Good post like to add to that by being able to buy guns through the mail. Notice how the NRA never goes on the offensive no money in it. On the defensive the NRA can scare up contributions and like when all organizations get to big money is all that matters to them
Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"
- Thread starter Dave TBG
- Start date
- Status
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Dave, in my experience the folks in the gray areas of gun ownership are few "and far between. Not to say they aren't there, but they're rare."
"There are issues I see in black and white terms, and issues that I see as very complicated and I realize I don't know enough to make a proper decision. That really is the very definition of "moderate" to me, in most political arguments."
This is my belief as well. Before I was old enough to pay much attention to politics or my world view, I was "conservative" because that's how I was raised. When I started maturing and learning more, I found myself a "moderate," precisely because I hadn't yet formed hard conclusions on many topics, and felt it unfair to completely discount one side or the other. Coming into my early adulthood, I find myself more in the camp of "Libertarian" as the marbles fall one by one into place and I form complete rational bases for my beliefs. At this point, I feel "moderates" are a real thing, but only a temporary state rather than a belief system for most issues. Just people on a path, whose course we may or may not even be capable of directing. Many contentious issues boil down to incompatible truths at the end of the day, and to pretend you can argue for both sides in a coherent manner eventually breaks down. It's like the smooth space between selector lever settings; you eventually click into one space or the other
.
I do notice that on gun issues in particular, the more someone thinks about the problems, the more they end up toward our side. Scenes like the representative in California and so on really illustrate that the gun control crowd not only doesn't think very hard about this issue, they may not think about anything at all. I didn't see one sentence addressing the merits of gun rights nor gun control in several hundred pages of the internal MAIG emails; the topic obviously doesn't come up often, at least not when there's celebrities to snag and publicity to make.
I think it was Ayn Rand who said "there are no such things as contradictions," and the phrase really does make sense in an Ockham's Razor kind of way. (For example, the fact she took social security after a life of championing independence from government is not hypocrisy; the resource was there for her to take advantage of, so she did. But she surely resented the government forcing others at the point of a gun to chip in unasked on her behalf). My only beef with moderates is that they too often use "moderation" as a disarming guise to hide their true intentions; President Obama is renowned for being able to argue every angle of a topic eight ways to Sunday. Many folks see this as him being nuanced, knowledgeable, magnanimous, and even handed. But the fact is the man tends to act with no respect for the opposition, and no mercy for people he's got by the short-hairs who stand in the way of his goals. A big reason why groups find it hard to remain allied with him for very long.
"No. It makes them liars."
No, just politicians. In representative government, it's their job to lie to us and all in order to get their job done, and up to us to make sure they did the job right (in which case it really doesn't matter one whit if they lied in the first place).
"There are issues I see in black and white terms, and issues that I see as very complicated and I realize I don't know enough to make a proper decision. That really is the very definition of "moderate" to me, in most political arguments."
This is my belief as well. Before I was old enough to pay much attention to politics or my world view, I was "conservative" because that's how I was raised. When I started maturing and learning more, I found myself a "moderate," precisely because I hadn't yet formed hard conclusions on many topics, and felt it unfair to completely discount one side or the other. Coming into my early adulthood, I find myself more in the camp of "Libertarian" as the marbles fall one by one into place and I form complete rational bases for my beliefs. At this point, I feel "moderates" are a real thing, but only a temporary state rather than a belief system for most issues. Just people on a path, whose course we may or may not even be capable of directing. Many contentious issues boil down to incompatible truths at the end of the day, and to pretend you can argue for both sides in a coherent manner eventually breaks down. It's like the smooth space between selector lever settings; you eventually click into one space or the other
.I do notice that on gun issues in particular, the more someone thinks about the problems, the more they end up toward our side. Scenes like the representative in California and so on really illustrate that the gun control crowd not only doesn't think very hard about this issue, they may not think about anything at all. I didn't see one sentence addressing the merits of gun rights nor gun control in several hundred pages of the internal MAIG emails; the topic obviously doesn't come up often, at least not when there's celebrities to snag and publicity to make.
