Unsure and looking for answers

[Mandabear3109]

Last night my fiancee and I got into a pretty big discussion about the second amendment debate, which led me to finding this site. Essentially, this is how the discussion went down:

My fiancee and his family are big pro-gum advocates, and they all own at least one. They have decided to boycott places that do not support the right to own and carry a concealed weapon with the proper permits.

When he asked me how I felt on the topic, I responded by saying that I wasn't sure where I stood, since I had never really thought about the implications of gun ownership and had never even pictured myself owning a gun. He goes on to tell me that "It's people like you [said to me] who are ruining this country." What he heard was that I was not a pro-gun advocate; what I was really saying is that I am just unsure of my stance on the topic.​

I am fine with people owning guns, despite never picturing myself owning one. In fact, I have only shot two real guns in my life at a shooting range a few years ago. He [my fiancee] is really upset that I don't know where I stand, and I have no idea of how to handle this situation. Since last night, I have done some reading on both sides of the gun control debates but I think I am more confused now that I was before. I'm worried that this could become a big issue between my fiancee and I, and I am not sure how to handle our potential difference of opinion. Help!

We are both young [22] so I know that we have a lot of time ahead of us, but it seems as though me not knowing where I stand is going to cause some problems and I don't want the last 2 years to be thrown away just because I am unsure of my stance on guns/gun control.

Edit: Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion. Your input has been very helpful and has allowed me to think critically about what I believe regarding 2A. Your words made me think in ways that I had not thought of before, and many examples were used that made a lot of sense to me personally. My road to understanding this topic has just begun, but I appreciate how this site handles itself in a professional and non-judgmental manner.

 

[stumpers]

Despite what may follow from others, I would read the Second Amendment and decide what it means to you, taking into consideration the big Constitutional picture, including relevant Supreme Court cases.

 

[Mandabear3109]

Thanks for such a quick reply. I actually did spend some time this morning reading the second amendment, including different websites and wordings, as well as court cases and I am still not sure where I stand. My fiancee did not accept the fact that I am unsure, and kept trying to guide me into thinking the same way he did.

 

[mljdeckard]

I would hope that any gun owner would be smart enough to put his wife/fiance in front of political differences. It would be really stupid to give up something good over something like this. Especially since you're not saying 'no', you're saying "I need to learn more". If you are saying you need to learn, he should look at it as an opportunity to teach.

We don't insist that everyone like or own guns. What we don't want is people telling US that WE can't like or own guns.

 

[MErl]

I think you have the majority opinion in the nation. It isn't an issue to you either way (or wasn't)

Sounds like it is something that you do need to think about now though.

Tempers are going to be short when discussing this issue right now. There have been alot of (verbal) hate attacks directed at gun owners as a group, lumping us along with criminals. That doesn't lead to positive discussion.

What are the areas you are confused on which we could help clarify?

 

[Yo Mama]

Hello, and welcome to the forum. You'll definately find alot of information here. I'd say it's a great thing that you are speaking about this with someone you plan to spend the rest of your life with. It actually sounds like you're fine with people owning guns, but that it may not be something you're personally ready for.

In terms of ruining the country, I think you're ok. We have many more threats to our freedom than you not knowing where you stand.

For many of us, gun ownership is a right that we hold dear.

 

[autospike]

At first blush, it would seem your fiancee is a little immature. But I'm guessing that you're both fairly young and you have to keep in mind that this can be a very emotional subject. So, let's forget him for a bit.

What do YOU want to know / ask about 2A? What's got you confused?

 

[Mandabear3109]

And that was what I was trying to tell him. I am unsure of a lot of political things, just because they are so complicated and I tend to see things I agree with on both sides. The second I said I wasn't sure, I felt like he had stopped listening and switched to convincing instead.

 

[CSG]

To clearly understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment, explore what the founders wrote about what a well-regulated militia was comprised of and what keeping and bearing arms meant. This is all contained in the Federalist papers.

Also ask yourself, why this guaranteed right is second only to the 1st Amendment.

You don't have to be a gun owner or lover to understand what the anti-Constitutional crowd is trying to achieve.

 

[bigdaa]

Go with your fiance and get a 22 rifle in our hands at the range and punch some holes in paper or chase a soda can around with it.

Nobody is going to help you but yourself if you feel "dirty" about the idea.
That attitude usually comes from listening to people who've never used a gun but have used plenty of talk against gun ownership.

There is a basic tenet that people have a right to self protection and protection of their family and assets. How else would people protect themselves against a most likely superior adversary?
Ask yourself whom your future husband would want to come home to. Your smiling face and open arms or the memory of you as you were before you were killed by an intruder.

I think you need to fret less and open yourself up to the process of learning what you do not know.

