How do we stop this gun control virus

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think it's a mistake to center our argument only on the Constitution.

All the arguments we participate in that are not centered on the Second Amendment lends a modicum of "legitimacy" to those anti-gun arguments. In fact, those arguments don't belong anywhere but in a dissertation on whether the Second Amendment should be repealed or not. The Second Amendment as it stands is the law of the land and all that needs to be discussed is how much punishment is doled out to those who violate it. That would include punishing Justices, politicians, legislators, and law enforcement who construe the Second Amendment to mean anything other than the strict meaning of it: "Read and Obey". "Read and Obey" is as easy to understand as "Shall not be infringed."

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The politicians know that guns are not the problem...

We need to realize that it's not necessarily politicians who are the core problem.

We pick the government. While it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. And they are doing what the people who elected them want done.

So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners. Alienating people whose support we may need won't help us.

There would not be restrictive gun laws if enough of our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., did not vote for and support the people who enact those laws.

 

[JohnKSa]

We all need to realize that there are only two options when it comes to fighting gun control.

1. Give up.
2. Keep fighting.

There will NEVER be a point where we can relax and consider the war won.

The most effective weapon in the fight is public opinion. When we can, we need to turn it to our purposes. When we can't manage that, we need to do our best to make sure that the enemy doesn't use it against us.

 

[BadAtScreenNames]

All the arguments we participate in that are not centered on the Second Amendment lends a modicum of "legitimacy" to those anti-gun arguments. In fact, those arguments don't belong anywhere but in a dissertation on whether the Second Amendment should be repealed or not. The Second Amendment as it stands is the law of the land and all that needs to be discussed is how much punishment is doled out to those who violate it. That would include punishing Justices, politicians, legislators, and law enforcement who construe the Second Amendment to mean anything other than the strict meaning of it: "Read and Obey". "Read and Obey" is as easy to understand as "Shall not be infringed."

Woody

People interpret the Constitution many different ways. Arguing that your interpretation is the correct interpretation is like telling a Catholic he's going to hell unless he's born again as a Baptist.

Along the same lines, many Catholics don't subscribe to all of the church's tenets, just the ones that feel right to them. The same is true with the Constitution.

A better approach might avoid the Constitutional issue entirely and frame gun ownership as a positive hobby/endeavor that's already 100 million Americans strong. Sort of like the Latter Day Saints campaign about how Mormons are regular people just like you and me.

Because right now, many people associate firearms with violence, street crime, the far-right fringe, and general unpleasantness.

 

[ohbythebay]

The real issue

Regardless of political party, they all want to do what looks "popular" to their voters. So what happens ?

A vocal minority stirs the pot. They have plenty of ammunition (no pun intended) ...they just point to those tragedies that involved guns and get to demonize the other 99.7% of all gun owners. They protest, they call on the politicians. They use the media.

Face it, they will win eventually because they can take (ignorantly), the high road. "look - we are saving lives". If there are no guns, then there can be no berserk shooters, right ? (their mentality).

So what do we have to counter it ? Basically - nothing. 2nd Amendment ? Amendments change, get re-descripted. Concealed carry person stops store robbery ? Back page news. 30 seconds the local news channel - never mentioned again.

The only way to truly turn this around ? Media - get the fight on the front page

United front - get off your bottom and really contact your representatives , not just say "Yeah..we should do that".

Stop holding up a 200+ year old right and get into how guns are part of American life today, as a sport, as a means of PREVENTING crime. Self defense should be the right NOT the right to bear arms.

Get into those politicians ears. Start lawsuits against the anti groups. For every false fact they put up, make them bleed legal money.

There are ways, but their momentum needs to be countered - and soon...

Just My Humble Opinions

 

[AlexanderA]

Frank Ettin wrote:

If enough of our neighbors.....don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected.

I see a lot of "gun people" who have this attitude about other "gun people." In other words, it's OK for me to have guns, but it's not OK for you to have guns. It's a zero-sum game in which I feel more secure having a gun, but I also feel more secure if nobody else has a gun.

Add to that the segmentation of the gun world, so that a hunter can say to a machine gun owner, "Why would anybody need that! Weapons like that only belong on the battlefield!"

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

First and foremost, we need to promote solidarity among gun owners. Now, personally, I'm not a hunter. (In fact, I tend toward the "animal rights" side.) But I recognize that hunters are valuable allies in preserving gun rights. So I'm willing to turn a blind eye to hunting activities, for this reason. I expect hunters to repay this by standing up for my rights to own machine guns.

