Zumbo, Take 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
The antis are playing "the long game" which gives fruition over long lengths of time yet i don't see anything like that in the firearms community and I believe that's what's needed.
Really? Well it's a long LOSING game if the last 20 years tell the tale. They've had a more or less unbroken string of lost ground since their high water mark with the 1994 AWB (or arguably back in 1968, even!). The last year has shown that in the moment of the greatest possible advantage they've had in a decade or probably more, they still couldn't capitalize on that and turn it into action, outside of gains in three states (one of which is crumbling as we speak).

Honestly, I'm THRILLED with the way the long game is playing out. At this rate we'll be repealing the NFA in 2030!
 
APPLESEED shoots aren't enough either. As a start, air gun and archery need to come back to all public schools.
A friend and I were talking about this very thing the other day - how the antis are definitely winning on the education front (well, it's a bigger issue of fundamental rights in general). I'm proud to be in a group here of so many people who know A LOT about the Constitution and other important laws, but we're in an unfortunate minority. Most don't really know what those rights are or mean, let alone care. If we could manage to reverse that trend, I think we could more easily appeal to the "wait, that's not right" part of their brain. So many people are passionate about certain causes. If we could just convince them that this is a valid cause...

I agree with Sam - we're doing pretty good in other areas.
 
charlie, I don't think anyone here sounds like an irrational nutjob (but others certainly and obviously do) and i didn't call anyone here that. we are talking about preventing others from thinking that. you need to reread this thread.
 
I'm a bit leery of what I read in such magazines, even though they're obviously "pro-gun". They're are no less deserving of our critical review than any other source, regardless of the topics posted in them.

I used to pick up some on a regular basis, but I finally quit a few years ago over a "straw that broke the camel's back" issue for me. I kept that particular magazine because I meant to write the editors over what irked me, but never got around to it. Darned if I can find it right now and darned if I can remember which magazine it was. Perhaps if I ever found it I'll post something about it on the site for discussion.

Essentially what turned me off was another one of those stories about a guy who used a gun in self-defense during a store robbery. (He worked in a stop-and-rob convenience store.) The gist of the story is that he pulled out his (fill-in-the-blank tactical description of his pistol), shot at the guy several times without hitting him which caused the guy to flee out the door...and then he kept shooting. In fact, he described how he took careful aim at the guy who was across the parking lot by then and almost over a fence...and shot him in the back, killing him as he fell over the fence.

Much self-patting on the back, further claims that the police thought he did a great job by taking this dangerous criminal off the streeets permanently, and so forth.


The fact that the magazine editors published that story as written, without even a comment about the legal ramifications, totally turned me off to them. Not only was this an absolutely HORRIBLE legal issue (clearly condoning such behavior), it does absolutely NOTHING toward helping us with anti-gunners.


I'm on THR because THR is firmly rooted in reality (both legal and ethical) and clearly has much higher standards than this.


But I don't buy many such magazines any more, and those which I do I continue to read with a critical mind.
 
Taliv, I read the thread as it was developed in large part last evening, and commented accordingly, including referencing my interpretation of your comment in post no. 29 -- see my post no. 41 (if memory serves). I accept and appreciate your comment on what you think about others here and what you intended to communicate. Reasonable persons could glean or infer different meaning from the message communicated at the end of comment No. 29.

You would agree that it would be low road for a gun control proponent to call some of us nut jobs for principled but stark views on RKBA? Who penalizes them for low road conduct?
 
A training requirement for the sake of actual safety, preparedness to aid national defense, and familiarization with laws, and competence with your firearm - that I could live with.
The Second Amendment does mention "well-regulated" and many of us have agreed that in this case, "regulated" means trained (as in regulars, who were well-trained soldiers of their day).
If this training is free and doesn't constitute a burden that could prevent anyone who wants to legally own and carry a firearm from doing so, how could I argue against that? It's both reasonable and in the spirit of the Second Amendment.

If the training requirement is expensive enough to prevent anyone from exercising their Second Amendment rights or so arduous that only those who can take two weeks off work a year to go complete said training can meet the requirements, that's not reasonable.
And though I guess I wouldn't even call 16 hours of decent training too much of a burden, the financial costs associated with it are an unfair burden that can prevent people from exercising their rights.

So I guess if we are going to get stuck with training requirements, we need to find a way to make it free.
As in... the way it would have been free if you'd showed up with your musket for drill practice around 1770.

Really though, I have to agree that in PA, which is a shall-issue state with no training requirement, CCW holders don't really seem to go on rampages and shoot up public areas just for the fun of it all that often. Meaning... well, I haven't heard of a single case of it yet and I've been carrying for 12 years.
That does open up the whole question of what problem training solves.

Does it prevent bad guys from carrying guns and doing bad things with them?
Well... all the laws on the books didn't prevent Sandy Hook, the Navy Yard shooting, or the LAX shooting. And the guys who continually bring that up do have a point that's based on solid evidence. I also don't see why that's so hard for some people to understand.
 