I think it was Ayn Rand who said "there are no such things as contradictions," and the phrase really does make sense in an Ockham's Razor kind of way. (For example, the fact she took social security after a life of championing independence from government is not hypocrisy; the resource was there for her to take advantage of, so she did. But she surely resented the government forcing others at the point of a gun to chip in unasked on her behalf). My only beef with moderates is that they too often use "moderation" as a disarming guise to hide their true intentions; President Obama is renowned for being able to argue every angle of a topic eight ways to Sunday. Many folks see this as him being nuanced, knowledgeable, magnanimous, and even handed. But the fact is the man tends to act with no respect for the opposition, and no mercy for people he's got by the short-hairs who stand in the way of his goals. A big reason why groups find it hard to remain allied with him for very long.
"No. It makes them liars."
No, just politicians
. In representative government, it's their job to lie to us and all in order to get their job done, and up to us to make sure they did the job right (in which case it really doesn't matter one whit if they lied in the first place).
How to make neutral moderates into gun supporters
Take them shooting. Have fun with it. Blow up some shook up soda cans. Emphasize safe shooting habits. Be positive and don't whine about anti-gunners during the outing. That'll do it.
Take them shooting. Have fun with it. Blow up some shook up soda cans. Emphasize safe shooting habits. Be positive and don't whine about anti-gunners during the outing. That'll do it.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
As for the term "Far Right" I think anyone using it should understand that our founders would be considered "far right" in todays political climate. As I posted before, it is a fight between those who believe in the collective and those who believe in the individual. For those of you who like to throw out arguments like this:
"Quote:
Here's how I see it. you're either all in for supporting the RKBA or your against it.
And we should blackball anyone who feels differently, right?
Dissent will not be tolerated!!"
I don't believe anyone stated or even hinted at that, but it is a easy straw man argument to throw out so you can feel superior instead of being involved in a actual discussion. That is one reason why these discussions usually run downhill until they are locked, because people debate their strawmen instead of the actuality.
"Quote:
Here's how I see it. you're either all in for supporting the RKBA or your against it.
And we should blackball anyone who feels differently, right?
Dissent will not be tolerated!!"
I don't believe anyone stated or even hinted at that, but it is a easy straw man argument to throw out so you can feel superior instead of being involved in a actual discussion. That is one reason why these discussions usually run downhill until they are locked, because people debate their strawmen instead of the actuality.
Thanks for the replies, in a few cases the replies were not what I expected but it is enlightening just the same.
ugaarguy, Thanks for your input. My experience is worlds apart from yours. Of those I've discussed the issue with I'd say about 25% are anti's but most are far from vocal about it and don't consider it a high priority issue. I've talked to fewer, maybe half as many, people at the "strongly pro 2A" end of the spectrum and the majority were very outspoken about it. I'd say the vocal ones cancel each other out and represent about 10% at each of the far ends of the spectrum. If my guess about your screen name is correct, I'd guess we are coming from very different perspectives in geography and, possibly, age. This may explain our different observations.
Walkalong, I hope you don't mind that I've used your words in this way. I am not trying to make any sort of statement based on what you wrote, I just felt it might be a good jumping off point for an intelligent conversation.
Vamo, The problem with most politicians is that they are always looking to be reelected. Not much chance of that unless you appease both sides. That's one of the reasons that I've put a little thought into what might make both sides relatively happy.
Sock Puppet, No offense taken, but LOL, I am not suffering from a lack of convictions, I just refuse to follow a single party platform or group. Depending on the issue, I may agree with either the conservatives or the liberals, I probably average out at 50-50 so I consider myself a moderate. My idea of individual liberty involves thinking for yourself rather than being a sheep (or puppet) for one group or the other. I usually assume that those who are easily pidgin-holed as either a conservative or a liberal must have been given those views rather than coming up with them on their own. No offense intended, of course.
BTW, If you think you've identified my "prism" from the little bit I've posted here, you certainly won't ever be in a position to call me narrow-minded.
AlexanderA, Polarization is indeed the problem, and not just in this area but in many parts of American society. At the rate we are going it will be a significant part of the last chapter of "The Rise and Fall of the United States of America." That's not a book that I want to see written and the only option is for Americans to learn to work together again.
