I've had relatively few people who were interested in guns ask to go with me. Usually, I've offered to take them. I've never had anyone who was new to guns walk away from the range in a bad mood though. Still think a 10/22 and a few boxes of ammo is a very underrated tool for diplomacy.
Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"
- Thread starter Dave TBG
- Start date
- Status
JRH6856
Member
It reminds me of the 6 blind men and the elephant. We all have different experiences from which we try to form a picture of the whole, but we paint different pictures. This is also true of the "anti" side. It's like having several different jigsaw puzzles jumbled together. The only way to see the true pictures is to examine all of the different pieces, put together the ones that fiet together and discard the ones that don't fit anywhere.
But these days, it is not an inexpensive one.
But these days, it is not an inexpensive one.
CoalTrain49
Member
I think it has to do with the state constitution and the state supreme court. If the constitution is loosely worded the court may decide that local code can preempt the state constitution just as the U.S. supreme court did with 2A. That's one of the reasons each state has varying degrees of gun control. Some state supreme courts have decided that state code preempts any city or county code. That's what happened here in WA. I'm sure VT would be just like the rest of NE except for one small problem. The people that want more gun control there can't get around state code which is pretty clear. It's pretty hard to get a decision overturned once it becomes law.
New Hampshire and Maine seem to be holding their own.
Also, not too long ago there was an effort in Burlington to enact an "assault weapons" ban and a large number of people showed up to protest. In the end though, you're right that the preemption law played a large part in stopping Burlington from trying to enact the law.
I don't live in VT, but I was considering moving there at one point so I was looking into this.
CoalTrain49
Member
Interesting observation. It might have something to do with population density. If you look at a map of red and blue states they more or less follow density patterns. In 1850 the only thing that existed was the rural south and the industrialized north with the denser population in the north. I think that created a huge cultural divide. Something like what we have now and the reason nothing happens in congress anymore. So gun use and ownership has more or less become a moral issue just like slavery was before the civil war. I'm not saying the two should be considered in the same light because I think just about all of us agree that slavery shouldn't exist but there seems to be a lot of moral issues these days that stay in the news and won't go away. Which gets to the us vs them that started this thread or the I'm right and you're wrong position where it usually ends up. For me less gun control is better which is why I live where I do and vote the way I do. But I really can't see how you force that on someone that lives in say MD that wouldn't touch a gun if it was the only thing between them and dying. The problem I have is someone like that dictating to me their idea of what's moral and what isn't. That goes for a lot of other things to.
I can only see the cultural divide getting wider unfortunately.
Last edited:
SilentStalker
Member
Welcome. What an awesome first post. Seriously, I love reading stuff like this and others opinions.
My response is this, it doesn't matter whether you are far left or far right, black or white, whatever, the Constitution is clear. The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right that is unique to our country. I am very hardline on this because it doesn't say one can possess a handgun if he/she passes said test and all gov requirements. Add whatever requirement you want on there. Its very clear and simplistic on purpose. The problem I see with all of this is that it shouldn't even be up for discussion. We should not be having to fight for a right that is clearly defined as being ours yet someone is constantly chipping away at the 2nd amendment. As far as I can see gun owners, no matter what side you are on, have been compromising for many many years.
Now, if they want to change the BOR, there are steps that can be taken to change the Constitution. So far, I have not seen anyone do that on a 2nd amendment issue. They always circumvent it and somehow get away with making crazy laws, all in the guise of compromise. However, IMO, if we start amending The Constitution into oblivion then we might as well just get rid of it and start over. You get rid of one right then you got to get rid of them all and start over. Otherwise, its never going to work.
And for what its worth this country has been in trouble for quite some time. The moment stuff has to be hidden within bills to get passed is the moment the country starts to fall. We have already passed that point. Nobody can pass anything for what it is these days. It all has to be disguised and pushed as something that its not. That's the problem. How can anyone vote correctly on an issue when its being presented as something else. That is plain wrong, but seems to be the way things are done these days. If it can't be passed for what it is and have the people vote on it then it doesn't deserve to come to the table. No, the problem is not necessarily the sides, its the leaders of this great nation who have lost their way. They may go to Washington as great individuals but it seems they always become and leave as something else.
My response is this, it doesn't matter whether you are far left or far right, black or white, whatever, the Constitution is clear. The 2nd amendment is an inalienable right that is unique to our country. I am very hardline on this because it doesn't say one can possess a handgun if he/she passes said test and all gov requirements. Add whatever requirement you want on there. Its very clear and simplistic on purpose. The problem I see with all of this is that it shouldn't even be up for discussion. We should not be having to fight for a right that is clearly defined as being ours yet someone is constantly chipping away at the 2nd amendment. As far as I can see gun owners, no matter what side you are on, have been compromising for many many years.
