What is "pro-gun" anyways?

[guitarguy314]

Is the fractured nature of the "pro gun" movement ruining our chances of gaining back the ground we've lost; or, long term, even keeping our gun rights at all?

There are so many groups in the pro-gun movement, and each group wants different things. These groups run the gamut from wanting hunting weapons only to people who want the second amendment taken at its word, and everything in between.

Is this infighting going to get us in the end? What does "pro-gun" mean to you, and why?

I'd love to hear what you all think about this.

Thanks,

L

 

[mnrivrat]

The response calls for a long carefully put together statement. (at least for me)

I'm going to shorten it up as my sig line says it likely better than 10 pages of my babble. Pro-Gun to me in simple terms means that I am pro freedom. Who has the right to dictate what I can and can not have ? Self protection from all enemies is a right we all are born with.
There is much talk about where to draw the line on private ownership of modern weapons, but in reality anything that our individual soldiers pack into the field should be available in my opinion. That includes many weapons that are simply out of the cost range for all but a very wealthy few.

The carry gear (weapons) of the average soldier however should never be at question as being part of our rights.

 

[Hokkmike]

The term "Pro Gun" is a Synecdoche.

The term represents something larger than itself. It has to do with choosing a course and actions that promote freedom in exercise of the Second Amendment.

(by the way - off topic a little, but tell me about your guitars)

 

[guitarguy314]

Thanks for your replies!

mnrivrat: Okay, what about things like background checks, gun free zones and heck, any gun laws at all? Can a pro gun person really be for any of these without sounding like a hypocrite? Also, do you think all of the different ideas of what pro gun is is hurting the movement as a whole?

(( - haha, I always wondered when someone would ask about that. I only have a few (a Fender stratocaster, a guitar (exp I think) from one of those beginner kits, and a Bass guitar). I used to be really into guitars, and as my interest faded, guitarguy314 (and variations thereof) sorta became my go to screen name. I still play, but not as much as I used to. I need to get back into practice actually. Do you play?

 

[Sam1911]

This could be a complex question on one level, or a quite simple one on the other.

Gun groups don't really run the gamut of a wide range of goals. Nationally, you've got the NRA ... and then everyone else (GOA, JFPO, NAGR, etc.) Some of the little dogs in the fight publically drive a harder line than NRA does, but their effectiveness is zero for all statistically significant measures, so they act more as a useful foil on the far wing -- something the "mainstream" gun guys can point to when making their case for being middle-of-the-road sorts and not extremists like "those guys." That's all just showmanship, of course, but it has its place in the political game of multi-dimensional chess.

(Occasionally those little guys get a bit nasty in their fund-raising assaults on the "complacent and unaggressive" NRA big dog, but that really just helps the image of reasonableness in the big picture.)

Then there's SAF. SAF generally occupies itself with work fighting court cases, while NRA works in the legislatures. Two different battlefields, two different entities fighting effectively. Usually they manage to work pretty symbiotically, but there are inevitable friction points. Whether the goals are precisely the same it is hard to say, but the end goal of both organizations is merely more gun rights freedom so which specific facets they're working toward at any given moment might not be the same.

We also have NSSF, which represents the gun and accessories industry. Generally a very positive force that works in concert with NRA. I've never seen them at odds, through their issues may be an exact overlay of the citizens' interest group's.

Then there are plenty of "sportsmen's" or "hunting" groups. What they think or believe about gun rights is anyone's guess and it really doesn't matter. They're fighting a broader set of issues and are probably pretty shallow on the true RKBA aspect. Compared the NRA, there is no sportsmen's lobby group that's more than a flea on the butt of the big dog anyway.

The only real obvious antagonism between gun groups that I've seen is from "quisling" or "false flag" operations like the AHSA and a few of its reboots. They were very quickly identified and exposed for what they were and never had a second's worth of impact.

 

[Sam1911]

Okay, what about things like background checks, gun free zones and heck, any gun laws at all? Can a pro gun person really be for any of these without sounding like a hypocrite?

