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

What's up with the elitist attitude?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Josh Aston, Jul 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Josh Aston

    Josh Aston Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Mountain Home, ID
    I don't think I'm the only one that's noticed a disturbing trend of elitism sweeping through The High Road. We accuse gun banners of elitism because they still want their bodyguards to be able to carry, yet we would deny those who so choose the right to openly carry their firearms, and those under 21 certainly shouldn't be trusted to own a handgun, much less carry it. When someone figures out a way to get around laws preventing them from legally carrying we jump on them for committing scandalous activities and jumping through loopholes in the law. What's up with this?

    The Second Amendment says shall not be infringed, yet even we as supporters of the amendment want to apply infringements to it. This internal strife isn't doing anyone any good. In fact it's causing harm by pushing away people who could be valuable allies.

    You may not want to open carry your pistol, but don't deny others the right. You may not have been mature enough to carry a handgun at 18, that doesn't mean others aren't. There is no room for interpretation in the part of the Second that says "Shall NOT be infringed". Unfortunately Americans have allowed the infringement of our right to keep and bear arms. We have a forward momentum, we need to maintain it. It is time for our right to be restored to its original status, but we must be united to do this. This current trend of elitism among supporters of the Second Amendment is disturbing to say the least.
     
  2. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    It's not about loopholes.

    It's not about technicalities.

    If folks put as much effort into changing the laws as they do in getting around them, we could roll back past 1968.
     
  3. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    So, if we do not approve with what and how someone does something, then we are wrong? There was a saying once, "I agree with your argument, but not your methods."

    Anyway, I think there is something about the internet that makes people into "Dear Abby's" trying to dole out advice and solve issues... It's a good thing. :p
     
  4. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Who is "we"? I was not aware of any anti-open carry policy on THR.
     
  5. markk

    markk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    NE Florida
    You are not alone. I have mentioned it half a dozen times or so in the last six months.

    It's really sad to see so many supposedly pro-2A people who are so eager to find a reason to deny another of their rights...
     
  6. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,477
    Location:
    Illinois
    No offense intended but do you not understand the way our legal system works?

    The first amendment says "congress shall make no law...". Very clearly a specific prohibition on congress doing something, and nothing else. The courts have interpreted this to mean that congress can pretty much do as it pleases in this area while it enforces it against the states who are not even mentioned in the 1A.

    Abortion is not even remotely mentioned in the constitution, thus it would seem to be something reserved to the states. Yet, the SC has decided very arbitrarily that unrestricted abortion is OK during a certain time frame, and not during others, and is enforcing it on the states. [Not trying to start an abortion argument, just an obvious example]. Do you really think there is anything anywhere in the constitution that supports this kind of decision?

    The 2A is pretty clear at first read, and so is the 14th. Yet the courts came up with the absurd selective incorporation doctrine out of thin air, where they incorporated the 1A (which is not really a statement of right so much as it is a prohibition on congress) and interprets much of the rest of our rights so they are mostly meaningless.

    Seems like a lot of interpreting going on.

    I don't think anyone here is opposed to OC so much as they feel CC offers some tactical and political advantages.

    If 18 is OK to carry a handgun, why not 17? Or 6 for that matter? A line has to be drawn somewhere and the legislature has that power.
     
  7. Phil DeGraves

    Phil DeGraves Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,531
    I'm with Cosmoline. Who are you talking about?
     
  8. lions

    lions Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,204
    Location:
    Kansas
    I must be reading all the wrong threads because I'm not sure what you are talking about.
     
  9. conw

    conw Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    3,364
    I said I choose not to open carry, but also said it was a right other people are welcome to exercise in my book.

    Second, "infringement" and "reasonable restriction" are two different things. Every right has a reasonable restriction, like the "fire in a crowded theater" standard for the first amendment.

    For the same reason, young kids' rights to gun ownership are not protected. (Now, there are some exceptional kids, like sm talks about, as well as exceptional incidences - the beauty there is no harm, no foul.) That's a reasonable restriction.

    18, 21...there is debate as to whether it is a reasonable restriction or infringment. That's not elitism, it's debate. Some people may feel 14 should be the age to carry, others 18, others 20, 21...why holler elitism??
     
  10. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Heck, the fellow may be talking about me...

    IMHO, we need to fight the battles incrementally... And right now, we're way ahead on the "hearts and minds" front. I've read too many posts from people who seem downright combative about their right to open carry - if that combative attitude carries over into their interaction with ordinary Joe Citizen at the supermarket, etc., then they are LOSING us ground, not gaining it.
     
  11. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    Oh yeah it's here, I don't like OC (tactical advantage stuff) but I don't think it should be illegal, might do it myself while hunting.

    As for the 18 thing, 18 is the age of majority in the US you can vote and die for your country why not carry? Were working on drinking laws,
     
  12. markk

    markk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    NE Florida
    Guys, don't get hung up on any one particular example and lose sight of the valid point the OP made.

    Every day here at THR there are more and more threads about some "idiot" and why he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun...he drinks beer, he's too young, not enough training, he made a flippant comment on a website, whatever the reason, the feeding frenzy starts and it does more to tear down our position than the Brady Bunch could ever hope for...

    Bogie and Cosmoline, I doubt the OP is referencing you guys so please don't derail his point by trying to pick it apart. I know exeactly what he is saying and you two are most certainly not the problem..
     