Now, if they want to change the BOR, there are steps that can be taken to change the Constitution. So far, I have not seen anyone do that on a 2nd amendment issue. They always circumvent it and somehow get away with making crazy laws, all in the guise of compromise. However, IMO, if we start amending The Constitution into oblivion then we might as well just get rid of it and start over. You get rid of one right then you got to get rid of them all and start over. Otherwise, its never going to work.
And for what its worth this country has been in trouble for quite some time. The moment stuff has to be hidden within bills to get passed is the moment the country starts to fall. We have already passed that point. Nobody can pass anything for what it is these days. It all has to be disguised and pushed as something that its not. That's the problem. How can anyone vote correctly on an issue when its being presented as something else. That is plain wrong, but seems to be the way things are done these days. If it can't be passed for what it is and have the people vote on it then it doesn't deserve to come to the table. No, the problem is not necessarily the sides, its the leaders of this great nation who have lost their way. They may go to Washington as great individuals but it seems they always become and leave as something else.
Nighteyes
Member
After weeks of careful consideration, I find that I have something to say. This is NOT likely to help me "win friends and influence people" on this Board. Nevertheless, fasten your seatbelts and place your seat-backs and tray-tables into their full, upright, and most-uncomfortable positions, 'cause here they come.
===========================
FIRST: I am a gun-owner and have been since (even before) the moment I was legally able to own a firearm. I strongly support the Second Amendment, and have been a thoughtful and observant student of Second-Amendment and, more importantly, overall Bill-of-Rights issues, for the past 30+ years.
======================
SECOND: I strongly object to the way this entire issue has been framed: black/white, win/lose, either/or, right/wrong, good/bad, live/die.
This framing is UNDERSTANDABLE, because that's how the most primitive, pre-human (aka "monkey-brain"), portion of the human brain is wired.
This framing is UNFORGIVABLE, because it positions the arguments in such a way that the only resolution comes from WAR!!!! Of course, since we are talking citizen-against-citizen, what we're really talking about is civil war. We've gone down that path before, to the long-term detriment of all. (I don't know about y'all, but I really don't want to go down that road ever again...)
Such framing is STUPID, because even the most cursory (yet objective and logical) examination of the issues shows that other, far more civilized/genteel, options are available.
===========================
THIRD: Exhaustive real-world research has shown that such binary, "monkey-brain", either-or thinking has led directly into some of humankind's worst moments (the American Civil War notwithstanding). The same real-world research has also shown that the simple expedient of substituting the word "AND" for the word "OR" has led to some of humankind's greatest achievements.
===========================
FIRST: I am a gun-owner and have been since (even before) the moment I was legally able to own a firearm. I strongly support the Second Amendment, and have been a thoughtful and observant student of Second-Amendment and, more importantly, overall Bill-of-Rights issues, for the past 30+ years.
======================
SECOND: I strongly object to the way this entire issue has been framed: black/white, win/lose, either/or, right/wrong, good/bad, live/die.
This framing is UNDERSTANDABLE, because that's how the most primitive, pre-human (aka "monkey-brain"), portion of the human brain is wired.
This framing is UNFORGIVABLE, because it positions the arguments in such a way that the only resolution comes from WAR!!!! Of course, since we are talking citizen-against-citizen, what we're really talking about is civil war. We've gone down that path before, to the long-term detriment of all. (I don't know about y'all, but I really don't want to go down that road ever again...)
Such framing is STUPID, because even the most cursory (yet objective and logical) examination of the issues shows that other, far more civilized/genteel, options are available.
===========================
THIRD: Exhaustive real-world research has shown that such binary, "monkey-brain", either-or thinking has led directly into some of humankind's worst moments (the American Civil War notwithstanding). The same real-world research has also shown that the simple expedient of substituting the word "AND" for the word "OR" has led to some of humankind's greatest achievements.
Mike1234567
member
^^^ Some wars MUST be fought... monkey-brained or not. And although we suffer long-term deficits due to the CW... the long-term benefits far outweigh those.
Nighteyes
Member
DANG! Hit the wrong button and destroyed my otherwise-succinct presentation!
My point was, and is, the situation we're facing IS NOT "Either/Or" unless we choose to make it so. And if we do make such a choice, we must also understand that the only resolution of such a self-imposed binary situation is:
Simply put, I won't go there, and will actively resist any movement to take us there. Why? Because we haven't used the power of AND....
Example: "How can we ensure our Second Amendment Rights AND protect the populace against such gun-related tragedies as [fill in any example -- there are hundreds]?