Well...everyone can have their own opinion, of course. As someone studies the matter in depth, the fallacies underlying those theoretical "reasonable restrictions" inevitably become apparent and the "moderate" tendencies fall away. But it is important to always deal with those folks politely and patiently explain rather than berate or belittle. They're just travelers on the road, like you were once. They'll see the truth eventually and you can help them.

Also, do you think all of the different ideas of what pro gun is is hurting the movement as a whole?

Nope. And I don't really think there are many different definitions of "pro gun." Any time the word "but" follows the words "pro gun," you know the next thing said will be an anti-gun statement.

I think something to remember is that the pro-gun movement is FAR less "fractured" now than it has been at any point in our lifetimes. These days we are far more cohesive and effective in the political realm than we've ever been before. The fact that either NAGR or AHSA (on one side or the other) makes sniping comments occasionally from the far distant sidelines makes utterly no difference at all.

 

[AlexanderA]

mnrivrat wrote:

There is much talk about where to draw the line on private ownership of modern weapons, but in reality anything that our individual soldiers pack into the field should be available in my opinion.

While I personally agree with that, the pro-gun side is much broader than the "2nd Amendment Absolutist" camp. For the time being, like it or not, the Fudds are an important part of the pro-gun coalition. We need to educate them, but we can't afford to cast them out as being insufficiently pro-gun.

BTW, I don't agree with the original premise that the pro-gun movement is fractured. Different groups approach the gun-rights struggle in different ways, but they're all united in their ultimate goal, which is to frustrate the ambitions of the gun-grabbers.

 

[jerkface11]

You're making it more complicated than it should be. If you are in favor of banning a certain type of gun you aren't pro-gun you're just kidding yourself.

 

[km101]

"Is the fractured nature of the "pro gun" movement ruining our chances of gaining back the ground we've lost; or, long term, even keeping our gun rights at all?"

There will always be splinter groups in any movement, whether it be political, social, agricultural or whatever. If we are all pulling in the same general direction, it makes no difference if one pulls harder or in a slightly different direction. We are all pulling toward the same goal, and that is what counts!

 

[MedWheeler]

Though it's just semantics, I never cared for the term "pro-gun" simply because it does indeed give the impression that the issue is very narrowed.

Rights endowed to the people by their Creator, and acknowledged by the foundation on which their government is formed, are what the movement should be about. Though it's cliche to us (the "choir"), the breakdown of the one of them that allows for the preservation and protection of the others is the biggest fear among the movement.

When it becomes more common that so-called "pro-gun" movements are known for fighting to preserve other civil, cherished rights, more people will be forced to look at the movement from a more open angle. It's kind of like when we hear the ACLU, an organization we normally seem to be at odds with, actually take on a gun-case protecting a person facing anti-gun persecution.

 

[we are not amused]

I could go on with a long winded explanation of what being "pro-gun" means, but I think mnrivrat put it best for me.

That is what I think the Second Amendment means.

I also agree strongly with MedWheeler! I am pretty darn absolutist on the First Amendment, as well as the Fourth and fifth as well, as well as the rest of the ones dealing with the individual rights we all should have.

I am not too worried about perceived differences in the "pro-gun" movement, (although, I too dislike the term) as long as the forces of totalitarian rule (gun banners among others) do not succeed in pitting one group against another.

I see private gun ownership as being one of the primary obstacles to totalitarian rule. Not the only one, but the one that gives weight to the others.

 

[gamestalker]

Pro-gun, to me it is the God given right to be free from all oppression, and to have the unrestricted ability to defend our selves against any threat, by any means necessary, including, and especially a gun.

I don't really think I summarized my interpretation very well, but for a better presentation of what it means one only needs to read the 2A. Taken in it's full context, at it's word, and as it was intended I might add, is probably the best description of what freedom in this particular segment of the constitution means.

But I think that mnrivrat probably summarized it about as well as could be. The 2A is as vital as it gets regarding our freedom, and in it's self is the only segment of the constitution that is directed at protecting freedom for all American's, because it provides us the ability to defend the entirety of the constitution.

GS
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

 

[Inebriated]

Pro-gun is pro-liberty, plain and simple.

 

[Walkalong]

I certainly would not call the pro gun side fractured.

