Why conservatives are suckers for gun control

[Preacherman]

To all the "absolutists" who've posted - please name one (any one) State where you've been able to gain any RKBA improvements at all through intransigence and insistence on absolute rights. I'll wait while you look for one - but it'll be a loooooonng wait... because there isn't one, as far as I'm aware.

We've gone from virtually no legal CCW in the '60's to legal CCW, subject to limitations, in over 40 states, and unrestricted CCW in two states. That's a heck of a good track record for the "moderate" approach. Along the way, we've had to deal with other challenges to the RKBA, including Clinton's assault weapons ban and other restrictions. I'd say that overall, we're in far better shape today than we were in the late 1960's.

To quote the ancient sage: "Politics is the art of the possible". We're dealing with a majority of the US population that doesn't understand guns, are afraid of guns, and regard the object (the gun) as being the danger, rather than the wielder of the object. The only way to change this is by education and by example. The best possible example is lawful CCW holders carrying day by day, not going postal on bystanders, defending themselves against criminals, and generally being portrayed as the good citizens that they almost universally are. This example has led to the gradual extension of CCW "privileges" (yes, I know, from a strict constructionist viewpoint they're rights, not privileges, but remember - this is the real world we're dealing with!) to most of the USA. Even in California, with its utterly ridiculous gun legislation, there are far more counties issuing CCW permits than those that refuse to do so, or place unreasonable obstacles in the path of those wanting a permit.

I'm afraid I have a hard time with fundamentalists, whether religious, political, RKBA, or any other flavor. The fundamentalist insists that his/her interpretation of the "sacred text" (in this case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights) is the only true way, and that dissenters must be converted or removed. Unfortunately, the majority of voters in this country, and the entire court system, and most of our legislators, don't agree with this perspective, and will (and have) shut it down whenever it's reared its (to them) ugly head. This is the reality we face. If you can't cope with reality, well, I'm very sorry for you, but the world is not about to change to suit you... so you can either adjust to reality, or retreat into your castle, pull up the drawbridge behind you, and refuse to interact with reality at all.

That's the way it is, folks. We may not like it; it may not be ideal; but it's incontrovertibly the reality we face.

 

[mtnbkr]

+1 Preacherman.

Virginia has done it the slow and steady way with the help of the VCDL. In the 5 years I've had my CCW (just renewed it), I've seen a significant reduction in restriction and overall gun control. Not only that, but unlicensed Open Carry is starting to gain acceptance. As it stands now, the only three restrictions that really affect me are the one gun a month law (effectively void if you have a CCW permit), no carry in Church, and no CCW in any facility with an "on site" ABC license (bars, restaurants, etc). We have, in the past few years, gotten a statewide preemption law, CCW while hunting (and while bow or BP hunting!), no handgun purchase limitations with a CCW license, and plenty others. We'll get there, but it takes time.

Chris

 

[TrapperReady]

This guy didn't attack you. he's just adding to the pro-gun discussion. He's showing the flaws of compromising rights without stabbing you in the back. Lighten up. You're being as critical as he is.

This guy and his organization is hurting the effort get CCW legislation passed in WI. That directly effects me and my family. If there was any sort of actual experience to show that a non-incremental approach worked, then I'd be happy to listen. As it is, he's running around like a bull in a china shop, and making ridiculous accusations about people who are helpful to the RKBA cause.

If he wants Vermont-style carry, or thinks that we currently have that right, then he should strap on his chosen carry weapon, get arrested and fight that battle in court.

 

[Trip20]

To those that have defended Executive Director - we do not oppose him in that we do not want unregulated VT-style carry. We disagree because the probability for success of such an approach is slim to none, and will undoubtedly keep us unarmed. Don’t argue, it’s true.

What seems the easier battle?

• Fighting for, and achieving VT-style concealed carry – and making this journey from the current state of affairs (completely illegal), to this utopia of unrestricted concealed carry?

OR

• Fighting the "half-dozen restrictions" (melodramatic way of saying: 6 restrictions), in order to chip away at the bill to eventually achieve unrestricted CCW?

There is no better example of a "no-brainer" IMO.

6 restrictions, all of which I'm sure we can chew away in time, are keeping WGO and other “absolutists” from supporting this bill? :banghead:

 

[SomeKid]

To all the "absolutists" who've posted - please name one (any one) State where you've been able to gain any RKBA improvements at all through intransigence and insistence on absolute rights. I'll wait while you look for one - but it'll be a loooooonng wait... because there isn't one, as far as I'm aware.

I was under the impression that Vermont never had any restrictions in the first place. You could open or coneal at your discretion.

 

[Preacherman]

I was under the impression that Vermont never had any restrictions in the first place. You could open or coneal at your discretion.

Yes - but that means that an absolutist approach to the RKBA didn't win anything there, as there was nothing to win.

 

[SomeKid]

Yes - but that means that an absolutist approach to the RKBA didn't win anything there, as there was nothing to win.

