Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"

[Sam1911]

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.

I've read this a couple of times and I'm still really unclear what it means.

I'm not sure we need any more "middle-grounders" (unless we can win them solely from the ranks of the firm antis) because the undecided, the equivocal, the "ok, well, maybe, I guess" types really don't ACCOMPLISH things, politically. So, with the given that we're all trying to actually move the ball in a positive direction, it doesn't help us any to build up the ranks of those who don't really feel strongly about the issue, or who (if any such exist) are working diligently and with all their might to keep things quagmired here somewhere in the sad middle ground.

Politically, you have to push with all your might, hard and heavy, and endlessly, to make any ground at all. Even if you'd personally be content to get a little morsel of good news from the politicos, you have to play the hard line. Social inertia and active resistance will combine to try to decimate any gain you fight for, so to gain an inch you have to reach for a mile.

(So imagine how hard those of us who actually want the whole mile are pulling! )

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.

Again, can you explain what that means? What's a problem for you? The lack of moderates? Moderates aren't going to show up in Trenton to demand anything. They're moderate. By definition, they think things are kind of at least halfway ok, and while they might like things to be a little better, they aren't outraged enough to make life uncomfortable for those who've made the state the backward abyss it is.

I guarantee you could be welcomed into the ranks of those actually trying to DO something in Trenton. But don't expect them to be moderate on gun control.

 

[Walkalong]

One can be moderate on one issue, left leaning on another, libertarian on another, and right leaning on another one still. Not everyone is way left on all things or way right on all issues, etc, etc.

But as long as they are pro gun, they should be welcome in the pro gun camp, and we need to all work together on that issue. In other words, exactly what I said before, the pro gunners against the antis. We must hold firm on this.

Playing word games, like the antis love to do, will never change this. We must stand united on this one front, or all will be lost.

Divide and conquer is as old as civilization, and a game the antis are most excellent at doing. Some walk among us.

 

[JRH6856]

The us vs. them strategy is doomed to fail in the long run.

Since it is the strategy of both extremes, who wins? The moderates in the middle? The ones who don't really exist?

 

[JRH6856]

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.

It won't do it if they have no interest in shooting and don't want to go. Or do you take them at gunpoint?

 

[Sam1911]

I realized that I did not respond directly to the opening post, so here goes:

My problem with those last 6 words is that I don't see "gun owner" and "anti" as opposites.

That is true, for a couple of reasons.

I personally know of many people who do not own a single gun but have no problem with anyone who does own guns and supports their right to do so.

And that's great! Though I don't really expect a whole lot of help from them on voting day. If their vote helps us at all it is by happenstance. Like when someone who hates gay people happens to vote the same way I do because he thinks my anti-gun-control candidate will try to chase the gay people away. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

I also know people who do own guns but do not believe that everyone should have unlimited access to firearms and don't mind jumping through a few hoops in order to own their guns. Some would call that latter group both "gun owner" and "anti,"

The polite term is "worthless hypocrite," if you're looking to be specific.

I don't see gun ownership itself as being a defining characteristic, it's your view of gun control (or lack thereof that defines you).

On this one issue, yes. Unfortunately, that's come to be a "liberal" or "conservative" marker which I think does us more harm than good. (You'll note, we don't tolerate that kind of fence-building here.)

To me, the label "anti" represents the "nobody should own guns" crowd.

Well...that, and a pretty wide swath beyond that. You must include the "nobody should own this or that gun" crowd as anits, don't you think? And the "nobody should have their gun in public" crowd, certainly. North of that line I guess it might get a little "grey." Is a "universal background check" supporter truly "ANTI?" Well, no. The friend of my enemy is who, again?

The opposite of this is the folks that feel you should be able to purchase guns from vending machines, no questions asked, no ID required, etc.

Ahhh, so "normal" folks? Those who feel the law was ok prior to 1968 when the government told us we were all about to get so much safer and more ... controlled?

I'm guessing that there are many Americans that fall somewhere between these two extremes. They are the shades of grey, the moderates. To tell these people that they must be either a "gun owner," and therefore, automatically, 100% against any form of gun control, or an "anti" who want's to take away everyone's guns, must be more than a little off-putting.

Well... we can coat it all with as much sugar as it takes, and I do firmly believe in the realpolitik that says you get the VOTES you can wherever you can however you can. In the end, it is the result that counts. If that means we have to gentle along our less cognizant brethren, so be it.

