Forum members who support "reasonable gun control"

[1911 guy]

Nope, I'm not starting this thread to bash them. And I'm not going to call them trolls, either. They aren't horrible people (that I'm aware of), aren't Manchurian Candidates in the gun rights movement, etc.

I'll tell you what a lot of them are.

People who are just getting into guns.
People who've hunted and shot for years, but ignored politics.
People who are victims of such state restrictions that they have believed it to be "normal".
People who have never had anyone explain the supporting documents and history of our Constitution.

The list can go on. I admit to getting frustrated sometimes, but that's my fault. When you engage someone in a debate on gun control, please deconstruct the argument logically, do not attack the person. The answer to ignorance and misconception is education, not personal attack.

Somehow this wound up in S&T, meant to post it in General. Mods, please move.

 

[SleazyRider]

I was #2,#3, and #4, but have changed my way of thinking a great deal since joining The High Road several years ago. (BTW, in the interest of accuracy, I'd edit #4 to say "people who have had the wrong people explain the Constitution.") What changed my mind was thoughtful, rational, and well-informed posts by many of the members and moderators here. Hyperbole, arguing, and most of all, mindlessly bashing New York and California, contributed little to my change in thinking.

So I appreciate your post, 1911 guy.

 

[kayak-man]

While I disagree with just about any form of gun control (OK, OK, maybe the citizenry shouldn't have completely unrestricted access to nuclear weapons...) I think that you have a VERY healthy attitude about these gun owners.

There's one guy I work with, and he was telling me he loves guns. He has a wingmaster and a 357 revolver, and he wants to go shooting with me, grew up hunting, and he's a pretty good guy. Just the other day he tells me that he doesn't think he could be friends with someone that carries a gun all the time...


After typing that, I realize that I probably didn't really contribute a whole heck of a lot to this conversation....

 

[ohbythebay]

Just curious

I fully support your call to be patient and not attack. That is not the way to come to understandings. And from both sides, anti's and gun owners, the conversations can be so polarizing and extreme. But who says those that support gun controls need education....how about gun rights advocates who may need a little leanin' ?

Extremes
Like the woman who said if she was being attacked, she would not ever use a weapon to defend herself; only law enforcement should be allowed.

Well, for her, the only law enforcement she will probably get is the coroner. But again, that is extreme.

Now take it to the other extreme. Gun rights. Face it folks. We know there is a problem. People who should NOT have guns but do. And we know how they get them yet, we hold up the 2nd amendment like a Viking shield regardless of the consequences. We do nothing to support controls. 80% are aghast at ever having to do a background check.

Why? What are you afraid of ? I have heard all the <deleted> about how if the government knows what you have, they can take it away easier. I call bull on that. That is fear. They don't need your registration to make your life miserable.

So what are some of the things that irk the anti's (and rightfully so imho). Straw sales. Private unregistered sales. God forbid you have to do it and register ...but while you say you are protecting your rights, you are also protecting the rights of criminals who can easily get guns through this rather large hole.

The only way to truly get what you want is through negotiation. Work with them (anti's) to close some holes in return for fairer LEGAL owner laws. They don't budge, we don't budge...but something has to be on the table. Because if its not, your rights WILL be taken away. I can guarantee it. Look at NY, NJ...yeah..the courts are really helping them there..NOT...and the SCOTUS doesn't even want to touch it.

Are you watching the news ? Have you noticed who is pulling the strings in making sure every shooting gets NOTICED...You cannot reverse that propaganda...You can't have a news story about "No shooting today"...

So now all the die hard's will come out and bash me..that's fine. I know what I know and all the bluster in the world is not going to change the facts.

Now watch how many do the exact opposite of what the OP posted

 

[vito]

A major problem with "reasonable" gun control is that what is "reasonable" is not universally agreed upon, as well as the reality that the folks calling for "reasonable gun control laws" usually are pretty open about really wanting the total elimination of firearms from civilian ownership. Each time the pro-gun side agrees to some "reasonable" restriction of their rights, it becomes the new starting point for more "reasonable" new laws. The reality is that the gun is not the problem, but human failings. Violence and crime will not disappear, so the anti-gun folks will just want to keep adding more and more restrictive laws, claiming they are just "reasonable" steps to protect everyone from violence.