There are differing opinions among gun supporters just like there are among the antis.

My position is that I am against anything the antis bring to a vote, because it all is geared toward harassing and restricting gun owners, with registration and confiscation as the end goal.

 

[SC Shooter]

Although we have many voices, the one voice that is heard loud and strong, every day and in every situation is the NRA. We are all fortunate to have the NRA's voice and as long as this organization keeps on keeping on, we will have a voice to be recconed with. As a member and a supported, I am hopeful.

 

[HoosierQ]

Well considering how much success the NRA-ILA seems to be having in holding off gun control legislation, it would seem that we are an effective group. Our "PR" is a little iffy..."gun nuts", "gun crazy", "doomsday preppers" and the like. However, legislation, on balance is going our way rather dramitically overall, with some obvious defeats in NY etc.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

You are pro-gun if you believe all the same things about guns that I do, of course.

If you believe in any restrictions on the 2A, don't carry a gun whose caliber starts with "4," don't like AR-15s, don't like 1911s, don't like Glocks, only listen to Massad Ayoob, only listen to tntoutdoors, only read Guns and Ammo, refuse to read gun magazines at all, and don't think the solution to criminals is to just kill them all or lock them up and throw away the key, then you AREN'T PRO-GUN ENOUGH.

AND THAT MAKES YOU THE ENEMY.

Or something like that, I dunno, I read it on a gun forum.

 

[danez71]

I'm not really "pro gun".

I'm Pro 2A.

IMO, being Pro 2A reflects my beliefs in the 2A and that its an individual choice whether or not someone wants to own a gun.

 

[herrwalther]

Well if you are a politician, being pro gun means you own a shotgun!

 

[tuj]

you AREN'T PRO-GUN ENOUGH. AND THAT MAKES YOU THE ENEMY.

While I believe you are being facetious, this type of mentality does indeed reside in the gun-owning community in some factions.

I know many people who are basically proud of their gun rights, but also want a sense of sanity. For example, many of these fine shooters are against open carry. They have no problem with concealed carry with a permit, but they don't like open carry for a number of reasons I won't get into.

I am what I would consider 'pro-gun', but many on this forum would not consider me pro-gun enough. For example, I am against magazine restrictions. But at the same time, I believe that certain weapons should be regulated, although not banned, namely destructive devices. I believe that CCW-permit holders should have proper training, and if they cannot pass that training, then they should not be allowed to carry. Others believe that the 2A is their right to carry.

Gun owners comprise a large portion of our country. As such, they have diverse views. That said, I would wager almost all of them to consider themselves 'pro-gun', regardless of how Constructionalist their view of the 2A may or may not be.

Therefore the term 'pro-gun' is a misnomer.

 

[itsa pain]

The response calls for a long carefully put together statement. (at least for me)

I'm going to shorten it up as my sig line says it likely better than 10 pages of my babble. Pro-Gun to me in simple terms means that I am pro freedom. Who has the right to dictate what I can and can not have ? Self protection from all enemies is a right we all are born with.
There is much talk about where to draw the line on private ownership of modern weapons, but in reality anything that our individual soldiers pack into the field should be available in my opinion. That includes many weapons that are simply out of the cost range for all but a very wealthy few.

The carry gear (weapons) of the average soldier however should never be at question as being part of our rights.

This is the best post that can be made on this matter and the quote at the end proves it

 

[kneesus]

There are people who advocate responsible gun ownership and there are people who make the rest of us look bad. You decide what's responsible and which gun owners make the rest of us look bad.

 

[Hokkmike]

guitarguy314

Do you play?

Yes, mostly Bass. I have a Hofner and a Taylor 310CE.

 

[KevininPa]

I think of my......

........father-in-law as a prime example of pro-gun. He's not a gun guy like I am. He's a hunter. Gun wise, all he wants or needs are his hunting guns. He likes to shoot some of my toys but has no real interest in owning any of them. But when the anti-gun SHTF, he sent just as many letters and e-mails and made as many calls as I did. He is very pro-freedom. Love that guy!

 

[guitarguy314]

Thanks for all of your replies everyone!

Hokkmike: Awesome! I started out on Bass!