Midwest, There are bad laws proposed every day and there are already plenty of bad laws on the books. I don't see the "all laws are bad" attitude as a viable way to get anything repealed or prevent new laws from coming into existence. Ironic that you should use NJ as an example, but yes, I am looking at this from the point of view of someone who is hoping to regain some rights, probably a more difficult task than just keeping those rights in the first place.
psyopspec, Yes, playing for "all or nothing" gives you a 50-50 chance of ending up with nothing. Those of us in 8 or 9 states have a big hill to climb and without some constructive dialog there will be no improvement. One of the thing I was hoping to feel out was the prevalence of us "middle-grounders." I guess we are only common in these few states. That's a shame, it would be nice to think someone had our backs. And that's a problem for me, it's a fight I'm willing to get involved in in Trenton, but I don't have much to work with.
ugaarguy, Thanks for your input. My experience is worlds apart from yours. Of those I've discussed the issue with I'd say about 25% are anti's but most are far from vocal about it and don't consider it a high priority issue. I've talked to fewer, maybe half as many, people at the "strongly pro 2A" end of the spectrum and the majority were very outspoken about it. I'd say the vocal ones cancel each other out and represent about 10% at each of the far ends of the spectrum. If my guess about your screen name is correct, I'd guess we are coming from very different perspectives in geography and, possibly, age. This may explain our different observations.
Walkalong, I hope you don't mind that I've used your words in this way. I am not trying to make any sort of statement based on what you wrote, I just felt it might be a good jumping off point for an intelligent conversation.
Vamo, The problem with most politicians is that they are always looking to be reelected. Not much chance of that unless you appease both sides. That's one of the reasons that I've put a little thought into what might make both sides relatively happy.
Sock Puppet, No offense taken, but LOL, I am not suffering from a lack of convictions, I just refuse to follow a single party platform or group. Depending on the issue, I may agree with either the conservatives or the liberals, I probably average out at 50-50 so I consider myself a moderate. My idea of individual liberty involves thinking for yourself rather than being a sheep (or puppet) for one group or the other. I usually assume that those who are easily pidgin-holed as either a conservative or a liberal must have been given those views rather than coming up with them on their own. No offense intended, of course.
BTW, If you think you've identified my "prism" from the little bit I've posted here, you certainly won't ever be in a position to call me narrow-minded.
AlexanderA, Polarization is indeed the problem, and not just in this area but in many parts of American society. At the rate we are going it will be a significant part of the last chapter of "The Rise and Fall of the United States of America." That's not a book that I want to see written and the only option is for Americans to learn to work together again.
Midwest, There are bad laws proposed every day and there are already plenty of bad laws on the books. I don't see the "all laws are bad" attitude as a viable way to get anything repealed or prevent new laws from coming into existence. Ironic that you should use NJ as an example, but yes, I am looking at this from the point of view of someone who is hoping to regain some rights, probably a more difficult task than just keeping those rights in the first place.
psyopspec, Yes, playing for "all or nothing" gives you a 50-50 chance of ending up with nothing. Those of us in 8 or 9 states have a big hill to climb and without some constructive dialog there will be no improvement. One of the thing I was hoping to feel out was the prevalence of us "middle-grounders." I guess we are only common in these few states. That's a shame, it would be nice to think someone had our backs. And that's a problem for me, it's a fight I'm willing to get involved in in Trenton, but I don't have much to work with.
danez71
Member
Interesting.... I think its a matter of semantics of the word 'moderate'.
I'm not moderate with guns at all.
However in relation to this thread, I'm not 'pro gun or anti' as the OP put it.
I AM PRO 2A.
I'm not only PRO 2A, I'm PRO the ENTIRE Constitution!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, we certainly all want to see positive change in NJ (and elsewhere) and we absolutely do understand that you guys won't be able to eat the whole elephant at once, so to speak. You'll have to win small victories as you can, and be always ready to seize an advantage when you can find one.
That doesn't mean you have to be "moderate" on gun control. That just means you're working in a distressing political reality.
