Who is the biggest threat to gun rights?

[Jeeper]

Just curious who people think is the biggest threat to gun rights in the US. I am speaking of whoever is the most powerful with the message against gun rights or who is harming us quietly.

 

[foghornl]

Loudest would be the VPC/Brady Campaign/MMM.

Those quietly selling us out would be the NRA.

NRA= Not Repealing Anything

 

[.45Ruger]

I would probably say Hillary Clinton. She is setting herself up to be the Dem's nominee in 08 and at that level she could be as bad as her hubby.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Gun owners.

 

[StLGlocker]

Gun owners who don't get politically involved in the RKBA.

 

[TheeBadOne]

What Mike said.

 

[MuzzleBlast]

The popular media. Nearly every movie or TV show the general public sees is very much against gun ownership by civilians, to the point where they NEVER show a gun owner in a positive light. This has a very real effect on public perceptions and opinion.

 

[cuchulainn]

Certain self-styled RKBA advocates who don't understand that they do nothing but give ammunition to our enemies and push away potential RKBA-allies with their vituperative, self-indulgent rants -- who don't understand the difference between no compromise (good) and chest beating (no purpose).

In contrast, for example, GOA is a very professional organization IMO. It usually walks very well the fine line between no compromise and self-destructive whining and teeth gnashing. Larry Pratt is a smart guy. He knows when to speak out, but he -- and his troops -- also know when to shut up and let attacks or criticism roll off them.


Edited to fix GAO. I meant GOA. GAO is something altogether different.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I decline to answer on the grounds that my response would be both intemperate and divisive.

 

[manwithoutahome]

I hate to agree with the others above:

We are our worse enemies .

M

 

[Edward429451]

The biggest threat is the people themselves. Gunowners for not demending their rights, and non gun owners for not understanding the bigger picture.

Had a bully walk up to me once...Said "I want your money" Bigger intimidating type. I said "I guess we fight for it"

He said "cool" and walked away. Yes he was big. Yes he had the advantage. But for some reason, when he realized I would be willing to fight, he relented. Hmmm.

 

[DaveB]

Worst Enemies? We do more harm to ourselves than anybody on the outside.

Around here, 'Slob hunters' put more people off than anything else - I think that most anti-groups preach mostly to their own choirs, but gunowners (hunters) acting like idiots or drunks make enemies.

db

 

[Jeff Timm]

As I recall we compromised in 1968.

Ever since then we are told to compromise and compromise and compromise again.

Compromise is based on the assumption that Hitler and company killing 3 million Jews is a good thing.

Geoff
Who doesn't compromise

 

[Poodleshooter]

The public. Notice I did not say "non-gunowning public". There are plenty of gunowners out there who think that guns are fine....for them only
Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.

 

[manwithoutahome]

Jeff Timm, I didn't compromise, that was the day that I jumped into the fight with both feet, that year I was born

M

 

[BamBam]

Most people out there today do not value guns for the reason they are valued in the Constitution, and that is a real threat to our freedom.

BINGO!!!

 

[F4GIB]

Many (most?) hunters who are to lazy to get involved in the politics of saving their guns.

 

[Atticus]

Gun mis-users. The Harris and Kliebolds of the world.

 

[jimpeel]

Apathetic gun owners; and the ones who think the government will never ban their favorite firearm.

 

[SteelyDan]

I'm missing something here. The question asked "Who is the biggest threat to gun rights?", and the majority of the responses said, in one way or another, "gun owners."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun owners are mounting a campaign to repeal gun rights, so it seems you are suggesting only two other possibilities:

1. That gun owners are so sloppy or irresponsible that there will be a public backlash against gun ownership in general. If this is your point, my impression is the opposite. I think gun owners have become less sloppy and more responsible over the past 10 or 20 years, probably in large part because of sensitivity to public opinion; or

2. That gun owners lack the backbone to stand up against assaults on gun rights unless those assaults threaten to take away, for example, the duck hunter's Rem 870. If that's your position, then even if the predicate belief is true, I think there are still two problems with this position. First, we all do this to one degree or another. Do you want a Mideast terrorist who becomes an American citizen, and who lives next to a big oil refinery, to be able to buy a howitzer? Neither do I. So we can probably agree that "the line has to be drawn somewhere," but we should be honest enough to admit that the mere act of drawing the line means that we are impairing our right to bear arms. Second, and more importantly, even if the "duck hunters" have no backbone, they're still not the "threat" that was asked about. Your point would be that they won't stand up against the "threat," but they are not the threat.

I'm really not trying to play semantic games here. I think there are forces out there that wish to disarm American citizens. But I also think it's counterproductive to suggest that current gun owners are to blame for those forces. I think we need to focus on who the our opposition really is, rather than blaming those who should be our allies.

 

[jimpeel]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that gun owners are mounting a campaign to repeal gun rights ...

No, they are standing by while those who are mounting a campaign to repeal firearms rights post sucess after sucess. The factionalization of the pro-firearms genre will eventually rob us of our right to arms and then our rights.

We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo

I posted this at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25038 some time ago but reprint it here for your perusal as it is germane to this subject. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph!