I also think, but only based on your description, that your fiance should lighten up considerably and become a mentor sharing his knowledge and witholding anything but constructive criticism.

 

[Mandabear3109]

Are those who are against the second amendment saying that guns should only be in the hands of the government/military?

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

 

[Yo Mama]

Yes, those against the 2nd want all private gun ownership to be illegal. It's the end game, they will hide and say they don't but the results show otherwise.

Many businesses are either also anti gun, or stupid. Hard to tell the difference. Gun free zones are the most dangerous places on the planet.

There is no way to please both sides. The idea is they need to go after criminals. Every law made goes after the citizen. We have plenty of laws already, they are just not enforced.

I'd encourage you to read about countries where gun ownership was made illegal and what happened to those people.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Please see my link. The table shows the millions upon millions that have died as a result.

 

[Tinpig]

"It's people like you [said to me] who are ruining this country."

If that's how your fiancee talks to you when he disagrees with you, you might want to reconsider whether you want to spend the rest of your life with someone who treats you so disrespectfully.

He should be pleased that you're open to discussing the issue, and be making the effort to win you over by introducing you to guns in a positive way instead of acting like a jackass.

Tinpig

 

[Mandabear3109]

Obviously, I do not like all of the tragedies that come from guns. Whenever I hear about a mall or school being shot up, it makes me sick. But I am also not one of those who thinks that all guns are bad. The right of gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility, though, and I think that a lot of people just don't take that seriously.

I also think that adding more regulations will not help reduce the amount of gang violence. Many people who use guns in gangs do not get them legally, so adding more regulations only make it harder for us to protect ourselves if we so choose.

 

[Mandabear3109]

Tinpig: It was at that point in the discussion where I just stopped talking. I was really upset when he said this to me, and I did not even know where this anger came from. I was not ready to form an opinion I knew nothing about, and I was looking for guidance from him, but instead I got defensivenss.

I am worried that if we talk about this again, the same thing will happen. Talking politics always involves tensions, but does anyone have any ideas of how to go about this discussion in the future? Given what I have said in this forum, I am not against guns, but I am also not a gun fanatic either, and I just need him to understand that I am just not sure.

 

[autospike]

The second I said I wasn't sure, I felt like he had stopped listening and switched to convincing instead.

OK, let's hold off on that for now at least. Very few of us here are licensed relationship counsellors

Are those who are against the second amendment saying that guns should only be in the hands of the government/military?

I hate broad sweeping statements. And the fact is that none of us here on this board can say what every Anti-2A person has in their mind. But what you stated is certainly one of my concerns. I am concerned specifically that the government would have us give up all firearms and they would only be in the hands of a select few - which they conveniently control. There are degrees to this. Some anti-2A people think it's OK for us to have firearms under certain circumstances. Such as certain types of hunting or certain types of sports. Others would allow them to be kept and used only inside the home for defense but would limit the types of firearms available. Look to Great Britain for examples of this.

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?

Because as a business they are risk averse. And because they want to be on (what they perceive) as the bandwagon. They are very attuned to what is being said in the media. Most are doing what their corporate office is telling them. Can a boycott work? It can and I have seen it. One store here used to have a no firearms sign in the window. After a few phone calls, the store took it down. It didn't matter anyway in this state: The sign holds no weight of law and all that could ever happen if a weapon was spotted was to ask the person to leave or risk being charged with trespassing.

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

Well, here's where it gets really complicated. What regulations would you personally like to see put into place? Think about being able to put those regs and laws into place while still preserving what is literally a Civil Right; that is, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Compare it to the other amendments and imagine how you could regulate those but keep their intended function.

 

[MErl]

Are those who are against the second amendment saying that guns should only be in the hands of the government/military?

Some are, especially the more vocal or active.

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?

Misinformed liability? Not wanting to deal with customers getting upset because there is someone with a gun (if seen)? I would think the majority are not because the owners do not like guns but more because they do not trust gun owners. The perception of the hothead vigilante has been ingrained too deeply.
Boycotting wont change anything except in very rare cases.

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

Therin lies the entire debate. Gun owners are upset because there very rarely has been any compromise, the regulations are always restrictions.

 

[mrvco]

In general "Anti-2A" people tend to believe that we would be better off if firearms had never been invented and that somehow we can stuff that genie back in the bottle. While it is difficult to get them to appreciate the 500+ years of historical implications that would be involved if "firearms had never been invented" (Some people have a romantic perception of peasantry and feudalism) , it is even more difficult to get them to understand that firearms are the great equalizer between "normal folks" and tyranny, regardless of whether tyranny manifests itself as a 250-pound robber/murderer/rapist that just kicked in your front door or a tyrannical dictator/government/police state.

