Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pro / Anti Where do we agree?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by NorthernExtreme, Dec 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    Just a shot in the dark; but knowing we all live in the same Country go to the same Schools, Shop at the same malls, and live next to one another, Can we find anything to agree on? 2nd Amendment / Gun related. I hate to see otherwise good people at each others throats when there may be something we can shake hands on.

    Any takers?
     
  2. Harry Tuttle

    Harry Tuttle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,093
    Criminals using guns to hurt people is bad

    My one of my "issues" with the anti mind set,
    is that many see lawful gun owners as potential criminals.
     
  3. tn 1911

    tn 1911 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    13
    First, I’m pro gun period. I have a spotless record and will do all I can to keep it that way. I’ve had my own firearms since the age of twelve, my father said no BB guns, they are toys that get kids into trouble. At twelve with training I could own a .22 rifle.

    I don’t think the pro/anti’s will ever find neutral ground, if that were possible, they would have done so with the AWB, or scary looking rifle ban. We have more than enough laws restricting firearm ownership and laws protecting the citizens who choose not to own firearms.

    The anti gun groups will never be happy with restrictions they’ve placed on us already. If they would be, they’d say so and then go away. What they want is, not one firearm in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Since this is known by anyone even slightly interested in gun rights, gun owners can never find a middle ground with these people. They have proven time and time again they aren’t interested in compromise, current laws or gun owners rights. It will be a total ban or nothing; I’ve slowly changed my opinions over the years. My opinion now, fight anything they propose, tooth and nail.

    Michael
     
  4. TrapperReady

    TrapperReady Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,732
    What I've observed is that the line between the pro-gun and anti-gun camps is wide and well-defined. In that way, it is similar to religion, politics and abortion. Well-educated people (often within the same family) may look at such issues and come away with widely divergent views.

    In such cases, with passions flaring, it usually takes some fundamental paradigm shift in thinking to reach consensus. For example, I've got one family member who has long been against firearms for anything other than hunting (and then, only grudgingly). However, this past Thanksgiving, we spent quite a while discussing the defensive use of handguns and shotguns. Why? Due to unforseen circumstances, she finds herself living alone and fairly isolated. She has read the local papers and it finally dawned on her that bad stuff does happen in her neck of the woods. Next time she visits, we're heading to the range for a few hours of instruction and familiarization. Go figure!

    It will be interesting to see how things work out over time. On the one hand, we've got the AWB and some ridiculous stuff happening in certain cities and states. On the other hand, we now have the vast majority of the states permitting CCW, and the movement seems to be towards wider acceptance and more inclusive issuance.

    As a gun-owner, I think my best effect is to work on a personal level with those around me. I've spoken with several friends who are hunters, but for the AWB... because "it just doesn't seem that regular people need those". I then take great pains to explain that I shoot highpower matches and give them a little history on the DCM/CMP and talk about the nature of what (cosmetic "evil" doohickeys) were actually banned.
     
  5. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    Have you ever been given a position from an Anti that you found difficult to dispute, or a position from a Pro that was difficult to dispute?
     
  6. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    What Harry said: Using a firearm to initiate force against someone else is always going to be viewed as wrong from both sides of the fence.

    I also think that most people on both sides want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm. Oddly enough, even though I am stating this I don't think that should be so, but that's an argument for a different time/thread. The vast majority of pro-gunners would agree with that position.

    Outside of those two, I'm at a loss.
     
  7. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    On top of a mountain in Colorado
    There is no way the two sides will agree except possibly to the answer to the question "is the sky blue?"

    The pros are typically logical, successful and self-directed. The antis are typically emotional, dependent on others and blame others for their failure. Some antis are successful, but want totalitarian control for themselves. This includes politicians and many actors who play make believe for a living.

    The antis have a dismal record if you look at the last century. They count Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot as their comrades.
     
  8. MeekandMild

    MeekandMild Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,877
    What mountainclmbr said.

    I have spent 20+ years deconstructing and analysing the anti midnset and sadly I find the stereotypes to be too true. I find their mindset to be more cultlike than anything else, the veritable snake handlers of politics.
     
  9. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    True enough, but I contend that the Antis fear of the Pros has more to do with a fear of a group of people who are not like them than emotion. I agree that a person who operates on emotion and openly accepts illogic and untruth while dismissing truth and logic is hard to associate with, but I feel that if we as people get together and look at the things that make us the same we won't seem so different. And therefore not generate the fear that divides otherwise good people.