It is for this reason that I almost reflexively oppose any new gun restriction, because I know that all I have done is not end the discussion but just moved the starting line closer to what my opponents desire. Compromise does not work when one side will never accept any compromise on their ultimate goals but uses false compromise as a temporary tactic.

 

[dogrunner]

.....By the Bay: Truly, if you objectively look at the entire bill of rights you'll find that nearly all do precisely as you describe: They protect the criminal..............as well as the honest citizen...........where do you draw the line: Do you void the 4th and fifth as examples of those rights that the criminal class ought not enjoy?

The problem with most, if not all of the 'reasonable' regulations I've seen proposed is that while they look OK on their face, they lead to further and further incursions. I choose to fight such proposals in any manner and fashion I can!

 

[alsaqr]

What seems "reasonable" to one gunowner may seem totally "unreasonable" to others. In the end SCOTUS gets to decide what is "reasonable".


The US Supreme Court in Heller. stated the following:

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

...................................................................................................

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

[Midwest]

The only reasonable gun control I support is making sure you aim steady and hit your target.


I believe the repealing the 1934 NFA, repealing the 1968 GCA, repealing the Lautenberg Amendment, repealing Gun Free School Zone and any and all other infringing anti-gun legislation.

.

 

[Ed Ames]

Face it folks. We know there is a problem. People who should NOT have guns but do.

"We" don't know about that.

How does trying to prevent someone from owning a device benefit me?

Any time you ban ownership of something, even if the ban applies to one single person, you create a black market. Black markets have substantial inherent risks to society. As the drug war demonstrates, those risks are HUGH for the people participating in the market, significant to those in the vicinity of those participating in the market, and measurable for people who have no connection to the market at all.


For myself, I think the risks of people who have either never committed a crime, or have been discharged after punishment, owning firearms are MUCH lower than the risks created by creating a black market. I think we would all be safer - all of us - if we went back to how it was in 1965, when you could buy a 1911 in a gas station with the only paperwork being the effort of counting out cash.

 

[ohbythebay]

Dogrunner..I DO agree with you

Trust me when I say I fight VEHEMENTLY to protect our rights. At the behest of the NRA yesterday, I wrote to ALL my elected officials from congressman all the way up to POTUS.

I hope people don't misread me that I want my rights (or anyone else's) trampled. What I want (wont happen) is sincere dialog between anti's and gun rights advocates to protect the interests of both.

Unfortunately, the big mouths across the table (anti's) are so lost in their dogma that ALL guns are bad, dialog never gets to happen. Hearing them literally give up their right to life in the name of banning guns, that's pretty far extreme.

But the real question, where do we start ? The polls aren't working...sigh

 

[Skylerbone]

We all have that story, a disapproving friend or neighbor, a tiff played out online. Post #2 points to a quandary that bogs down many advocates of true 2A adherence. I say we begin the discussion of real world solution so as to overcome objection. Certainly a citizenry ought to know their rights, ought to know which laws, lawmakers and States infringe on those rights and ought to want for their peaceable return but without a plan of action that incorporates a solution we are neither armed with arms or complete knowledge.

Such a discussion might begin from the historical viewpoint on militia, military build up and a standing army.

 

[ohbythebay]

The balck market

You are correct, there will always be a black market. But a black market is a small window while we currently support a giant double door. Do we say "Just give up" because there will always be an illegal way ? I don't think so.

I think you close the loopholes and go after the black market target. But keeping loopholes just provides ammo(pun intended) for the anti's to point to the big bad gun owners.

I don't pretend to have the answers. All I know is dialog has to start somewhere.

 

[ohbythebay]

Very wise Skylerbone

I think part of that education also is to point out the ABUSES some states have perpetrated on gun owners.