So, if by being moderate you mean that you're looking to take small nibbles out of the rotten apple of NJ gun control -- we've got your back!
If by being moderate on gun control means you're supporting "common sense" laws that make the rest of us swallow "Universal Background Checks," or bans on "Weapons of War," or other hellacious nonsense that's usually spewed as "moderate" by politicians -- well, you're on your own, bub! And we'll encourage you heartily to stay the hell home on election day!
Not at all, and that's fine. it could be a good discussion.
The problem is that the hard core antis, the ones pushing the buttons of the anti gun agenda, are in no way interested in working together, only disarming all Americans. This becomes increasingly clear the more one gets involved.
grampster
Member
If you are convinced that firearms are part of our heritage of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and you are engaged in a conversation by someone who is either on the fence or seem to be anti firearm, offer to take them to the range. The fun of blasting paper or clays or whatever, can sometimes convert even a few of the hard core. Sometimes talking is futile and actions need to take the place of words.
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.
Browningguy, Pro-choice and Pro-capital punishment here, but yes, moderate by means of averages.
Gamestalker, If you're big enough, you can stand with one foot firmly on the ground on either side of the fence. Climbing the fence to sit on top is for little people. The vending machine idea is indeed a stretch and I also find it absurd, but I wanted an image that was equally absurd to balance the anti's outright ban on all firearms. I don't see either of those things ever happening and I suspect anyone that does think either one is likely to happen has probably worn a hat made of tin foil. (No offense intended to the tin foil fans)
geekWitha.45, Thank you for your vote of confidence, I have nothing to fill in your blanks with so I must be less of an anti than many here would have me believe.
Wgaynor, my rights were whittled away long ago. Sometimes "all or nothing" leaves you with nothing. I've already stated my thoughts on polarization.
Jason, I agree, but sometimes I like to get a good conversation going. I like to see why other people think the way they do. Even when they don't agree with me.
tuj, Ignoring the issue won't make it go away, even if it leads to the same place for 1000 people, sooner or later someone will phrase the question in a way that might hint at an answer. Consider me one of the infinite number of monkeys banging away at my keyboard.
orionengnr, It makes them career politicians.
Danz71, LOL! Well said.
Sam1911, I like "political agnostic," I might have to borrow it. OTOH, sometimes it's fun to be a moderate just for the reactions. Why is it that liberals thing you'll be easily brought over to their thinking and conservatives assume you are a closet liberal?
Barnbwt, I have to ask, how old were you when you finally clicked into one space or the other. I may have passed that age already.
Gamestalker, If you're big enough, you can stand with one foot firmly on the ground on either side of the fence. Climbing the fence to sit on top is for little people. The vending machine idea is indeed a stretch and I also find it absurd, but I wanted an image that was equally absurd to balance the anti's outright ban on all firearms. I don't see either of those things ever happening and I suspect anyone that does think either one is likely to happen has probably worn a hat made of tin foil. (No offense intended to the tin foil fans)
geekWitha.45, Thank you for your vote of confidence, I have nothing to fill in your blanks with so I must be less of an anti than many here would have me believe.
Wgaynor, my rights were whittled away long ago. Sometimes "all or nothing" leaves you with nothing. I've already stated my thoughts on polarization.
Jason, I agree, but sometimes I like to get a good conversation going. I like to see why other people think the way they do. Even when they don't agree with me.
tuj, Ignoring the issue won't make it go away, even if it leads to the same place for 1000 people, sooner or later someone will phrase the question in a way that might hint at an answer. Consider me one of the infinite number of monkeys banging away at my keyboard.
orionengnr, It makes them career politicians.
Danz71, LOL! Well said.
Sam1911, I like "political agnostic," I might have to borrow it. OTOH, sometimes it's fun to be a moderate just for the reactions. Why is it that liberals thing you'll be easily brought over to their thinking and conservatives assume you are a closet liberal?
Barnbwt, I have to ask, how old were you when you finally clicked into one space or the other. I may have passed that age already.