I've seen many threads here (and elsewhere) that wonder why there are 40 million gun owners but only 4.5 million NRA members. I suspect that there are a whole lot of gun owners who chose not to be represented by the NRA-ILA.

There are some who definitely have made a decision that they do not like the NRA-ILA and will not "be represented" by them. We even have some of those folks as members here. There are MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY more (millions) of gun owners who just do not friggin' care about the law or their RKBA. Don't think about it, don't know about it, don't want to. Other things are on their minds, politically, and their gun ownership is just a random minor facet of their life, like their preference for wine over beer or whatever. I'm reading a book right now about a fellow who traveled throughout the country with his wife in an RV, and he casually mentions that he carried along his .357 mag. Just lists it in along with the other stuff he packed, like a spare jack and extra pair of glasses. Now, he could have been in severe trouble in a few spots because of that, but having a gun wasn't a "thing" for him, so he didn't stop and research the laws in all those places he'd go, and would have been oh-so-surprised to find out suddenly that it was a big friggin' deal and maybe he should care. He's one of millions. Mostly they stay off the radar, and mostly they go on not caring. What'cha gonna do?

Keep in mind, conservatives usually vote conservative and liberals usually vote liberal, they cancel each other out. The outcome of any election is in the hands of the moderates who could go either way.

Yup. One thing we can try to do is break down the lib-v-con aspect and try to wrench the gun control plank out of the lib platform. Then we don't have to care which way folks want to throw their vote. But that seems like a long, long row to hoe.

 

[Dolmar]

The system is turning more in favor of criminals every day just because people who don't understand firearms and the responsibility that comes with ownership can't make the distinction between the gun and the trigger puller. I have young children and I worry about sending them to school with all of the nastiness that seems to be plaguing our nation over the last few years. On the other hand I would not want to leave my home defenseless from people who don't care about the rights of my family to be safe. Sandy Hook took me off of the fence and put me a 100% in the pro gun camp as far as ownership rights go. The other thing it did for me and seemed to have been lost on the politicians and media was bring home the fact that the mental health issues in this country have gone on to full blown crisis. Unfortunately nobody wants to talk about that it seems.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

I used to be what I would call a conservative Democrat. No more, I consider me to be an anti Democrat. In the past two years i have written all my representatives about how I am against anymore gun control laws. They all in so many words have told me to go away and good riddance. I have kept my voter registration as Dem only to vote and hopefully help screw the the works by voting in the primaries to have the least qualified person run against a Republican candidate. More people should try and use this tactic if their state voting laws allow it. I am just mad at myself for voting in a way that was detrimental to my gun rights. If the antis can have all their illegal voters sign up on election day, what prevents us from changing party affiliation and voting in a Democratic candidate or even writing in a canidate that has no chance of winning an election. Think about it and use any legal tactic to our advantage, the anti's do. Fight fire with fire.

 

[Dolmar]

I used to be what I would call a conservative Democrat. No more, I consider me to be an anti Democrat. In the past two years i have written all my representatives about how I am against anymore gun control laws. They all in so many words have told me to go away and good riddance. I have kept my voter registration as Dem only to vote and hopefully help screw the the works by voting in the primaries to have the least qualified person run against a Republican candidate. More people should try and use this tactic if their state voting laws allow it. I am just mad at myself for voting in a way that was detrimental to my gun rights. If the antis can have all their illegal voters sign up on election day, what prevents us from changing party affiliation and voting in a Democratic candidate or even writing in a canidate that has no chance of winning an election. Think about it and use any legal tactic to our advantage, the anti's do. Fight fire with fire.

Not a bad idea.

 

[DavidMS]

I would be a moderate if the antis would negoate in good faith

The problem I have is that there is no one to negotiate with. I increasingly believe that many opponents of gun ownership do not argue from/with reason. There are a few other social issues like this unfortunately where its a matter of ideology on one side. I had an encounter with an anti online and it was clear that the didn't know what we wanted, but I knew what they wanted.

As for myself, if UBCs are cheap, anonymous and with a very low error rate, I would support them. I'd like to see restrictions on firearm mufflers loosened and the Hughes Amendment repealed. People should have an evidence based method for getting off the firearms blacklist. For state level bans, if its legal for police possession, then it should be legal for civilian ownership provided it does not conflict with Miller (protection of civilian ownership of individual arms suitable for militia duty).

I just wish there was someone on the other side we could negotiate with in good faith.

