren't turned fully ON YOU when the authorities are demanding they turn in their guns. "Oh, I didn't mean YOU should have to give up your guns...I meant OTHER people...!" Doesn't matter. YOU own it because YOU are working for it.

YOU are "we the people." This is supposed to be a government OF the people. That's you and me. If we don't protect the people from these offenses, who will?

I'm sure we all know individuals out there who have no business carrying a firearm, whether because of legal problems, which folks here think they should still be locked us, no idea who would pay for the increased prison population, or those who are just mindless.

Have they had due process? If not, suck it up. Freedom is messy. You don't get to point at someone and say "that guy" shouldn't have a gun. It is his RIGHT until he actually violates the rights of others with it (i.e.: breaks the law) and has his due process. 'Sides, I thought this was all "above your pay grade."

To all the rest of society teaching would be worthwhile, IMO. Don't think so?

Again, SURE! Great idea! Get on it. Want to put it in the public schools? Fine by me! Want to hand out PSA leaflets that explain gun safety? Great! Want to promote Eddie Eagle? Wonderful. But don't put a government restriction on people's RIGHT to bear arms.

Then quit complaining about the range problems, after all they should be allowed to act as fools, and trash your ranges.

Good grief. I hate this kind of broken logic failure. It doesn't even make sense. There's even a Latin phase for it: "Non sequitur" -- "It does not follow."

The fact that a person may not have been FORCED to receive some government-mandated course of training doesn't remove their responsibility to behave appropriately. Hey, my neighbor just cut down a 60' oak tree and dropped it on my house! I can't complain. Have to just smile and accept it because the government didn't force him to get training before he bought that saw! Or, aww shucks, some guy just burned down my house by spilling gasoline while trying to light his cigarette. But that's ok, it isn't his fault and I can't say anything about it because he wasn't forced to pay for gasoline training classes before he bought that fuel.

Why does this make NO sense to anyone alive, except when it comes to firearms?

How are they supposed to know better? Well, how are folks supposed to know better about tree felling safety? Or safely fueling an engine? Or driving a tractor? Or what all else? (And those things harm A LOT more people than guns.)

Whats wrong with teaching? After all Christ spent most of his life doing it!

How's that government-required religious training you have to pay for working out for you?

 

[jerkface11]

That's because members of Group 1 often masquerade as members of Group 2

Members of groups 1 and 2 pretend to belong to group 3 as well. Remember how quickly "pro-gun rights" people were to jump on the universal background check wagon?

 

[jerkface11]

My contention is and always has been that there needs to be some teaching/instruction regarding firearm ownership particularly in regards to carrying handguns, and in the keeping of handguns out of the hands of mentally deficient.

To many here this makes me anti gun???????????????

That is anti-gun since people who can't afford the training would be barred from ownership.

 

[stonecutter2]

This is the biggest issue I have..

1. There are people who are in fact against guns. They don't want firearms period. Not in public, not in your own house, period.

That's clear there are true anti-gun people.

2. There are people who WANT guns, but want safety when it comes to guns.

But far too often the political right sticks group 2 in group 1.

President Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, but wants safety.

But all I ever hear from the right, EVER since he was President was:

"Obama's gonna git yer guns! Obama's gonna git yer guns!, buy moar guns cuz Obama's gonna get yer guns!


Yet in the 6 years and 5 days he's been in office, not one gun has been taken from me or anyone I know.


When the right labels "gun regulation" as "gun confiscation", that is nothing but fear born from ignorance.

Ask anyone in New York City, who registered under the "SAFE" Act, how registration becomes confiscation. When the government keeps track of what you have, they can ban whatever they like, then tell you to surrender it...or else.

There are so many examples of registration leading to confiscation.

I used to think as you do, but the more I read, the more registration just doesn't make sense.

I'd rather have a federal means of running a form 4473 for private sales, so I know the purchaser is legit. I do like IL's FOID check system...in theory.

Edit: before anyone gets bent out of shape on private sale background checks, it should be available, not mandatory. And not through an FFL01. Let the seller and purchaser decide how they conduct their business, but provide a way to run a check easily.

 

[jcwit]

NO IT IS NOT. You CANNOT abdicate your responsibility like that. If you argue or work for increasing restrictions, YOU bear the guilt for every person stripped of their rights under that scheme. Don't hide your head and pretend that their eyes aren't turned fully ON YOU when the authorities are demanding they turn in their guns. "Oh, I didn't mean YOU should have to give up your guns...I meant OTHER people...!" Doesn't matter. YOU own it because YOU are working for it.

BS I can't, I spent 8 years in the military, most everything was above my pay grade. I spend most of my life in management as a cilivian, trick was to delegate to others as to who was best getting the job done. This is above my pay grade, you may think not, but then you are wrong, simple as that.

 

[Sam1911]

Then understand that you should NOT be advocating restrictions on people. You want to advocate for stripping people of their rights, but then claim those above you can decide who that applies to? YOU OWN THAT. You supported that, even if you're shocked an horrified at who ends up losing their rights. Even if it is YOU. Your fault because YOU supported it.


Simple as that.


(To say nothing of the fact that now that you're out of the military you can't hide from your duty and responsibility and ownership of our government by claiming that there's a hierarchy above you that should decide how your life should be. In the military were you a man among equals? No? Of course not. Your duty was to men who were elevated above you. Your SUPERIORS. Now that you are a private citizen of this country you HAVE no superiors. Your government is OF you, BY you. Scary? Well, that's life in the real world, not the sheltered world of the Army where your rights and duties are doled out to you like a child. Rise up and accept it, or sit down and let others do it for you. But stop begging to be dictated to, because if you get your way, WE all get dictated to along with you.)