Example - "may permit" for CCL - Seriously ? Someone has to prove to a court he or she needs to carry ? How about just handing the court a newspaper ? Let them see what the average citizen is face with. Rape, robbery, murder, the list goes on. But I shouldn't have a right to protect myself ? The law will handle it ? After I am dead? I don't think so....

By the same token, we need to educate these folks on the benefits and safety of gun ownership (legal) and how it actually makes for a SAFER society.

Sorry guys, you got me going on the soapbox this morning...LOL

 

[Sam1911]

I wrote this a while back in another thread devoted to the idea of why gun rights are a lost cause, or why we should give up and "compromise" or why we should come "sit at the table" or whatever the chicken little idea was at the time.

So, in the following, substitute "dialog" for "debate."

"... but I don't personally value the debate itself. I'm not a political junkie and don't take pleasure in the give-and-take of the political process as a hobby.

My interest is purely in the defeat of gun control and promotion and recognition of the right to bear arms.

Debate on the subject is merely a tool to that end, used as required. As long as our rights are being strengthened, I'm perfectly content for the gun control debate to vanish from the Earth.

...

The only consensual solution I'm very greatly interested in is one in which guns are de-regulated and the argument over them fades away as the antagonists on the other side wander off to find other causes to occupy their attention. Give it enough time, and make guns more universally present and neutral (and/or positive!) in society, and the numbers of those willing to really devote money and energy to opposing private gun ownership will dwindle away to insignificance. Call it, "consensus by attrition."

It's already happening to a very great degree. Prior to Sandy Hook, the main gun control champion organization was reported to be all but defunct, and their bubble of renewed popularity is fading fast again. And as we see, there's not enough public support for gun control to make political motion out of it in the most auspicious moment their side had seen in decades.

We don't really, necessarily, have to reach a consensus, in the classic sense of sitting down at the negotiating table and hammering out a deal with the other side. What we have to do is hold out and outlast them. We have the impetus of defending our rights, defending the real possessions of our guns against very present threats of confiscation and illegality, the preservation of our heritage and tradition and one of, what most of us feel is, the most fundamental facets of our culture that set us apart from the social experiment as practiced in other times and by other cultures. There's a lot of momentum and self-perpetuating energy in that. It is much harder to maintain drive and enthusiasm to be AGAINST something, especially if that something is the possessions and rights of other people who honestly don't cause you any real direct harm or discomfort day-to-day.

So, I see this as a waiting game, at its core. Hold the line, be steadfast and die-hard. Watch the old guard anti-gun politicians die off and be forgotten. Recognize that there is unlikely to be a new guard that picks up that orphaned and dead-ended mantle and is willing to tie their political fortunes to it. We may never drive the last nail into the coffin of gun control, but I do think we'll see the day when the issue has faded to share the fortunes of alcohol (and maybe now marijuana?) prohibition as a has-been cause."

 

[Baldman]

As many have already said reasonable can be a loaded term. I belive many of the guns laws we currently have are reasonable and here are others that are not. Many of the people who want to limit guns to 'civilians' are in my mind ignorant. And when I say ignorant I'm trying to offend anyone I mean in the fashion that they are un or under educated about firearms and their functionality.

I'll use my Mom as an example. Growing up my dad and I did some hunting but only ever had the standard hunting guns(shotguns, rifle, in a bolt, lever, or break open action) and although she never used the guns or even wanted to she never had an issue with them being in the house, this was about 35 + years ago.

Fast forward to more recent history, I'm in a location that really doesn't allow me to hunt, Dad doesn't have the desire any longer so by mutual consent a few years back I moved all the rifles to my home. At first I felt like a bad son because I felt I was leaving them unprotected but my Dad later confided that he has a 38 if he should need a gun. I did a little trading and selling and modernized my guns (AR platform and semi auto handgun).
I was visiting my parents during the attempted 'we should ban everything' legislation and the whole issue of reasonable gun control was all over the TV.
My Mom said no one needs or should have these machine guns they keep talking about it's just not right. So I had a littel talk with her about these "machine guns" and explained that the guns they were talking about only fired 1 bullet at a time just like the guns we had in the house for many years the major difference was that I didn't need to use a bolt or lever to put anotherr round in the barrell before I fired it again, basically the gun did it for me. I also told her that laws already exisited about owning "machine guns" and the process and cost involved with that and the conversation went on.