 

[kwguy]

I understand that 'framing' the argument away from the constitution may be more palatable for many, but the fact is that the 2a wasn't put there for sporting or hunting purposes. It was put there to allow the citizens to have the means to resist a tyrannical government. There isn't really other way to do that, except to have the appropriate implements to do so.

I know it's not 'PC' to say that nowadays, and if you bring it up to a 'fence sitter' or whatever, they'll call you paranoid, but that doesn't change the reality.

Using the sporting or hunting reasons are what Europe pretty much does now in order to 'allow' their citizens to have the firearms they have now, such as they are.

Using those reasons to get people into shooting and interested in firearms is fine, but reframing that as the reason for the 2a is the wrong way to go.

Back when the 2a was written, that's pretty much how you got your groceries (hunting) Why would they have put an amendment in there to allow groceries? If that were the case, then they would have put one in there to allow farming too, right?

 

[AKElroy]

Meds I believe are a large part of the problem, and its the person not the gun.

I can see this being the wedge the anti's use to actually get some traction, and I think it is a HUGE risk for us. They will site massive evidence for the number of recent mass shooting being committed by "mentally troubled" folks on meds; with the implication being that the meds caused the instability. Of course, the massive flaw here is the same as stating that cholesterol lowering drugs are taken by people with a massively higher percentage of heart attacks, ergo, cholesterol lowering drugs cause heart attacks. Ridiculous.

What constitutes a drug that would cause one to lose their ability to pass NICS? Anti-depressants? Anti-anxiety? There are probably 30 million people in this country taking a Xanax to get a good nights sleep. I believe we need to be cautious to avoid letting "moderate" voices in leadership take us down this "common sense" approach.

Even if we are successful in keeping our elected officials in line, one of the key dangers of the ACA is the forfeighture of medical privacy to the government. They now know what we are prescribed, and given this administrations willingness to use executive fiat to advance a anti-gun agenda, I can see these records being used to empower the ATF/FBI into tweaking NICS to deny folks with a history of using these drugs. Dangerous road, folks.

 

[ohbythebay]

I agree

With Alexander...there has to be unification. Some common theme that ties ALL gun owners together. The NRA has actually done a good job thus far, jumping into the fray where needed, getting the word out. But there needs to be more. Almost like every time you buy or own a gun, you swear to uphold and defend the constitution and automatically become part of a large group (100 million Americans make for a large voice)

I also agree with KWguy (to a point). The whole reason for 2a was to always protect against a tyrannical government. But we are already there. And that is a problem when trying to defend an amendment that goes against their agenda.

I don't want to get into politics here, but it is pretty evident that our government has been slowly but surely controlling and monitoring everything we do. From guns, to the environment to even how we use the internet. There is almost nothing we do in life that does not have some law, some regulation or some loophole that keeps them firmly in control of our daily lives.

so as not to digress, we need a National Gun Owners association that promotes safety and can speak out as one unified voice that we THE PEOPLE want to keep our guns and we will not allow the government to little by little chip away with over-regulation. Period.

 

[AlexanderA]

We need a National Gun Owners association that promotes safety and can speak out as one unified voice that we THE PEOPLE want to keep our guns and we will not allow the government to little by little chip away with over-regulation. Period.

How would that be different from the NRA? I think what you're really proposing is that the NRA broaden its membership to include more gun owners (it currently has only a small fraction of them as members). How about, as a start, getting all gun shops to hand out an NRA membership application with each gun sold? If they're generous, they could even chip in the first year's dues.

 

[ohbythebay]

Alexander

I think what you're really proposing is that the NRA broaden its membership to include more gun owners (it currently has only a small fraction of them as members). How about, as a start, getting all gun shops to hand out an NRA membership application with each gun sold? If they're generous, they could even chip in the first year's dues.

THAT is an awesome idea....they could use the additional members and additional funds to take each instance to the mat...Stop these slow bleeder cases in their tracks and push the RTKBA cases to positive results...

I like it.

 

[BadAtScreenNames]

I can see this being the wedge the anti's use to actually get some traction, and I think it is a HUGE risk for us. They will site massive evidence for the number of recent mass shooting being committed by "mentally troubled" folks on meds; with the implication being that the meds caused the instability. Of course, the massive flaw here is the same as stating that cholesterol lowering drugs are taken by people with a massively higher percentage of heart attacks, ergo, cholesterol lowering drugs cause heart attacks. Ridiculous.