Last edited:
Jason_W
Member
I disagree. It's been made clear in the gun community that any POV that deviates even slightly from the lock-step party line is simply not tolerated within the gun community. look at what happened to Metcalf when he had the audacity to assert that all constitutional rights had limits places upon them (shouting fire in a crowded theater and all that).
The bottom line is that the long term survival of things like shooting, hunting, and fishing relies on new and young people getting into those activities. Right now, shooters are perceived as a bunch of angry middle aged/old white guys who rabidly foam at the mouth about Obama and the "libruls" every few minutes. We're not going to win newbies with that image. Sometimes I worry that we look like well-armed versions of the comic book guy from The Simpsons.
Sock Puppet
Member
I didn't say you you were suffering from a lack of convictions, I was speaking about my experience (which I clearly stated). I don't make personal attacks, and I don't know you. I also took care to specifically address how that related to being boxed in as a "conservative" and "liberal". My statement was about the "moderate" attitude, which generally means wait and see which side is going to win. There is a vast difference between principled beliefs that don't follow a party line and being a moderate.
Never said I identified your "prism", whatever that means. I commented on the words you chose to make an argument, which like it or not, says something about where you're coming from.
Welcome to THR.
Ignition Override
Member
ugaarguy and fellow shooters: There are some unique shades of gray.
The husband of one of my wife's friends is from Nashville. Although he was a Navy P-3 pilot in the 70's and worked his way up to squadron NATOPS (= Check Airman), his beliefs are a mixture.
He later was with the doomed Eastern Airlines and became an ALPA union rep. at their TPA crewbase.
The guy has a TN CCW and a .45 on his hip.
He votes Dem. and made the comment to me that "Every redneck has a gun", with a tone of disapproval. We only plinked together once, a few years ago and I was not prepared to offer a response to his sudden comment about what I call "country boys" with guns.
The husband of one of my wife's friends is from Nashville. Although he was a Navy P-3 pilot in the 70's and worked his way up to squadron NATOPS (= Check Airman), his beliefs are a mixture.
He later was with the doomed Eastern Airlines and became an ALPA union rep. at their TPA crewbase.
The guy has a TN CCW and a .45 on his hip.
He votes Dem. and made the comment to me that "Every redneck has a gun", with a tone of disapproval. We only plinked together once, a few years ago and I was not prepared to offer a response to his sudden comment about what I call "country boys" with guns.
I think that the time has come for people to make a choice, and then live with (or suffer) the consequences of that decision.
Keep in mind, you are deciding for ALL future generations when you do, and you don't have the advantage of foresight, to know what those generations will have to contend with, from a social, economic, political, resource, or world view. You don't know what dangers they will face, or relative freedoms they will enjoy. You don't know whether the world power balance will shift significantly, as it has several times in the last millennium.
No, you don't get the BENEFIT of foresight.
But you have to decide - and decide today - because today is when their rights are "on the line", about what is right for them.
So ... pick a side.
Will our great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren need to use their guns in defense of homeland, or self, or from a tyrannical new overlord of whatever origin?
This is what our forefathers had to figure out. And personally, I think they made a damn good choice.
I'm on the 155mm Howitzer camp, in case you haven't noted by previous posts I've made.
Keep in mind, you are deciding for ALL future generations when you do, and you don't have the advantage of foresight, to know what those generations will have to contend with, from a social, economic, political, resource, or world view. You don't know what dangers they will face, or relative freedoms they will enjoy. You don't know whether the world power balance will shift significantly, as it has several times in the last millennium.
No, you don't get the BENEFIT of foresight.
But you have to decide - and decide today - because today is when their rights are "on the line", about what is right for them.
So ... pick a side.
Will our great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren need to use their guns in defense of homeland, or self, or from a tyrannical new overlord of whatever origin?
This is what our forefathers had to figure out. And personally, I think they made a damn good choice.
I'm on the 155mm Howitzer camp, in case you haven't noted by previous posts I've made.
Thus the cynical sentence I had after the quote cut that you omitted.