    Just because a person is controlled by emotion does not make them devoid of logic, just as a person who is guided by logic is not devoid of emotion.

    There are things we can agree on. And the possibility exists that we may be able to find common ground we can use to guide the gun debate in a logical direction. But before we can do that, the Antis and the Pros need to stop fearing each other and realize the things that divide us are not guns, but the Criminals, Politicians, and Lobby interests who all profit from our fear and mistrust in each other.

    I may be expecting too much from the Antis or Pros, but I'm willing to see if we the people can settle things without the need for Government to step in.

    Any Antis want to chime in here?
     
  10. benewton

    benewton Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    603
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    "Just because a person is controlled by emotion does not make them devoid of logic, just as a person who is guided by logic is not devoid of emotion."

    Highlighted by your own thoughts, this is the reason that there is no common ground.

    Guided by logic makes sense: one cannot, as a CCW or, for that matter, a gun owner, simply respond to emotion, for reasons obvious to anyone in the class. Thus, emotions are present, as they alway are in we humans, but they're restrained...

    Controlled by emotions means exactly that, and if you cannot think, but merely feel, I fail to see the point of any discussions at all.

    That said, look at the bright side: at least they won't control weapons, including the most important, their own minds.
     
  11. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I felt that way six months or a year ago; at this point, however, I'm inclined to believe convicted felons who petition the courts for restoration of their rights and can clearly demonstrate they've radically altered their lives and attitudes ought to be given a second chance. I'd make them wait ten years, and the burden of proof would be wholly on them, but that's the direction my thinking is moving in.
     
  12. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Once upon a time a felony was a very bad thing ... it was a serious crime, usually violent (but not always). Today ... I wish I could get a list of all felonies out there. I think you'd be surprised how much the term "felony" has been watered down. Simply incorrectly filling out a government form can be a felony, putting one too many imported parts on an "Assault Rifle" can be a felony, I'm sure there's more simple little felonies out there.

    So, no, I no longer want to see convicted felons denied the right to own a firearm (although I'm willing to acquiesce to the idea that violent felons should have their rights restricted).



    I don't believe there can be anything that pro gun & anti gun people can call common ground. Each position is defined by the complete defeat of the other.
     
  13. RKCheung

    RKCheung Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    PRK
    I don't think a violent criminal who cannot be trusted to own a firearm should ever be let out of jail. Everyone else should have the right to defend their lives and their loved ones as they see fit.
     
  14. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    • We want our communities safer.
    • We want the police to be armed.
    • We want fewer accidents involving firearms.
    • We want fewer suicides (whether they use firearms or not.)
    • We want the military to be able to protect us.
    • We don't want children to get hurt or killed with firearms.
    • We want less crime and fewer violent crimes.
    • We don't want people who hurt other people to go unpunished.
    • We don't want kids to shoot other kids at school.
    • We want people to be safer on airplanes.

    I'm sure there are lots more. The problem is of course that our worldviews are different enough that it is difficult for either side to acknowledge that the other side might have some of the same basic goals but simply disagree how to reach those goals.

    For instance: We all want less crime, but will there be less crime if there are more guns? Of course, almost everyone on this board would say 'yes' to that question, but it's very counter-intuitive to think so.

    Instead of admitting that it's an unlikely thing to think, we sneer at people who don't instantly agree with this very counter-intuitive proposition and call them "emotional" and "illogical" and bunches of other names.

    On the other side of the issue, the antis take one look at the position we're holding, and instantly decide that we love our guns more than we care about lowering the crime rate or keeping our communities safe or anything like that.

    So both sides have one more thing in common:
    • We both think the other side is evil, stupid, or both.

    pax
     
  15. jamz

    jamz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,772
    Location:
    Seacoast NH
    As an addendum to what pax said, I thing thet the one common ground for pros and antis is that "we both want to keep ourselves and our families safe". Not from guns necessarily, but just "safe" in general. There is no one who would disagree with that.

    Of course, the antis belive that gun control will lead to more safety, and the pros believe that unrestricted gun access for citizens would lead to more safety. It's just a matter of how you get there. :)

    My argument is that if you gave unrestricted access to guns for all citizens, while accidental and home "family" shootings would probably rise a little, overall violent crime would go way, way down, thus decreasing the overall rate of violent crime and overall increase safety.
     