I was telling my wife yesterday that the reason we will lose the gun issue is that the anti-gun forces are made up of the extremist end of the anti-gun genre with a singular intent to be reached incrementally without compromise. In the mean time the pro-gun forces are made up of the fractured elements of the pro-gun genre that all have differing viewpoints. The compromiser, made up of those fearful that they will lose everything if they don't, are at odds with the hard-liners, who fear they will lose everything if they give any at all. While the anti-gun forces have but one common goal and are willing to stick together to accomplish it, the pro-gun forces won't even talk to each other. Some examples:

The NRA is fractured by the infighting and lawsuits between the forces of Neal Knox, et al, and the forces of LaPierre. http://www.urban-armory.com/nealknox010199.htm

JPFO is fractured by the current lawsuit by Jay Simkin against Aaron Zelman. http://jpfo.org/alert19990808.htm (DEAD LINK)

The NRA won't cooperate with anyone outside the organization calling everyone else "extremist".

Larry Pratt has sent a nasty-gram to Alan Gottlieb stating Gottlieb and his group are pro-gun control. http://www.saf.org/Prattresponse.htm

The NRA, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, et al, almost NEVER show up together, or in combination, at ANY function.

Conversely:

When was the last time you heard that Sarah Brady was upset at Josh Sugarmann?

That HCI was calling Stop Handgun Violence an extremist organization out of step with America?

When was the last news conference you saw that did not feature multiple anti-gun forces sharing the dais?

Yes, we have to lose eventually. Not because we won't try but because we have no commonality between our forces. We have no leadership on our end and no victims to parade. It is much more effective to parade a wheelchair-bound cripple of gun violence across the stage than to have a healthy person come bounding out on stage because he wasn't crippled by gun violence. There is no "pity" or "sympathy" element for the healthy whose lives were saved by the presence of a gun. "Pity" or "sympathy" is reserved only for those destroyed by the presence of a gun. That is how our society has been structured by years of Liberalism.

Remember, under Liberalism, the norm is the aberration. The many must shape their lives around the lives of the few. Hence, the healthy, those who make up the majority of the nation, are the aberration and the injured are the ones who get the press. Normality is the aberration while abnormality is vaunted. This is what I call the reverse effect of empathy. Those who see someone in a wheelchair have great empathy for them but have none whatsoever for those not so afflicted. Hence, there is no word for the lack of empathy for those undeserving of it. This is what the anti-gun forces have used, and will continue to use, to their great advantage.

So there it is. We MUST lose in the end unless we are somehow able to bring our forces together under a single tent just like the anti-gun forces have done. In the absence of that, get ready to line up at the local turn-in station.

 

[jimpeel]

I also posted this at TFL:

The anti-firearms movement is made up of the fanatical faction of the anti-firearms genre. The person who is mildly interested in the gun control debate are not their members. They band together with a common goal.

We, on the other hand, are made up of several factions who are, in many instances, fanatical about their particular niche. We have the compromisers, the non-compromisers, the hunters, the wingshooters, the militia types, The cowboy shooters, the home defense types, etc. and they are never on the same page the way the antis are. Most own a particular firearm and couldn't care less about those who own anything else. "I don't own any of those <insert evil firearm of the moment>. They'll never come after my <insert currently "acceptable" firearm>."

THIS IS WHY WE MUST LOSE THE DEBATE UNLESS WE COME TOGETHER AND UNITE AGAINST THE SCOURGE THAT IS GUN CONTROL, OR GUN SAFETY, OR WHATEVER THE POLITICALLY CORRECT TERM-OF-THE-MOMENT IS.

 

[telewinz]

cuchulainn hit it on the head

The next sniper/gunman who kills innocent people and threating slogans like "from my cold dead fingers". Keep daring people to knock the chip off you shoulder and they will. You don't walk away from a threat, you disarm it which explains what has been happening for the last 35 years. The idle threats/slogans may only scare small children but (in time) they can VOTE against us.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I think the bow hunters and black powder hunters are going to do us major damage in the long run. Not that it is their fault.

In a few more years they will do away with rifle season almost entirely, if not entirely. Then the hunters will no longer matter in the vote and we will be done.

If the bow and black powder thing was about skill why don't I get a special handgun only season? Answer- they want to encourage people to hunt with pointy sticks and BP. Not with handguns.

In VA, where I'm from. Many young men don't even both to buy a rifle to hunt with. They only get 2 weeks with it. If money is tight you get a bow and a BP and get to hunt for months instead of weeks. It's far more cost efficient.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[stevelyn]

I had posted comment on a similar thread that asked the same question and now I can't find it. But my comments went something like we are our own worst enemies. There are gun owners who start off with their disclaimer of being a hunter and a gun owner but..........
All I can say is BS. Anyone with a disclaimer like that is a traitorous mole in our midsts working for the enemy. Demonizing homeland defense rifles (EBRs, assault weapons, small concealable handguns, what have you) in an effort to save your own ox from being gored only slows down the inevitable. And that is the total banning and confiscation of all firearms outside government owned arms rooms.
The VPC, Bradiots, MMMs have all shown their hands as well as the politicians on their donor lists. This can be proven by reading the new and improved version of the AWB. These people don't play nice nor are they going to stop until their goals are reached. The worst thing we can do is to be divided as to what firearms are legitimate in citizens hands. I got news for you.........anything burning gunpowder and short of being towed and crew served, is legitimate according the U.S. Constitution. The sooner ALL gun owners learn and understand that the better.
2A has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with maintaining a free country. Hunting is nothing more than a side benefit of owning firearms.