With regards to all and enmity to none,
-- Nighteyes
My point was, and is, the situation we're facing IS NOT "Either/Or" unless we choose to make it so. And if we do make such a choice, we must also understand that the only resolution of such a self-imposed binary situation is:
WAR!!!!!!
Simply put, I won't go there, and will actively resist any movement to take us there. Why? Because we haven't used the power of AND....
Example: "How can we ensure our Second Amendment Rights AND protect the populace against such gun-related tragedies as [fill in any example -- there are hundreds]?
With regards to all and enmity to none,
-- Nighteyes
Nighteyes
Member
Mike,
Are you willing to kill your neighbors and cousins and brothers and sisters over this? If so, and with all due respect, may God have mercy...
-- Nighteyes (a rational defender of the Second Amendment)
PS: If you are, then "Hello, Monkey-Brain! You are a victim of the binary delusion..."
Are you willing to kill your neighbors and cousins and brothers and sisters over this? If so, and with all due respect, may God have mercy...
-- Nighteyes (a rational defender of the Second Amendment)
PS: If you are, then "Hello, Monkey-Brain! You are a victim of the binary delusion..."
Jason_W
Member
Try outreach before war.
Non hunters and non gun owners are always very surprised to learn that I'm a hunter and gun owner. In modern speak, that's what we call a teachable moment. I ask them why they're surprised that I'm a hunter and shooter. At that point an actual conversation might happen.
Non hunters and non gun owners are always very surprised to learn that I'm a hunter and gun owner. In modern speak, that's what we call a teachable moment. I ask them why they're surprised that I'm a hunter and shooter. At that point an actual conversation might happen.
Nighteyes
Member
Simply put, "BINGO!"
Mike1234567
member
Nighteyes... calm down a bit.
My brothers are both thieves but they don't support slavery. If this was the middle of the 19th century and they supported slavery then yes... I would be on the opposite side. Would I fight them if we came face-to-face? No, and I'm sure they wouldn't harm me either.
What would you have done back then? Straddle the fence and continue "diplomacy" for the next hundred years? Life isn't that simple... especially for those who are so deeply wronged.
Am I suggesting CW regards to 2A? No... and most level-headed folks aren't. Would we fight to the death if it really came to that? Yes, many would. Our forefathers fought for our freedoms. What makes us so much more special and refined than them?
Call me a monkey-brain all you like. It doesn't bother me because I know you're extremely passionate about this topic. But one thing that defines our wits is our ability to calmly listen and debate without resorting to name-calling.
My brothers are both thieves but they don't support slavery. If this was the middle of the 19th century and they supported slavery then yes... I would be on the opposite side. Would I fight them if we came face-to-face? No, and I'm sure they wouldn't harm me either.
What would you have done back then? Straddle the fence and continue "diplomacy" for the next hundred years? Life isn't that simple... especially for those who are so deeply wronged.
Am I suggesting CW regards to 2A? No... and most level-headed folks aren't. Would we fight to the death if it really came to that? Yes, many would. Our forefathers fought for our freedoms. What makes us so much more special and refined than them?
Call me a monkey-brain all you like. It doesn't bother me because I know you're extremely passionate about this topic. But one thing that defines our wits is our ability to calmly listen and debate without resorting to name-calling.
Last edited:
Nighteyes
Member
To All:
My point, which momentarily got lost, is this:
"How can we assure the Second Amendment rights of the populace AND ensure the safety rights of all?"
To any who would argue against any limitation on the Second Amendment, I will simply point out the limitations that have, for the past several decades, been imposed on the First Amendment (among others). In other words, for the good of all people, ANY Constitutional Right can have limits imposed upon it. The question is, as always, where those limits are drawn.
I could, but will not, delve into the details of how our "right to keep and bear arms" has already been limited by law. Nor will I detail the many unsuccessful Constitutional challenges to said limitations.
What I am saying is this -- Hear me, people! -- we can either be willing participants in this discussion (thereby assuring our rights), or we can be on the outside of this discussion (thereby allowing others to specifiy our rights).
In the final analysis, which course will you take? Will you take the binary, us-or-them, approach that can only lead to WAR!??? Or will you take the reasoned, this-AND-that approach -- the one that can lead us into the future?
Regards to all and enmity to none,
-- Nighteyes
My point, which momentarily got lost, is this:
"How can we assure the Second Amendment rights of the populace AND ensure the safety rights of all?"
To any who would argue against any limitation on the Second Amendment, I will simply point out the limitations that have, for the past several decades, been imposed on the First Amendment (among others). In other words, for the good of all people, ANY Constitutional Right can have limits imposed upon it. The question is, as always, where those limits are drawn.