What constitutes a drug that would cause one to lose their ability to pass NICS? Anti-depressants? Anti-anxiety? There are probably 30 million people in this country taking a Xanax to get a good nights sleep. I believe we need to be cautious to avoid letting "moderate" voices in leadership take us down this "common sense" approach.

Yep. At any given time, 28 million Americans suffer from mental illness of one kind or another.

Even if you focus on more severe illnesses such as schizophrenia, you're looking at 2 million Americans. If that past 500 mass shootings were all carried about by schizophrenics, do you restrict the Constitutional rights of 2 million citizens because .025% of them committed atrocities?

 

[AlexanderA]

If I were a gun-banner, I would whittle down gun ownership in America. I could do this in two ways: (a) increase the categories of guns that were banned, by concentrating on "evil features," and (b) increase the categories of people that were disqualified, by concentrating on socially unpopular segments. First, ban felons, fugitives, drug users, people under restraining orders, "wife beaters," etc. Then go after the "mentally ill." Precise definitions of mental illness don't matter, because the aim is to make the prohibited categories as broad as possible. The idea is to make the numbers of guns, and the number of people that can own guns, so small that over time the gun culture disappears entirely. For a preview of this just look at what happened in the UK and Australia.

Edited to add: Don't forget the number of people that are associated with those in the prohibited categories. For example, if anyone in your household was ever treated for mental illness, you would be prohibited from owning a gun on the ground that the "mentally ill" person would have access to your gun. (Adam Lanza scenario.) Thus the numbers of prohibited persons would rise exponentially.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

People interpret the Constitution many different ways. Arguing that your interpretation is the correct interpretation is like telling a Catholic he's going to hell unless he's born again as a Baptist.

Along the same lines, many Catholics don't subscribe to all of the church's tenets, just the ones that feel right to them. The same is true with the Constitution.

A better approach might avoid the Constitutional issue entirely and frame gun ownership as a positive hobby/endeavor that's already 100 million Americans strong. Sort of like the Latter Day Saints campaign about how Mormons are regular people just like you and me.

Because right now, many people associate firearms with violence, street crime, the far-right fringe, and general unpleasantness.

Equating the Constitution to the tenants of a religion is fallacious. The tenants of a faith are not the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land and is enforceable. One cannot simply ignore something in the Constitution they feel doesn't suit them.

If you avoid the constitutional issue you surrender the force of the law. The tenants of the Second Amendment were made the law of the land to give force to the defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

As for "interpreting" the Constitution, all one needs to do is read and obey it.

Woody

 

[steelerdude99]

Equating the Constitution to the tenants of a religion is fallacious. The tenants of a faith are not the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land and is enforceable. One cannot simply ignore something in the Constitution they feel doesn't suit them.

If you avoid the constitutional issue you surrender the force of the law. The tenants of the Second Amendment were made the law of the land to give force to the defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

As for "interpreting" the Constitution, all one needs to do is read and obey it.

Woody

I can’t agree that the Constitution is directly “the law of the land and is enforceable”. It’s framework that other laws must adhere. The Constitution is not specific enough to use as criminal code. Said differently, you or me could have never be taken to trail and changed with, say, violating the 18th Amendment.

On another note, if it were possible to have an exact and accurate Constitutional interpretation, there would never be a split Supreme Court decision. After all, those appointed to the Supreme Court are the best the legal profession has to offer. Yet, they all have read the same words contained in the Constitution, but they have different opinions when it comes to a specific set of circumstances. Yes, I wish there was a stricter Constitutional interpretation of laws, but judges have the final say.

chuck

 

[AlexanderA]

The Constitution can and will be changed if public opinion becomes overwhelmingly opposed to some aspect of it. That's why we ultimately can't rely on the words on the paper while neglecting the attitudes of our neighbors. The South once relied on the Constitution to protect slavery. We all know how that turned out.

And the attitudes of people about guns vary greatly, depending on where they are located. There's a "Great Sort" going on in this country, in which people are dividing themselves, physically, depending on their general ideology. Pro-gun people (and conservative people generally) are concentrated in the South, the interior West, and rural areas. Anti-gun people are in urban and suburban areas. Unfortunately for us, those are the areas containing the bulk of the total population.

The struggle over guns won't go well for us unless we can somehow change the dynamic among city people. And if the gun issue continues to be identified with the conservative-liberal divide, that will be hard to do. In other words, we have to "unsort" the "Great Sort" when it comes to guns.