  16. feedthehogs

    feedthehogs Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,801
    Having did a radio show on constitutional rights with a strong 2nd amendment push in the liberal democrat area of Palm Beach, I can clearly state that no anti-gun position could not be logically and factually disputed and taken apart.
    Most callers ended up yelling and hanging up when you started to unravel their thinking.
    Those that decided to stay in the discussion started to comprehend our side but due to years of brainwashing and following party lines would probably not act on a change of heart.

    I recall one N.Y. transplant that called in because she did not feel safe with someone owning a gun living next door to her. She did not care if anyone's rights were violated or abused as long as she felt safe.

    This seems to be the insecure feeling of anti gun individuals. I pity the home life they must have had to grow up with such a feeling of insecurity and being scared all the time. We see so many snow birds and transplants who walk around with a look of fright on their faces and I would bet that if you went up to them and yelled boo real loud they would mess themselves.

    The only agreement is, agree to disagree.
     
  17. Leatherneck

    Leatherneck Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,545
    Location:
    No. Virginia and Northern Neck
    Thought-provoking, as usual Pax:
    * We want our communities safer. I agree.

    * We want the police to be armed. I agree.

    * We want fewer accidents involving firearms. I agree.

    * We want fewer suicides (whether they use firearms or not.) Suicide is not, in every case, a bad thing. But it's a very personal decision that is usually made under great duress. I would hope for a greater avoidance of circumstances that lead to suicide.

    * We want the military to be able to protect us. I agree.

    * We don't want children to get hurt or killed with firearms. Or anything else.

    * We want less crime and fewer violent crimes. I agree.

    * We don't want people who hurt other people to go unpunished. I agree.

    * We don't want kids to shoot other kids at school. I agree.

    * We want people to be safer on airplanes. Or, alternatively, safe from terrorists in every mode of travel.

    I would add that we all want our loved ones and friends to walk through life without fear.

    TC
    TFL Survivor
     
  18. Partisan Ranger

    Partisan Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    672
    Location:
    Virginia
    I think we can generally agree that evil exists in the world.

    The difference is this: Anti-gun bigots think the evil is in guns (funny, I have a safe full of em and they've never done a darned thing to me!).

    I think evil exists in the hearts of men (and women).

    And it grows out of control in some of them.
     
  19. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    In the "Us vs. Them" battle, there's a big underlying problem:

    Experience.

    We have experience with firearms, they don't. The lack of knowledge and experience perpetuates fear.

    I was never pro gun as a late teenager or when I was in my early 20's. I never had any experience with guns. I believed the crap that the television sold to me. I thought a bullet could just go BANG! all by itself. I believed that smart, educated people killed themselves by accident while cleaning their guns because they "thought they were unloaded". I believed that gun owners were nuts who would gun me down if I parked too close to their driveway.

    Then I fired a handgun. I learned all about it. And guess what? It didn't ever magically shoot by itself. I bought a gun, and had no urge to run out and shoot people. It was always "loaded" (Part of the four rules, right?)
    Even when I just verified that it was unloaded, the minute it was out of my sight for even a second, or the instant I handed it to somebody, it became loaded again. Its SOOOO easy.....


    Fear of the unknown is our biggest enemy.


    So. My common ground with anti's?

    I accept background checks. And I can even tolerate Maryland's mandatory seven day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun. Yes, its inconvenient and it may be ineffective in stopping crime, but I can handle it as an insignificant measure. Heck, it usually works to my advantage; I'll see a handgun that I REALLY want, but don't have all the money yet. So I put a deposit on it and wait for the background check to clear and the mandatory 7 days to pass, which buys me another week to get the money together.


    Now all 16,000 of the OTHER stupid laws on the books......:banghead:
     
  20. Balog

    Balog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    You've gotta love the "I don't mind a little raping of my freedom, just don't do it too hard." type comments. It's demoralizing when even posters on a gun board are statist.:barf:
     
  21. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    The problem is, in a state which is rabbidly liberal, you learn to make small sacrifices.

    It has nothing to do with freedom in this day and age.

    You take a test to get a driver's license. Been acceptable for decades. Your car is registered and tagged.