  13. MakAttak

    MakAttak Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    898
    Location:
    VA
    Not being hung up on a particular example is rather difficult when no examples have been mentioned.

    You claim a trend. Please back that up.

    I have seen some posters spout off about someone not deserving to own a gun, but this is hardly new. These are not the majority opinion in any thread, but merely an aberration. Are you chosing single outlying data points in order to form your hypothesis?
     
  14. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    Well, some people ARE too idiotic to own a gun... Generally, however, they are removed from the "gun pool" before they turn 21...

    Now, consider this - will you trust a friend, let's call him Joe, with your car? You -know- you'll get it back, but it may be in pieces. Would you trust Joe with a gun?
     
  15. markk

    markk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    NE Florida
    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=380238
    Here is one example from earlier today.
    Whatever opinion you may hold on 18yo's and CCW does not justify the arrogance of the several people who's response was for the OP to grow up, stop whining, and worry about his schoolwork. Is this how we at The High Road address a fellow gun enthusiast?
     
  16. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    I'm not trying to attack it, I just wanted to get some specifics. The OP uses "we" but doesn't explain who this "we" is. To my knowledge there is no set THR policy on open carry, age of carry or any other policy questions. There is certainly disagreement, but this does not mean "we" as a body are "elitist." We just argue a lot.

    If he's a youngster, perhaps it is. That's not elitism, though it might be considered "ageism." You are free to disagree, of course, and to argue your points. I'm not sure what the OP wants. Is he asking for everyone to agree with him?
     
  17. Josh Aston

    Josh Aston Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Mountain Home, ID
    The one markk posted is one example. There was one about a kid getting two non-resident permits so that he'd be legal to carry under 21 in his state. Every time OC comes up people jump all over it. Those that merely say they wouldn't do it but see no problem with others doing it aren't those I have issues with. Those that would deny everyone else the right to OC because they don't like it are the ones I hold issue against.
     
  18. SsevenN

    SsevenN Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    NM
    http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=380408

    Example #2.

    This thread, while totally gun-related based off the OP, has pretty much turned into a UFC bashing thread for no reason at all.

    The attitudes seem a touch "Elitest" to me.
     
  19. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,477
    Location:
    Illinois
    All good advice, but only marginally relevant.
     
  20. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    What I particularly hate to see are posts that basically say "Mommy and Daddy won't let me have a gun." Well, maybe there's a reason...

    At any rate, if you're gonna live at Mommy and Daddy's, you play by their rules. And if you want to live at Mommy and Daddy's until you're 45, you need a clue...
     
  21. markk

    markk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    NE Florida
    I think he just wants people to lose the elitist attitudes which so often seem to imply that if you don't share the same opinion as me re. training requirements, alcohol consumption, age, open carry, holster type, etc. you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
     
  22. Ltlabner

    Ltlabner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    334
    There's 1385 people on line right now. The crazy wild side of me is willing to bet someone out in cyberworld is going to disagree with one of your positions.

    Because they do so does not automatically mean they are "elitist". Simply means they are different.

    And somebody suggesting that perhaps you shouldn't have access to a firearm does not mean they are elitist. It means they own an opinion, and most reasonable people understand that has zero impact whatsoever on how you conduct your life.
     
  23. Ltlabner

    Ltlabner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    334
    I see, so the OP is entitled to his/her opinion, but nobody else is allowed to have one, especially one that disagrees?

    Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhtttttt.

    It is 100% possible to suggest a limitation on the ownership of a firearm without being a card carying liberal, frothing, gun grabbing, anti.
     
  24. markk

    markk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    NE Florida
    I agree 100%.
    However, that is not what this thread is about.
    Juvenile posts/posters like the one you referenced also annoy me, so much so that I reported his childish antics long before that particular thread.;)
     
  25. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    I've noted it too. A growing number of posters accept and promote restrictions on behavior, including (with many vigorous threads thereon)
    - don't open carry (ever)
    - don't carry in airports (despite GA legislature specifically legalizing it)
    - don't carry when drinking (even one glass of wine at a fine restraunt)
    - you're too young to carry (barely under 21)
    - licensing should be required (to no discernable purpose)
    - training should be required (more as restriction than education)
    - nobody needs a MG (even if a personal M16 is exactly what the FFs had in mind)
    - don't challenge infringing laws
    - a felony conviction for merely possessing a standard-capacity AR15 mag in NY is reason to lose one's RKBA
    among others.

    Now, most certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, which many here will defend even if disagreeing therewith.
    It does, however, seem to me (and apparently others) that the assortment of accepted restrictions is growing in adherents, who are increasingly adamant about others submitting thereto. I've been following THR and related boards for a very long time, and the density of "but of course that infringement is reasonable" comments seems growing.

    It's certainly not THR policy, it's just personal views of a growing number of posters, reflecting a change in the culture - an apparent growing acceptance of long-touted "anti" positions by presumably hardcore "pro-RKBA" types.

    Those saying "but what you're pushing for will lose us ground" mirrors the NRA vs. Gura et al conflict regarding Heller (nee Parker): the NRA tried hard to derail Mr. Heller et al because they feared the Big Loss - and suddenly jumped on board when it would clearly become the Big Win. Yes, I want open carry in a grocery store - if people get used to seeing OC everywhere, they'll get used to seeing OC everywhere.

    Can I point to proof of the trend? Probably, but the expenditure of effort for it far exceeds the payoff. It's an impression, which apparently I am not alone in achieving.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page