 

[DrBozack]

Equating the Constitution to the tenants of a religion is fallacious. The tenants of a faith are not the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land and is enforceable. One cannot simply ignore something in the Constitution they feel doesn't suit them.

If you avoid the constitutional issue you surrender the force of the law. The tenants of the Second Amendment were made the law of the land to give force to the defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

As for "interpreting" the Constitution, all one needs to do is read and obey it.

Woody

SteelerFan99 answered the interpretation question better than I could.

My original point was that Constitution-based arguments aren't going to sway public opinion in the gun control debate.

Somebody will reply, "I don't need to sway public opinion. It's in the Constitution!"

But many, if not a majority, of Americans don't care about the Constitution so much as they care about not getting shot (although their odds of being shot have dramatically dropped in recent decades). And those people vote.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I can’t agree that the Constitution is directly “the law of the land and is enforceable”. It’s framework that other laws must adhere. The Constitution is not specific enough to use as criminal code. Said differently, you or me could have never be taken to trail and changed with, say, violating the 18th Amendment.

On another note, if it were possible to have an exact and accurate Constitutional interpretation, there would never be a split Supreme Court decision. After all, those appointed to the Supreme Court are the best the legal profession has to offer. Yet, they all have read the same words contained in the Constitution, but they have different opinions when it comes to a specific set of circumstances. Yes, I wish there was a stricter Constitutional interpretation of laws, but judges have the final say.

chuck

The tenants of the Constitution are enforceable by impeachment with conviction, and by expulsion, and as for the now defunct 18th Amendment, it was the law. The enforcement was left up to Congress and the several state legislators as authorized by the amendment.

Article II, Section 4, specifies law and punishment.

Article III, Section 2 Clause 3, is a case where the Constitution lays down specific law.

As for the 'split Supreme Court,' the problem is agenda-driven construal. To deny that fact is also agenda-driven construal. The Constitution is about as plain and simple as you can get. I learned the language necessary to enable me to read and obey the Constitution in grade school.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

SteelerFan99 answered the interpretation question better than I could.

My original point was that Constitution-based arguments aren't going to sway public opinion in the gun control debate.

Somebody will reply, "I don't need to sway public opinion. It's in the Constitution!"

But many, if not a majority, of Americans don't care about the Constitution so much as they care about not getting shot (although their odds of being shot have dramatically dropped in recent decades). And those people vote.

The differing "interpretations" that deviate from the Constitution's plain English are the result of agenda-driven construal. I wouldn't call it misconstrual, because those doing the construing are not that ignorant of the language. All one needs to do to see the truth of the matter is to recognize how adroitly such construals are fabricated with the use of interpolation, dissembling, and malapropism. The Constitution is not esoteric.

As for swaying public opinion, the Constitution was neither crafted to be inferior to, nor supplanted by, demagoguery.

If there are as many people as you say who do not care about the Constitution as much as they care about not getting shot, it is a sad commentary indeed. Being stripped of their ability to defend themselves will get them shot with impunity. Observe the killing fields of the mass murderers. Nearly all are gun-free zones. The Constitution protects the rights they need to protect themselves.

If those people you refer to need to be persuaded, it is obvious they can be persuaded back. They are ignorant of the facts, and until they educate themselves, they are useless to us. Anyone aware of the facts in the previous paragraph cannot, will not, be persuaded otherwise.

We are left with abiding the Constitution.

Woody

 

[JohnKSa]

I learned the language necessary to enable me to read and obey the Constitution in grade school.

The Constitution (as it is practically applied in the real world) has changed since you were in grade school. Every Supreme Court opinion clarifies/reinterprets/redefines the Constitution, however slightly.

The Constitution--in practice, as opposed to in theory--is what the Supreme Court says it is, not what you read and understood in grade school.

Not saying that's how it should be, but there can really be no debate about the fact that's how it is.

 

[ohbythebay]

The constitution

Unfortunately is what the supreme court justices say it is. We would like to think that it is not subject to interpretation but that is exactly their job with no recourse higher.

They (SCOTUS) are the final arbiters of what is within the boundaries and what is not. Think of the Dred Scott decision.

The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.