Thats because they took that view from the beginning, and never let the enemy have an inch.

They never took that first step backwards, they never 'compromised'.

 

[Trip20]

Thats because they took that view from the beginning, and never let the enemy have an inch.

They never took that first step backwards, they never 'compromised'.

...and "they" are not Wisconsin. It won't work here, period.

 

[Camp David]

I was under the impression that Vermont never had any restrictions in the first place. You could open or coneal at your discretion.

That's how it was a few years ago... when I grew up there (northwest VT near lake) I could carry a handgun everywhere, concealed or open, and there were no laws governing such... occasionally a Game Warden would stop you if you were hunting with a handgun, but only to ask you for a hunting license. Vermont was a great state for this... it may have changed recently though! I understand the flatlanders from Massachusetts have moved up there intent on changing the laws of the state....

 

[SomeKid]

...and "they" are not Wisconsin. It won't work here, period.

Trip, I was taking Preachers challenge regarding whether an absolutist approach could work. I have proved that it can.

 

[El Tejon]

Somekid, well, not really. The city of Rutland, Vermont passed an ordinance against carrying pistols without a permit. In 1903 the Vermont Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional. It was judicial action in Vermont, not legislative.

Get a bridgehead and then start pushing. Look at Texas, compare Texas law in 1995 to 2005. Look at the change in the culture toward carrying in Texas.

Look to our enemies. How did they destroy our rights? Step at a time. Look how far along they are in CA, MA or NJ! All achieved a step at a time.

Small victories in the states until we achieve federal preemption in Congress!

 

[SomeKid]

El T, you prove my point again. An anti tried to put a restriction in place, but an absolutist squashed it. Never give them the beachhead, and we win without having to compromise.

 

[antsi]

I believe instead of resting on our CCW laurels, we need to push on toward Vermont-style carry in every CCW state.

This is no endorsement of absolutism.
If all the current shall-issue states had followed Executive Director's lead, insisting on Vermont-style, actively working to defeat any carry law that wasn't "perfect," then few if any of them would have passed any kind of carry law at all.

If you want to set an absolute ultimate goal, and work step by step to get there, then I'm with you.

If you define absolutism as "I won't accept taking any step at all, unless it gets me all the way to my destination instantly," then you are being a fool and you will never get to any destination.

 

[Trip20]

Trip, I was taking Preachers challenge regarding whether an absolutist approach could work. I have proved that it can.

That's fine, no hard feelings. This is a debate regarding Wisconsin... and therefore it was a valid point (or opinion - mine), to interject that WI can not, and will not follow in VT's footsteps.

Now, Alaska's footsteps... that's not out of the question at all.

 

[TrapperReady]

An anti tried to put a restriction in place, but an absolutist squashed it. Never give them the beachhead, and we win without having to compromise.

SomeKid - You're trying to equate 1903 Vermont with 2005 Wisconsin. In the first case, the "anti" folks were trying to pass a restrictive law. Right now, the restrictive law in Wisconsin has been in effect for 130+ YEARS.

Apples and oranges. Absolutism will never work here.

 

[Trip20]

+1 TrapperReady.

 

[SomeKid]

Trapper, I have not equated 1903 VT with 2005 WI.

Every post I have amde in this thread has simply been a defense of absolutism. In my first thread I acknowledged I was no expert on WI, but I refuse to stand idly by while one of our most useful tactics was ignored. I also refused to accept that we must start out meeting Democrats half-way.

Read my posts for what I say, not what you think they say.

 

[longrifleman]

I see the absolutist objections in a different perspective from any that has been expressed so far. The "politics is the art of the possible" approach is how things will get done, but the absolutists keep pushing the middle towards the direction they want to go. Without that push, I don't think things would move nearly as fast. They're keeping everyone honest, even if you don't want to admit it.

I see the same thing working for politics at large as well. We've had a lot of discussions about the leftward drift of the country in general. Last year's radical loony proposal is this year's new law. We can use the same route for our aims as well.

 

[Henry Bowman]

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[halvey]

If Minnesota would have tried to go from (in essence) no concealed carry (at least in the populated areas) to Vermont style, we'd still be holding out breath.

When the local carry orgainization started, they were told flat out BY GUN OWNERS shall issuse carry will never happen. After 7 years, in 2003, we got the law passed. A liberal judge struck down the law, and in 2005, it was passed again, with a much greater margin, more Democrats on board and the public shrugging saying "it turned out to be much to do about nothing." Heck, even the legal signs business owners use to keep guns off their property have come down. Chains of gas stations, car parts stores and restaurants have removed the signs. All because people came around to the idea.

With an absoutitst attitude, we'd still be like Illinois.

 

[antarti]

All that said™, I've moved a long, long way toward Second Amendment absolutism during the past year or so. I believe instead of resting on our CCW laurels, we need to push on toward Vermont-style carry in every CCW state. It might have been too soon to go the full distance in Wisconsin, but it's sure not too soon in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, and other leading edge states.