But even those politi speak replies do speak to a certain issue. There is a non-insignificant number of gun owners that have a "sporting purposes" attitude toward guns. If its not for killing deer/ducks then they aren't too interested in it.
monotonous_iterancy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 915
Perhaps we need to define "moderate"? Is it someone who avoids convictions? Is it merely someone who is more concerned with good governance than advancing an ideology (like Dwight Eisenhower)? Or is it someone with a nuanced position? It seems like nuanced positions are rarer and rarer.
50 years ago, people could and did buymillions of handguns, autoloading rifles, etc, thru the mail, showing no ID,nothing but a name and a mailing address. that time frame was characterized by less violence than today, not more. it's not the access to guns, it's the mentality of the gun wielder that creates the problems.
Nonsense. Ever hear of "Fudds". Those that only care that their shotguns are safe.
And as to the OP, it's very much leftist liberal agenda vs conservatives.
I try not to see it as an "us against them" situation. Even in cases where it is, many times a person is against guns out of fear or unfamiliarity. A trip to the range with a 10/22 and a hundred rounds, and having the willingness to just keep your mouth shut about politics and just let someone think it out on their own, can make a lot of difference.
There are some people though who do fit the "take, take, take" description that Walkalong spoke of earlier. I think to counter those people, we should actively promote compromises that would actually get us something.
For example, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to purchase a suppressor, a 12" AR, or a short barreled lever action rifle as easily as anything else. Also, why shouldn't someone be able to purchase a machine gun and register it? To date, out of all the legal machine guns in this country, only one or two have ever been used in crimes. They're probably statistically the safest firearm and the safest group of firearms owners you can find.
On the surface, I find the need to register a machine gun at all as an infringement, but the next time someone starts talking "compromise" we should offer them one that reopens the NFA registry.
See how they like the taste of that!
While I'm generally opposed to giving anything up, I might be convinced to concede a little on something if we get something real in return.
There are some people though who do fit the "take, take, take" description that Walkalong spoke of earlier. I think to counter those people, we should actively promote compromises that would actually get us something.
For example, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to purchase a suppressor, a 12" AR, or a short barreled lever action rifle as easily as anything else. Also, why shouldn't someone be able to purchase a machine gun and register it? To date, out of all the legal machine guns in this country, only one or two have ever been used in crimes. They're probably statistically the safest firearm and the safest group of firearms owners you can find.
On the surface, I find the need to register a machine gun at all as an infringement, but the next time someone starts talking "compromise" we should offer them one that reopens the NFA registry.
See how they like the taste of that!
While I'm generally opposed to giving anything up, I might be convinced to concede a little on something if we get something real in return.
PiratePenguin
Member
As a skeptic, one of the tenets I hold most sacred is the idea that I might be wrong. That's actually one reason I recently became interested in guns—too many things didn't fit with the stories I was hearing from the control crowd. The reason I bring that up is that I do my best to make sure I challenge my viewpoints. Over on Reddit, I tried to engage a few of the gun control crowd and see what they could come up with.
Here's what I learned.
Guns (and gun owners) scare them. To many of the gun-control advocates I talked to, every gun owner is a ticking time bomb waiting to go off in a hail of bullets. Simply posting a picture of a gun might get you reported on one of the rabid gun control subreddits with a caption saying "when this Redditor snaps!" It doesn't matter that there's 40 million people in this country who manage to make it through every day without shooting someone in a fit of rage—the guy who shoots someone in the theater is their image of gun owners.
Because of this fear, they are willing to give away whatever rights it takes to get what they want. It's the same kind of thinking that brought us the TSA and the NSA.
They are not interested in compromise. I flat out asked one what level of gun control he thought we should have, and he answered with one word: "Britain". I saw another discussion going on where a gun control advocate proposed restrictions, and a gun owner asked what sort of compromise gun owners would get in return. The control advocate asked, "Why would we want to compromise?"
They are not interested in changing their mind. One person said he didn't want people to be able to have guns because they could just shoot anyone. I showed him the stats from Texas and explained how they showed that he was safer around a CCer than he was around the average member of the population. Rather than changing his mind, he changed his objection. Now he doesn't want guns because criminals might steal them.
The battle over the gun issue is being waged in the same way as the one over the abortion issue. The people that want to ban either are willing to do whatever it takes to make it so hard to get one legally that it amounts to a de facto ban. They will accept nothing short of achieving their ultimate goal.