He was fighting (under the rule of law) to be freed since he was a slave but lived with his master, Dr. John Emerson, in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787

My point is, all laws are subject to interpretation at various levels, the final being the supreme court. If we hope to win via that avenue, then we need some pretty strong supporting evidence to bolster the second amendment ...not just rely on its vague framing which was actually put in place to protect against a tyrannical government (something that was in the recent memory of the framers)...and that is one of the arguments that will be used against it...some (not me) will say we live in different times.

What would help is more self defense cases proving the need to keep and bear arms. I don't think fighting our tyrannical government will go over well...LOL

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Constitution (as it is practically applied in the real world) has changed since you were in grade school. Every Supreme Court opinion clarifies/reinterprets/redefines the Constitution, however slightly.

The Constitution--in practice, as opposed to in theory--is what the Supreme Court says it is, not what you read and understood in grade school.

Not saying that's how it should be, but there can really be no debate about the fact that's how it is.

The Constitution has not changed. There have been no amendments supporting how the Court has "practically applied" it in so many cases. And, there are no original nor added articles, sections, or clauses in the Constitution granting power to the Supreme Court to "clarify, reinterpret, or redefine" anything in the Constitution.

In Madison v. Marbury, the Court made it clear that they must read and obey the Constitution. The lack of that obedience to the Constitution fostered by desired agenda has enabled the lack of disciplining those on the Court who have disobeyed the Constitution. No one who supports that agenda would ever lift a finger to stand in the way of their agenda, and will not stand with anyone who would. Agenda is the new supreme law of the land. To me, that's anarchy.

So, I will not accept that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, or says what it says. The Court and the agenda driven supporters take advantage of the ignorant. There are apparently enough people ignorant of the Constitution and those in government to allow them to stay in power.

If those in power were honorable and trustworthy, it wouldn't matter how many people were ignorant of the Constitution, or of what those in power were up to. Those of us who pay attention to the Constitution and to those who serve under it wouldn't be full of grievances and clamoring for redress. People like me could go on with life, earning a living, etc. Instead, we're distracted, distraught, and fearful of what the future holds for our old age and the happiness of posterity.

I do my best to vote for learned, honorable and trustworthy people for office, but many of them misrepresent themselves just to get elected, and end up misrepresenting me once in office. I just don't understand the mentality of such people. If what a person represented themselves to be got them elected, wouldn't it make sense to govern that way as well? I would think happy constituents would secure their future in government. But then, agenda rules doesn't it.

Woody

 

[DrBozack]

The Constitution has not changed. There have been no amendments supporting how the Court has "practically applied" it in so many cases. And, there are no original nor added articles, sections, or clauses in the Constitution granting power to the Supreme Court to "clarify, reinterpret, or redefine" anything in the Constitution.

In Madison v. Marbury, the Court made it clear that they must read and obey the Constitution. The lack of that obedience to the Constitution fostered by desired agenda has enabled the lack of disciplining those on the Court who have disobeyed the Constitution. No one who supports that agenda would ever lift a finger to stand in the way of their agenda, and will not stand with anyone who would. Agenda is the new supreme law of the land. To me, that's anarchy.

So, I will not accept that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, or says what it says.

Oh.

 

[giggitygiggity]

We stop this virus by countering with pro-gun legislation. Maintaining the status quo is not acceptable. We need to push for the machine gun registry to reopen. We need to push for no waiting periods. We need to push for no magazine restrictions. We need to make the anti-gunners be happy with the status quo. We have to be proactive instead of reactive. If anti-gunners are fighting pro-gun legislation, they will have to put that to bed before they can try and impose their ridiculous bills.

 

[DrBozack]

We stop this virus by countering with pro-gun legislation. Maintaining the status quo is not acceptable. We need to push for the machine gun registry to reopen. We need to push for no waiting periods. We need to push for no magazine restrictions. We need to make the anti-gunners be happy with the status quo. We have to be proactive instead of reactive. If anti-gunners are fighting pro-gun legislation, they will have to put that to bed before they can try and impose their ridiculous bills.

The discussion happening within the pro-gun community reminds me of the century-old debate between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois about whether American blacks should pursue social change through political victories or through a wider cultural shift.

More than 100 years later, the answer should be obvious. Pro-gun legislation won't change Americans' views on firearms, and as long as a vast swath of America remains either opposed or undecided on the firearms question, Second Amendment rights will be at risk.

For years, the NRA has enjoyed tremendous political influence disproportionate to its membership. Yet, here we are, still having this debate.

The gun-owning community needs an image makeover, and gun organizations need outreach efforts to speak to the unconverted.

(And that doesn't mean more Colion Noirs).