    Your employer does a background check on you before hiring you. Acceptable.

    Want to go fishing even? Get a license from the Dept. of Natural Resources (or whatever your state authority is).

    Mortgage? Forget about it without a complete, invasive background check.

    Credit card?

    People want to know who they're giving things to.

    Your reading too much into what I said. Background checks aren't a big deal....maybe your confusing that with registration, which is (or at least shoud be) a totally different issue. Nobody needs to know what guns, if ANY I have.

    Your stance sounds about irrational as the anti's rationalization.

    Anti's: "All guns are bad. Nobody should have them. Ban them all! Ban them all!"


    Your post: "Everybody should have everything! Criminals, rapists....everybody have machine guns and tanks!"

    Ok...so that's a little flavorful.....:p

    While I don't disagree with the basic theory that we should be free from all oppression and government interference, I accept the fact that there are many different opinions and that I will have to make a compromise. It's the world we live in, and I accept that in small doses....like a background check.
     
  22. RAY WOODROW 3RD

    RAY WOODROW 3RD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Beverly, N.J.
    We both agree that guns are the problem.

    The antis see it as the cause of crime.

    The pros see it as an answer to crime.

    So I guess we will have to agree to disagree!


    The wife tried the "lets work together becuase we basically want the same thing" route with one of the main MMMers after a gun control debate. They chatted, got along great during their face to face conversation and even swapped emails so that we could open up communications between "us" and "them" (my wife WAS them until she saw the errors of her ways).

    Guess what? After the first few articles and comentary the MMMer refussed to continue communications. I guess the truth was hurting her brains too much.

    What is that saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts I've already made up my mind!"


    They will stay on their side of the fence and we will stay on ours. It is the fence sitters that are important to talk to. Take them shooting. That usually swings them into our camp when they see for themselves that the gun does not jump up by itself and start a rampage.
     
  23. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Spot77,

    You know the real problem with that? It's that the folks on our side aren't radical enough to make an acceptable compromise.

    The anti-gun folks want to ban all guns.

    If we start from a position of "all guns should be legal" and then compromise from there, pretty soon half of all guns will be illegal (such as they are in Cali and MD). And from that point, the gunnies are saying, well, okay then, we want all currently-legal guns to remain legal, and the antis are saying, no no, ban all guns. If we compromise from there, we're left with only one quarter of what was legal originally. And then the gunnies say, okay, well, we still want all currently-legal guns to remain legal, and the antis say, no no ban all guns, and we compromise, and pretty soon there are no guns left at all and they're happy and we can't figure out how it happened.

    On the other hand, the logical opposite to "ban all guns" would be "require everyone to own a gun." If we compromised from that very radical position, y'know what? The midpoint between those two positions is "allow all guns" -- and we'd have the 2nd Amendment.

    pax
     
  24. BerettaNut92

    BerettaNut92 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,724
    I tend to agree with liberals (more or less equal Antis) more on gay rights than I do with my gun friends. It's probably also the reason why I'm not a Republican.
     
  25. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    Pax, I don't disagree with you. I did say my analogy was a little flavorful .

    I don't think any gun should be banned, but my entire point was that I don't disagree with a background check.

    Banning a gun would be like banning a 3/4" drive socket wrench. It's big, scary, and does the job that most smaller wrenches can't.

    But it's just a tool.

    I suppose there has to be the radicals on both sides to keep the balance. Apparantly I'm just not radical enough to degrade somebody with sarcasm because their views aren't consistent with mine.

    Do you think background checks are acceptable? I mean in principle, since the laws vary from state to state, and some might actually be effective in SOME places, whereas they're completely irrelevant in others.

    Oh and the second point, which was actually the main point in my previous post....inexperience and fear are what I see as the biggest long term enemy of gun rights. People like Feinstein and Schumer will come and go; it's the impact they have on people that creates a problem. These "leaders" prey on peoples' fear, which again, is largely based on the lack of real experience with firearms. So as Ray Woodward said, in order for us to eradicate peoples' fears, we need to take them shooting, ask them legiimate questions, listen to their answers, and not resort to heated debates and antagonizing statements. We'll win the "fence sitters" that way, not by FORCING our agenda on them as the Left does....

    Does anybody know of a gun enthusiast turned anti by the brutal persuasive powers of the left?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page