Please stick around, Executive Director. Some of us need to be prodded out of complacency—or perhaps enticed, actually.

Set your sights on the prize, restoring the 2A, work from that perspective. A bunch of damn fools long before me allowed things to get "infringed", and I want it "un-infringed", not just "made somewhat less odious" to buy and carry whatever I please.

I would much rather have thousands of absolutists fighting the legal battle, and in the end reach a "compromise" or "milestone" for a legislative session, and go at it again head-on next session, from their POV. Not a bunch of "well we might be able to get this or that" kinds leading the charge and having to compromise in the end. It also sends a message about where votes will be going, which is easily as powerful.

The point at which the goal post will eventually be moved by pro-2A people will depend on just how far beyond that point those people are demanding to go, and never give up or slack off.

You would think things are terrible here in Florida, reading my mail to my rep. Think he's going to push for Vermont style CCW if I tell him how happy I am that we've reached a "consensus" position with the anti-gunners? Sheesh...

The 2A is your damned birthright as an American... what good can the compromise mindset or resting on your laurels bring?

 

[geekWithA.45]

The toughest thing on being a complete, well rounded human being is to have a lot of different tricks in your pack, the skill to wield each of them effectively, the widsom to know which and when, and the experience that has taught you that sometimes, progress can be made by standing aside while the winds do your work for you.

Being a one trick pony, whatever that trick might be, absolutism, compromise-ism, or whatever else your tool of choice is only going to work for you every once in a blue moon when the circumstance happens to fit your tool.

We're (mostly) thinking, adaptable, agile humans, and we can do better than that.

 

[Trip20]

You would think things are terrible here in Florida, reading my mail to my rep. Think he's going to push for Vermont style CCW if I tell him how happy I am that we've reached a "consensus" position with the anti-gunners? Sheesh...

You’re clueless. You don't think we intend to fight the rest of the way to VT-style carry, once we get this CCW bill passed? You actually believe that once we get this bill passed, we'll pet our reps on the head and say "good boy, thank you and we don't need anymore from you"? Please……

The 2A is your damned birthright as an American... what good can the compromise mindset or resting on your laurels bring?

This has nothing to do with a "compromise mindset". This has to do with the fastest route to the end-goal. Sure, I could be an absolutist... and have absolutely ZERO CCW for the next 30yrs…..50yrs....... or, entertain the possibility that with in 10yrs, we will incrementally reach that same friggen goal, AND in the mean time have the legal ability to arm ourselves! Wow.

This entire argument is nothing more than a matter of tactics..... Not a matter of compromise, or absolutism – both of which are immaterial. I think everyone involved has the same end-goal. You have a choice: there is an intelligent tactic to reach that goal.... and then a completely bull-headed & very improbable tactic to reach that same goal. Take your pick.

In the mean time, you can protect yourself from an attacker by bellowing useless and idealistic rhetoric. It's definitely more powerful than a 9mm, but not as powerful as a .45acp.

 

[lance22]

Yes, it's a victory

Soon, I will be able to carry in Wisconsin. I live in MN with relatives in WI. I can't carry there now but that will change. Somebody wants to tell me that this is bad?

The state already knows that I'm a gun owner. My real name is plastered all over the internet in connection with 2A causes and shooting competitions. If I get a card from WI saying I can carry, I'm not worried that "they" are going to come and get me because they'd have to be blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid not to know that I'm a gun owner even without this new carry card. This is to say nothing of the many emails and letters I have sent to politicians asking them to vote this or that way. Hey, they know who I am. They know what I stand for. I'm neither ashamed nor afraid. And now I'll enjoy the reward of carrying in Wisconsin.

 

[TrapperReady]

SomeKid -

Every post I have amde in this thread has simply been a defense of absolutism. In my first thread I acknowledged I was no expert on WI, but I refuse to stand idly by while one of our most useful tactics was ignored.

You used a response from El Tejon about a legal decision in 1903 in Vermont as proving your point. The fact of the matter is that carry of weapons (either concealed or open) was already legal. The court simply backed up that precedent. In that case, absolutism was doing nothing more than preserving the status quo.

However, in 2005 Wisconsin what the folks supporting RKBA are trying to do is overturn the status quo. Many other states have done so in recent history, and in all of those cases, it was done incrementally. Absolutism may have it's place to help bring issues about for discussion, but trying to get actual useful legislation passed with that attitude will result in failure.

Specifically with regards to Gun Owners of Wisconsin, it is my firm belief that they are causing more harm than good. If we manage to get any form of CCW legislation passed, it will be by the slimmest of marins. We can't afford to have their bullheaded approach cost us even a single vote.

I also refused to accept that we must start out meeting Democrats half-way.

Based on the last two presidential elections, the country is almost exactly split along Republican/Democrat lines. It is my opinion that if you aren't willing to work with the opposing side, and instead try to ram everything down their throats, don't bitch too hard when sides eventually shift and they do the same thing to you.