So when the OP asks "is it really gun owners versus antis", I have to say that yes, that is indeed my experience.
Here's what I learned.
Guns (and gun owners) scare them. To many of the gun-control advocates I talked to, every gun owner is a ticking time bomb waiting to go off in a hail of bullets. Simply posting a picture of a gun might get you reported on one of the rabid gun control subreddits with a caption saying "when this Redditor snaps!" It doesn't matter that there's 40 million people in this country who manage to make it through every day without shooting someone in a fit of rage—the guy who shoots someone in the theater is their image of gun owners.
Because of this fear, they are willing to give away whatever rights it takes to get what they want. It's the same kind of thinking that brought us the TSA and the NSA.
They are not interested in compromise. I flat out asked one what level of gun control he thought we should have, and he answered with one word: "Britain". I saw another discussion going on where a gun control advocate proposed restrictions, and a gun owner asked what sort of compromise gun owners would get in return. The control advocate asked, "Why would we want to compromise?"
They are not interested in changing their mind. One person said he didn't want people to be able to have guns because they could just shoot anyone. I showed him the stats from Texas and explained how they showed that he was safer around a CCer than he was around the average member of the population. Rather than changing his mind, he changed his objection. Now he doesn't want guns because criminals might steal them.
The battle over the gun issue is being waged in the same way as the one over the abortion issue. The people that want to ban either are willing to do whatever it takes to make it so hard to get one legally that it amounts to a de facto ban. They will accept nothing short of achieving their ultimate goal.
So when the OP asks "is it really gun owners versus antis", I have to say that yes, that is indeed my experience.
CoalTrain49
Member
I haven't been here long but one of the great things about this forum is everyone gets to express their opinion without getting beat up.
There are some hard liners on both sides of the the gun control debate. I don't belong to the NRA because I don't believe in PAC's or unions. I do believe in being informed about issues and politician's positions on those issues. I generally vote pro gun but it isn't the only issue I'm concerned about. The statement that moderates are just not convinced enough to take a hard line for against an issue takes away ones right to not totally endorse either one. I'm a big believer in states rights and if the majority of the people, say for instance in MD, feel like they need gun control and lots of it then who am I to say they don't, I don't live there. Or the gov't you elect is the gov't you deserve. I also don't believe because they have onerous gun control in MD I'm going to see it where I live. We have a state constitution and I believe it will be honored. The real truth of the fed. constitution and 2A is being able to defend yourself against a tyrannical gov't. SCOTUS will never admit that because it is a branch of our gov't. As far as I'm concerned 2A carries no weight if SCOTUS isn't going to give it any. Congress just made another pass at fed. gun control and the house shut it down not because of 2A but because of voter backlash. I was paying attention to how my rep's voted and they will reap their just rewards in the next election.
Bottom line is I'm a veteran, a U.S. citizen and gun owner since 1964. I won't be swayed one way or the other by any us vs them philosophy. I have my own ideas about almost everything.
Oh, and thanks for letting me post this.
There are some hard liners on both sides of the the gun control debate. I don't belong to the NRA because I don't believe in PAC's or unions. I do believe in being informed about issues and politician's positions on those issues. I generally vote pro gun but it isn't the only issue I'm concerned about. The statement that moderates are just not convinced enough to take a hard line for against an issue takes away ones right to not totally endorse either one. I'm a big believer in states rights and if the majority of the people, say for instance in MD, feel like they need gun control and lots of it then who am I to say they don't, I don't live there. Or the gov't you elect is the gov't you deserve. I also don't believe because they have onerous gun control in MD I'm going to see it where I live. We have a state constitution and I believe it will be honored. The real truth of the fed. constitution and 2A is being able to defend yourself against a tyrannical gov't. SCOTUS will never admit that because it is a branch of our gov't. As far as I'm concerned 2A carries no weight if SCOTUS isn't going to give it any. Congress just made another pass at fed. gun control and the house shut it down not because of 2A but because of voter backlash. I was paying attention to how my rep's voted and they will reap their just rewards in the next election.