Long story short, so I don't bore you any longer, is that my Mom came to the conclusion that most of the stuff she was hearing was BS and she no longer had a problem with the modern sporting rifle. She admitted owning one was not for her but she didn't see a reason why someone else couldn't legally own one.

Some times I think we need to fight this battle one person at a time as many anti-gun just have no understanding of what they are talking about.

 

[Tirod]

I've had discussions with gun owners who wouldn't think of restricting anyone's 2A rights, but who do go along with whatever current agenda of control is being spun in the media.

Right after Sandy Hook, I got into an intense discussion with one who was emotionally involved by the deaths, and who saw no reason whatsoever for anyone owning a gun that had a high capacity magazine. He'd bought the argument hook, line, and sinker, having heard it on the national media for days.

Since I was at work, retail, there was little I could say other than to calm him down and get him out of the store. But, he was engaged, and when it was possible, I attempted to put it in the big picture - I related it to the deaths of teens drunk driving, based on the number killed every year.

There are ten times the number. Every one was illegal. Nobody does anything about it much more than let the cops bag the bodies and cluck their tongues when a store clerk is arrested in a sting.

I asked if he was willing to have me give up my hi cap mags, would he then reciprocate by having a breathalyzer installed in his car.

After all, if it saves just one life . .

Yep, I said that.

The anti gunners don't like the chickens to come home to roost. Our better arguments aren't based on gun facts and figures they really could care less about. It's about relating how something MORE important would affect them in their life.

I use the breathlyzer example, and it seems to hit home when needed. It not only explains things by putting gun deaths in perspective, it also puts it in a Constitutionally level playing field. If I lose a right, how to they also lose a right?

Don't argue guns with anti gunners. Argue how they lose their rights if the same thing they want is applied to something that is usually even more important to them. Most of all, understand that they are the ones who are emotionally involved. Learn how to not let your feelings get into the discussion. BE THE ADULT - that usually is the last thing they remember.

 

[Midwest]

It is like the analogy that if one doesn't like what is on TV or radio, turn the channel. And if people don't wish to exercise their second amendment rights or purchase an AR-15, they don't have to! But that should not stop me from exercising my second amendment rights or to purchase an AR-15 or a machine gun for that matter.
.

 

[Ed Ames]

You are correct, there will always be a black market.

That simply isn't true and is the opposite of what I said.

There is only a black market as a result of regulation. Remove the regulation and the black market disappears.

But a black market is a small window while we currently support a giant double door.

No, a black market is not defined by size. A black market can be huge (e.g. the drug market in the US) or tiny (the Vegemite black market). A black market has innate risks (poor quality product, dangerous business practices) that simply disappear with the black market.

There are only two ways of getting rid of a black market: Remove the restrictions, or kill all humans. Anything short of that leaves a black market in place.

Do we say "Just give up" because there will always be an illegal way ?

No, we just say that it isn'lt illegal and the harm goes away.

I think you close the loopholes and go after the black market target. But keeping loopholes just provides ammo(pun intended) for the anti's to point to the big bad gun owners.

And after 50 years of the drug war we know where that gets you: millions of lives destroyed, billions of dollars wasted, international relations poisoned, massive environmental harm, and zero measurable benefit.

That does not seem like a good approach to me.

 

[Skylerbone]

Why? What are you afraid of ? I have heard all the <deleted> about how if the government knows what you have, they can take it away easier. I call bull on that. That is fear. They don't need your registration to make your life miserable.

To call it fear is to deny recorded history. Our "government" is not a distinct entity with a life of its own. It ought to be "We the People" but it has become "We the Members of the ____ Party". So corrupt are the dealings of elected officials that few laws on the book are comprehensible to the citizenry they govern and not by accident. Yes anyone, at any time may be scooped up and jailed as a result and that is not the America I read (past tense) about. The issue of "gun control" is not the real issue at all. The issue is a struggle for complete control from cradle to grave which necessitates the disarmament of "We the People" so that a higher class may do what they will.