 

[BSA1]

Those that argue for gun owners to continue to “compromise” on gun control neither understand the isues our founding fathers fought for and the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2A is the lynchpin for ALL of our other rights. It has been shown time and time again that without arms the people are unable to defend their freedom and themselves against tyrants.

For the last five years America has been making a hard turn towards Socialism. The effects are finally beginning to hit home with the cost of Obamacare and the resulting decrease in number of Doctors. Having effectively taken control of citizens lives with healthcare guns will the next big target. In fact Assistant Caesar Joe Biden has already publically told American citizens the only kind of gun they will be allowed to own in the New Order;

"Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun," Biden responded. "I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

The vice president said that by firing two shotgun blasts, anyone who might be trying to break in would be scared off.

"You don't need an AR-15," he said. "Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"*

Not only did the Assistant Caesar clearly state what type of firearm citizens will be allowed to own but he also makes it clear that shooting a attacker in self-defense will be illegal.

This issue really is as simple as black and white. To say otherwise is to say your are willing to give up your liberty for the false promise of security.

Distrust is built into any democracy as a way to prevent the abuse of power by a few even if the system itself requires public trust.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve either one. - Benjamin Franklin

* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/joe-biden-guns_n_2719330.html

 

[rdhood]

Yes, it is the gun owners againt the anti's. There is no moderate middle ground. There is only further infringement that is possible. Look at New York or Chicago. That is what your "middle ground" gets you. The empirical evidence of the blue states and the anti gun movements in those states and cities of this country prove the point that the gun owners make: there is no middle ground. Where was the middle ground in Washington DC before Heller? Hint: you couldn't own a useable gun. Period. THAT is the middle ground that the anti's are reaching for. LET ME REPEAT THAT SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR THE ANTIS. When was the last time you heard "moderate" antis wanting to loosen some gun laws? How about NEVER?

YOU, OP and others, want to paint this is a "middle ground" problem for gun owners. You have it all wrong. There is no middle ground for THEIR side. PERIOD. THEY will not stop. It is the stated intention of too many in the anti movement to get rid of all guns. PERIOD. In the face of that , we must stand against all further infringements, as there is not "middle ground" at which they will stop (again, see Washington DC, pre-Heller).



Sorry, but this is a Constitutional right. You up for some additional infringements on your other Constitutional rights? How about we start with your right to free speech? Or maybe we only quarter troops in your house for one weekend a month? And then when they have one weekend in your home... why not a whole week?

Save your "moderate" speech. That is the prelude to the next infringement.

 

[easyg]

Maybe we should try this argument against the anti 2nd Amendment crowd....

If you take our guns, so that we can no longer fight against a tyrannical government, we're just going to start making bombs and IEDs.

After all, the 2nd Amendment is about giving the people of this nation the tools needed to wage war against our own government, should that government become tyrannical.

Rifles, pistols, Molotov cocktails, bombs, IEDs...they're all just tools.

 

[Mike1234567]

Define a moderate? Probably a pragmatist... one who seeks and expects verification of data before reaching a conclusion.

 

[goon]

One thing we can try to do is break down the lib-v-con aspect and try to wrench the gun control plank out of the lib platform. Then we don't have to care which way folks want to throw their vote. But that seems like a long, long row to hoe.

It gets less difficult every time we do it.
I actually think it's the only strategy that's going to work. Tying the protection of the RKBA to only one party virtually assures that our side will lose eventually. It is inevitable that conservatives will lose and that liberals will win big again eventually, whether it happens this year, 2016, fifty years from now. It will happen.

Another thing - people need to stop making blanket "liberals hate guns" type statements. The fact is that once upon a time a guy who'd actually signed an assault weapons ban into law while he was governor was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. That guy's name was Mitt Romney. When I bring that up, conservatives look at me like I'm speaking a foreign language... because to admit that I'm right is to admit that they voted for an anti-gun candidate.
Lots of players on both sides of the aisle deserve a slice of the guilt for attacks against the RKBA.

 

[JRH6856]

[Quote:
Look at what happened to Metcalf when he had the audacity to assert that all constitutional rights had limits places upon them]
You mean when he called for gun control in a gun magazine.

Yes. And if you don't see the problem with that, then that is part of the problem.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Once the data that those on the left of center want to make us subjects instead of citizens when they disarm us how are you ever going to get the right to defend yourself back???

 

[PiratePenguin]

Just got this one dropped on me.