Bottom line is I'm a veteran, a U.S. citizen and gun owner since 1964. I won't be swayed one way or the other by any us vs them philosophy. I have my own ideas about almost everything.
Oh, and thanks for letting me post this.
Last edited:
jerkface11
Member
You mean when he called for gun control in a gun magazine.
Wow, the replies are coming much faster than I can keep up. Somehow I missed a few but I'll catch up,
Mike1234567, Thanks, good comments
Tuj and ugaarguy, Thanks, life wouldn't be much fun without an occasional heated debate. I chose this forum because it seems to be the one that can handle a little debate without getting too "silly." I've been in a lot of debates on a lot of forums since back before there was an internet. So far I've always handled the flames and never been banned, I'm not looking to change my record.
HoploDad, Absolutely, but "holes in paper" is more my thing
Steel Horse Rider, I think our founding fathers may have been to the left of the British throne. It's all relative.
Mike1234567, Thanks, good comments
Tuj and ugaarguy, Thanks, life wouldn't be much fun without an occasional heated debate. I chose this forum because it seems to be the one that can handle a little debate without getting too "silly." I've been in a lot of debates on a lot of forums since back before there was an internet. So far I've always handled the flames and never been banned, I'm not looking to change my record.
HoploDad, Absolutely, but "holes in paper" is more my thing
Steel Horse Rider, I think our founding fathers may have been to the left of the British throne. It's all relative.
I agree. "Sitting on the fence" just means too gutless to take a stand.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Our ages probably aren't all that different. I think geography definitely plays a part in it. I don't think I'm alone when I observe that many of us in the deep south and in flyover country have seen the erosion of your rights in NJ (and similar places) under the guises of "compromise", "common sense", and "public safety"; and we have taken a harder line stance to fight it from happening on the federal level or at our state levels.
I'm also a moderate / libertarian / political independent. As a great example of where I got to where I am, I was even once in favor of universal back ground checks. That was until I did a little more research on the issue. I learned that the NICS check wrongly denies thousands of people each year, and the exact number of those wrongful denials are just the ones who have the time and money to successfully appeal. Further, to be able to enforce any UBC law would require outright registration of guns and gun owners. Implementation of a UBC system would also expose personal information to unknown parties (I could call in a NICS check on you under the guise of a potential gun sale), or impose an undue financial hardship on the sale of personal property (fees collected if the UBC went through FFLs only).
Unfortunately, I agree that in your situation you might be able to compromise and get some rights back. On the other hand, you have little to give up to get back so much that has been taken away. The best hope I see is court cases such as Heller v DC, McDonald v Chicago, etc. You might also take the anti's tactic of false compromise and turn it on them. Start demanding everything back and then "compromise" by getting them to give you part of your rights back. Keep doing it bit by bit, every legislative session and election cycle. Take your rights back incrementally just as they were taken away.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument is a falsehood the anti's love to use. It's not illegal for you walk into a crowded theater with fully functional lungs, vocal cords, and mouth. It's not illegal for you to shout "FIRE!" in that crowded theater if there actually is a fire. It's not even illegal to shout "FIRE!" in that crowded theater if there isn't a fire. The crime you would charged with would be disorderly conduct, creating a public disturbance, or something similar. That's not a restriction of your right to free speech: That's a consequence for abusing your right to free speech.
In contrast, in states that don't issue carry permits, or don't allow carry into theaters, your right to self defense has been infringed. They have made it illegal for you to even have the means to lawfully defend yourself. I can legally carry into a theater in Georgia. If I shoot someone without justification in said theater I wouldn't be charged with "carrying a gun into a theater and then shooting someone". I'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and / or murder. Those aren't restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights. Those are consequences if I abuse my second amendment rights.
Taking the above point all the way through, the fact that I have to be fingerprinted and pay $75 in fees every five years to legally carry a firearm in GA is an infringement of my rights. Just think if one had to pay $75 every five years to prove they weren't a felon or illegal immigrant just so they could vote. Oh, wait, that would be a poll tax, and those have already been declared unconstitutional.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