I could, but will not, delve into the details of how our "right to keep and bear arms" has already been limited by law. Nor will I detail the many unsuccessful Constitutional challenges to said limitations.
What I am saying is this -- Hear me, people! -- we can either be willing participants in this discussion (thereby assuring our rights), or we can be on the outside of this discussion (thereby allowing others to specifiy our rights).
In the final analysis, which course will you take? Will you take the binary, us-or-them, approach that can only lead to WAR!??? Or will you take the reasoned, this-AND-that approach -- the one that can lead us into the future?
Regards to all and enmity to none,
-- Nighteyes
Nighteyes
Member
For those of us who aren't deep thinkers:
GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR BINARY ("Monkey-Brain") MINDSET, and start using your head for something other than a hat-rack!!!!
Have I made myself reasonably clear here?
[Friends, move into the broom-closet on your left. Enemies, move into the auditorium on your right...]
GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR BINARY ("Monkey-Brain") MINDSET, and start using your head for something other than a hat-rack!!!!
Have I made myself reasonably clear here?
[Friends, move into the broom-closet on your left. Enemies, move into the auditorium on your right...]
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Nighteyes, I tend to agree. dialogue has a chance of working, while diatribe does not. Now, If you'll move that broom out of the way...
I'd suggest that rather than going down this path, we could just as easily redraw state borders and leave the RKBA issue to each state to determine independently. I could still serve in the military with guys from NYC or respond to wildfires in California even if our government were a little less centralized.
Just ain't no way you're going to come up with a nationwide strategy that makes everyone happy. And maybe we shouldn't. All it does is end up with trying to force what you want down someone else's throat. I support the right of New Yorkers to bear arms, but the NY courts say that means something different than the courts in other states. So though I don't necessarily like it, I'd rather just let NY do its own thing, and let Montana do its own thing, and let Texas do its own thing, etc.
The one size fits all thing is a big part of this problem.
Allow states to redraw their borders if they need to and make the law that they see fit, loosen the federal alliance a little, and let everyone get on with their business.
No need to get so nasty about this.
Just ain't no way you're going to come up with a nationwide strategy that makes everyone happy. And maybe we shouldn't. All it does is end up with trying to force what you want down someone else's throat. I support the right of New Yorkers to bear arms, but the NY courts say that means something different than the courts in other states. So though I don't necessarily like it, I'd rather just let NY do its own thing, and let Montana do its own thing, and let Texas do its own thing, etc.
The one size fits all thing is a big part of this problem.
Allow states to redraw their borders if they need to and make the law that they see fit, loosen the federal alliance a little, and let everyone get on with their business.
No need to get so nasty about this.
JRH6856
Member
The type of federalism you are talking about ended during Reconstruction. We really no longer have a federal republic, but a national republic. When the 14th amendment created national citizenship and opened the door to incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, it turned the initial purpose of the Bill of Rights (to protect against a despotic national government) on its head and made the national government the natural protector of the individual's rights against despotic state governments. Appeals to the intent of the founders sounds nice, but the form of government they intended ended 145 years ago.
Mike1234567
member
He won't take the few moments necessary to absorb and understand your intent.
Mike1234567
member
We did that with the issue of slavery once upon a time... and segregation. Sometimes there's just no choice...
If I could do one thing here, its that I suggest everyone read Adam Winkler's book Gun Fight. He talks about the history of the 2A from inception all the way up to and including DC versus Heller. He gives a very good history of gun laws, and a good history of the NRA, both pre and post-1977 convention. Winkler is not a staunch 2A-er nor is he an 'anti'. He is just a historian.
For example, Winkler cites that in the late 1800's there was no firearm law more common than bans on concealed carry. And yet now some states will give anyone a CCW permit. So the slippery slope argument that a lot of people like to make isn't historically true.
There are 280 million+ guns in this country. Its logistically impossible to take them all away.
For example, Winkler cites that in the late 1800's there was no firearm law more common than bans on concealed carry. And yet now some states will give anyone a CCW permit. So the slippery slope argument that a lot of people like to make isn't historically true.
There are 280 million+ guns in this country. Its logistically impossible to take them all away.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
We are one big country now and the states are required to be small reflections of the larger nation.
larryh1108
Member
Nighteyes
Member
Join Date: October 19, 2013
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
What am I missing here?
Do as you say, not as you do?
Double speak?
What?
PiratePenguin
Member
While I agree with the idea of reaching out to the undecided and the unfamiliar—that's how we'll "win"—go back and read some of the quotes I posted earlier and ask yourself if they sound like people willing to talk.
Compromise and discussion requires two sides.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