If you want a quick and dirty lesson on taking orders, read about the Bonus Army. In short, Gen. MacArthur observed what he preached: Duty, Honor, Country in that order. That duty was his demise in the hearts of many who once saw him as a great man and thereafter viewed him as a skilled tactician in following orders. The tangled web woven set events in motion that pitted Americans against Americans in a most unfortunate way. This is the result when "government" ignores constitutionality again and again while believing no ill will come of it.

 

[Pointshoot]

Well off the top of my head, I've run into three types of pro gun people who say 'reasonable laws' are a requirement. (They don't consider that current laws may be 'reasonable' enough, or too restrictive).

- One type just isn't very knowledgeable as to the purpose and history behind the 2A. They know little of US history & nothing of the Constitution. They don't teach this in the schools today. They also haven't been taught how to look at facts/evidence and to think logically. When I point out that the odds of their being a victim of a mass shooting are less than being struck by lightning, they are quite surprised by that. Why would new 'reasonable' laws be needed for such an unlikely event ? They react emotionally rather than think and act rationally.

- Another type are those who consider themselves 'liberals' and/or come from that kind of background. In most of the rest of their thinking, they hold what would be considered 'liberal' viewpoints. But for some reason, they were introduced to guns (perhaps with family at an early age) and they came to see through their own experience, that all the fear mongering is wrong. They enjoy shooting and/or hunting. But, identifying with the 'liberal' label and associating with others of that mindset, they try to come up with a position which causes less conflict in themselves and with other liberals.

- To me, the third type is the worst I've met. These are those people who talk of 'compromise' for financial reasons. I know a guy who is an avid hunter, does hunting dog trials, etc Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, but not 'those evil black guns'. He says such brilliant things as 'should everyone have machine guns and atom bombs too !' (Not really asking for your reply, but making a loud statement.) He's a chiropractor in a modest sized community & doesn't want to alienate potential business. So, he straddles both sides.

The efforts for 'reasonable laws' are non solutions to non 'problems'. They do not get to the real purpose of the 2A which is to defend against tyranny. Their ultimate purpose is to disarm the American people.

 

[Mp7]

Making this a dialogue instead of a debate is they way to go.


Calling people names who are not of the same opinion
is what a debate on this always turns into.



Obviously there are problems.

And THR always gave me the feeling of being
a campfire where all smoke the pipe and think
before ranting stuff that leads nowhere.


Will keep an eye on this one.


(Personally, i find the analogy of a driving permit quite
fitting. And by the way: There are too many people on the roads
who are not fit to command a 2ton car, too.)

 

[John828]

But how do you have a debate/dialog with someone who operates basing their beliefs on feelings and a few out if context facts?

 

[NoirFan]

I believe all private gun sales should go through an FFL transfer, background check and mental health check, by law. Once these checks are cleared, the person should be able to legally open or concealed carry anywhere.

I'm not going to talk about nukes because it's a silly example. However, I am against private citizen ownership of shoulder-fired explosives. The 2nd amendment absolutists basically support selling these things like candy bars. After all they are "small arms", right? When you have Stinger missiles near US airports, or piles of RPG shells in random garages, the safety/freedom tradeoff is no longer worth it.

Full auto, barrel length restrictions, or any of the NFA stuff doesn't matter to me. Repeal for all I care.

Just remember that it's easy to experience an echo chamber effect on a subject-specific forum. Not being a philosophical absolutist does not make you a traitor, stupid or misinformed.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I agree with the OP.

 

[1911 guy]

Originally Posted by kwguy View Post
i haven`t heard anygrown-up argument for not putting in something like a driving permit examfor people carrying
Drivers license enables you to drive all 50 states, all territories of the U.S. as well as Canada and Mexico. Try using a carry permit from your state in all 50 states, all territories of the U.S. as well as Canada and Mexico.

Besides we have a 'sticky' called "Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!"
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689728

This post is in reply to Mp7, but was lifted from a similar thread. I have simply quoted (link and all) member Midwest.