"YES! you will have road rage, or your wife will leave you , or you will stop drinking, or you will find out your kid has a gay latin lover from argentina, or you will get a testosterone shot from the doctor to help you get hard, I don't care what the excuse will be after you shoot me, but there is always that ******* who shoots someone for text messaging."

That's what we're facing. That's what they think of gun owners.

 

[Mike1234567]

I'm a gun-toting Independent... my Texas roots. I'm not on the fence about 2A but I sometimes am about other things... usually economic issues. I tend to be pragmatic although I am passionate about many things such as the right to life and issuance of the death penalty when truly merited. Like many other folks, I have a mixed bag of beliefs who many here would say "lacks convictions". I don't lack convictions. I take my stand when I'm sure I have all the facts straight. I don't allow whatever brainwashing I received in school (or wherever) during my childhood and see via mass media daily to control my ideals. Sometimes I do lose some self-control and say things I shouldn't when I feel particularly passionate about something. But then I sober-up and think more logically and do my best to sort through the facts.

 

[Mike1234567]

Just got this one dropped on me.

"YES! you will have road rage, or your wife will leave you , or you will stop drinking, or you will find out your kid has a gay latin lover from argentina, or you will get a testosterone shot from the doctor to help you get hard, I don't care what the excuse will be after you shoot me, but there is always that ******* who shoots someone for text messaging."

That's what we're facing. That's what they think of gun owners.

 

[goon]

PiratePenguin - I had a guy who has a criminal record for assault try to tell me that I was the dangerous one for arguing that banning semi-automatic rifles is a pointless restriction. He got mad at a friend that a business deal had gone bad with and severely beat the guy.
So he, and another guy with a similar point of view, tried to convince me that I was the problem before they went off to use some illegal drugs.

The people who make this argument likely have a problem with controlling themselves so they assume that no one can be in complete control.

 

[stevek]

DaveTBG,
We were very involved in the fight in NJ, and attended many of the rallies/protests in Trenton. My wife and I were very involved when we lived there, and are both NRA Certified Instructors. My advice to you would be to contact ANJRPC if you haven't already, and get involved.

That said, There are some things that require an all in, or all out approach. Considering how much we have already lost, there is really not anymore to give. The anti-gun side is not interested in facts, statistics, or outcomes. EVERY state that has become "shall issue" has seen violent crime go down. Doesn't matter to them in the least. Chris Christie is a "moderate Republican", and one of the first things his AG did in the first term was knock down any discussion of loosening the restrictions regarding the FOID, carry, etc.

I wish you luck, but considering the voting base in NJ now, I am fearful for my children and grandchildren that still live there. And on a personal note, now that we are living in WV, it really pains me that my wife and I have to be disarmed to visit them, despite our CCW from three states, and having a NJ FOID.

As a final point, FOR THIS ISSUE, at this point in time it really is all in or all out. Don't let the other issues cloud your vision.

By way of full disclosure, I am a Conservative Constitutionalist.

 

[JRH6856]

The fact is that once upon a time a guy who'd actually signed an assault weapons ban into law while he was governor was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. That guy's name was Mitt Romney.

I missed that one. I thought you were going to say "Ronald Reagan."

 

[TanklessPro]

"Gun owners vs antis?" The answer is yes. Next question.........

 

[toivo]

The anti-gun side is engaged in culture war, and they want to go all the way. All the "reasonable restrictions" talk is plain lying. It's their attempt to win over the middle-ground. It's a poorly-kept secret that they would like nothing better than to repeal the Second Amendment and then outlaw private ownership of firearms. I'm not talking here about everyone who wants more gun laws, but about the people who are driving that bus and will gladly lie to the moderates to get them on board.

I'm a moderate on many issues and am probably to the left of most of the people on this forum on just about any issue you want to name. But not on gun rights. That's a fundamental freedom that should never be bargained away.

Crime is a red herring: gun bans don't deter criminals and don't keep average citizens safe. This is a culture war waged by those who want to impose the will of a government that shares their beliefs on individual citizens who don't share those beliefs.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Look at what happened to Metcalf when he had the audacity to assert that all constitutional rights had limits places upon them]
You mean when he called for gun control in a gun magazine.

Yes. And if you don't see the problem with that, then that is part of the problem.

Go against your employer's expressed interests and see how long you keep your job. Metcalf wasn't imprisoned. He did not lose his 1st Amendment rights.