 

[12many]

I agree with Tinpig. Your both too young to get married and he may not be the right guy for you. Undecides are not ruining this country. It is the strong anti's taking the bad action. Good to learn about it all on this web site. The key is to think for yourself. There are many lies out there by the people who want to ban guns.

 

[beatledog7]

Mandabear,

I suggest you focus your research and study on the overall concept of what it means to be a free people vs. a controlled people. That's what the Constitution's drafters did, and what 2A is all about.

A person who opposes gun ownership is, whether he or she will admit it or not, opposing freedom generally. 2A is the freedom that supports and provides back-up to all other freedoms, and compromising it lets the control genie out of the bottle.

 

[Mandabear3109]

OK, let's hold off on that for now at least. Very few of us here are licensed relationship counsellors



I hate broad sweeping statements. And the fact is that none of us here on this board can say what every Anti-2A person has in their mind. But what you stated is certainly one of my concerns. I am concerned specifically that the government would have us give up all firearms and they would only be in the hands of a select few - which they conveniently control. There are degrees to this. Some anti-2A people think it's OK for us to have firearms under certain circumstances. Such as certain types of hunting or certain types of sports. Others would allow them to be kept and used only inside the home for defense but would limit the types of firearms available. Look to Great Britain for examples of this.



Because as a business they are risk averse. And because they want to be on (what they perceive) as the bandwagon. They are very attuned to what is being said in the media. Most are doing what their corporate office is telling them. Can a boycott work? It can and I have seen it. One store here used to have a no firearms sign in the window. After a few phone calls, the store took it down. It didn't matter anyway in this state: The sign holds no weight of law and all that could ever happen if a weapon was spotted was to ask the person to leave or risk being charged with trespassing.



Well, here's where it gets really complicated. What regulations would you personally like to see put into place? Think about being able to put those regs and laws into place while still preserving what is literally a Civil Right; that is, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Compare it to the other amendments and imagine how you could regulate those but keep their intended function.

I am also not a fan of broad, sweeping statements (I am a sociology major, so you can figure out why). I am just trying to figure out, in general what each side believes.

 

[Hokkmike]

As a married man of over 40 years (same wife) my advice to you is simple. If you think disagreement over gun ownership will side track your relationship don't do it - don't get married.

The minimum is that I would expect that a person who doe not embraces the Second Amendment such as yourself must be to at least to tolerate a spouse's positive view of gun ownership. He, likewise, must be willing to tolerate the fact that you may have no interest in or use for guns.

Marriage has to be bigger than this.

And, you are not ruining the country. But you knew that!

Good luck.

 

[Telekinesis]

Why are many restaurants and businesses against the possession of those with concealed carry permits? Will boycotting these places actually change anything, and if so, what?

The reasons usually range from insurance, to a lack of knowledge of the law, to a hostile view of anyone who would wan to carry a gun. In my experience, most of the stores want the sign to mean "no illegal guns", but that's not what really happens because if someone is illegally carrying a gun, they're not likely to follow a law that says they can't carry in a particular place.

Is there a way to please both sides of the debate by allowing people to own guns as long as they follow certain safety regulations, provided this does not cross over into complete control?

There's not really a way to appease both sides at this point. Compromise usually entails both sides giving up something so that they end up with, if not a better position for each group, at least something that is tolerable for each. But firearms restrictions have been slowly but consistently passed since 1934 with so little compromise that the presupposition now is that when new laws are proposed, we're only going to be talking about how many more firearms are going to be illegal, and not what will either appease both sides of the issue or make our country safer. Making the country a better place seems to have fallen by the way side somewhere between 1968 and 1986, and any solutions to the actual event that reignited the gun debate have mysteriously been left out of any discussion.

Tinpig: It was at that point in the discussion where I just stopped talking. I was really upset when he said this to me, and I did not even know where this anger came from.

I'm not positive about this, but seeing as you're in Colorado, it may be a result of the recent legislation that was passed making him feel a little defensive. Its no excuse to say that to you, but it may give you some insight into what he's feeling right now.

 

[tyeo098]

Vermont and Arizona have the least strict gun control laws.

NYC, DC, and Chicago have the most strict in the nation.

Let the homicide rates speak for themselves.

 

[Mandabear3109]

I agree with Tinpig. Your both too young to get married and he may not be the right guy for you. Undecides are not ruining this country. It is the strong anti's taking the bad action. Good to learn about it all on this web site. The key is to think for yourself. There are many lies out there by the people who want to ban guns.

As a side note, we have been together 2 years and are not planning the wedding until 2015, but thanks for your input.

As for the rest of your post, I am trying to do exactly that. I am very happy that I decided to join this group and start this forum. I was a bit concerned that there would be those who would bash me for being undecided, but at least I am trying to learn about the issue, unlike many others in my generation.