You would agree that it would be low road for a gun control proponent to call some of us nut jobs for principled but stark views on RKBA? Who penalizes them for low road conduct?

Absolutely! We welcome folks from opposing view points to participate here so long as they do so politely and in what we perceive to be "good faith." Direct insults are never acceptable from anyone and impolite conduct from such a member would garner the same results as similar comments made by any of the rest of us -- a note, warning, "infraction" notice, and all the way to temporary or even permanent removal from the forum if it comes to that.

While we do try and ensure that any "antis" or even fence-sitters who come here are affronted ONLY by our best and highest persuasion and rational arguments -- not harassed into leaving through insult and abuse -- standards of conduct are the same for all. If you see abuse and insult being used by any member at any time, hit the report post button (
report.gif
) and ask the Staff to take a look and made a decision.
 
Sam, thanks.

My skin is thicker than my poorly articulated points may suggest. I, like you and Taliv, have devoted much to RKBA. We share the same goal of preserving it for our children and generations who may follow. Within this family, we recognize a range of political views. Nevertheless, as you noted previously, the results have been impressive since the Clinton era. Our current circumstances remain difficult, but we read of successes across the country daily. We continue to confront all issues head on.

Now, as servants are want to do, we sometimes debate among one another who's ideas are better. Fundamentalists in our house have in my view a large claim to the successes we've seen and will see. They have a place here, and play an important role, and deserve support and respect

Too, those who can see shades of gray, who can empathize with how the world may perceive, negatively, views from the base also have an important place and role here and in the battle.

We as a family waste some resource, time and third party credibility -- perhaps -- airing
dirty family laundry here or elsewhere. Fud, nut job, whatever -- are the labels that divide us, not unite us, in purpose. You get all that, I know.

Here's a last thought. In the family, it is quite easy for offense to arise when anyone advances
their brand of RBKA by figuratively standing on the shoulders of other family members and wetting on them. Metcalf did that. He will get strong response -- not to whether we need training (equal to food and water, IMO) -- to his tactic marginalizing fundamentalist RKBA. It is easy to perceive him as an apostate or traitor. Indeed, at the end of the day, our enemies and Metcalf hold hands in advancing more government regulation between citizens and firearm ownership, possession and use.

As I said earlier, that's what the OP seemed to focus on, linking Metcalf to my pal Jim Zumbo.

If this were a thread on whether we think it is good for firearms owners to get training, I suspect we'd see unanimous support. If we focused on self defense, preached the doctrine and experiences of enlightened teachers, like Jeff Cooper, Mas Ayoob and others, we would again all likely agree. In the last resort, when our pulse rates climb past 160, when tunnel vision presents and our motor skills diminish to 30 or 40 percent of their norm, we will default to our level of training. If it was a single two day course over 16 hours, with only 300 rounds fired from concealed draw to target, the reality is firearms consumers may not survive a gun fight with a pair sporting half a dozen tear drop tattoos.

Buying a pistol does not make you a wise, dependable civilian shooter any more than buying a guitar makes you a musician, according to the Colonel. He's right. And there are plenty of stories and metrics to back this up. That would be a high road discussion on the why's of training, as opposed to low road criticism of a large if not majority segment of the RKBA family.
 
That does open up the whole question of what problem training solves.

ding ding ding!

It solves nothing.

Every time this comes up...and as mentioned above the only people who seem to think training should be required are gun owners and supposed RKBA supporters...I point out the many states and the millions of licensed carriers who had no mandatory training requirement.

I then ask for examples of the kinds of things that the proposed training requirement would prevent.

Nobody ever comes up with anything.

The "gun rights supporters" who clamor for a training requirement have LESS reasoning for and support of their request then the gun grabbers who want magazine restrictions.
 
You would agree that it would be low road for a gun control proponent to call some of us nut jobs for principled but stark views on RKBA? Who penalizes them for low road conduct?

certainly, but the point again isn't insults from gun control proponents. it's avoiding people on the fence from even thinking we are irrational. when we flatly refuse to do something they think is reasonable, that will color all the rest of their decisions and hence, voting. they will be predisposed to disagree with us because they find us unreasonable. this entire conversation (afaik) was about their perception. The fact that training is not required and is an infringement on rights is irrelevant because it's about perception, which is not fact-based until we educate them
 
certainly, but the point again isn't insults from gun control proponents. it's avoiding people on the fence from even thinking we are irrational. when we flatly refuse to do something they think is reasonable, that will color all the rest of their decisions and hence, voting. they will be predisposed to disagree with us because they find us unreasonable. this entire conversation (afaik) was about their perception. The fact that training is not required and is an infringement on rights is irrelevant because it's about perception, which is not fact-based until we educate them

So explain to them why it is reasonable/why what they think is not accurate.

Many fence sitters think a magazine capacity restriction is reasonable. My FIL is a gun owning, AR owning, 30 round capacity magazine owning, NRA member who thinks a magazine capacity restriction is reasonable.

So, if I flat refuse to accept a magazine capacity restriction, am I doing it wrong? Am I just making us look like nutjobs?
 
I seem to remember Metcalf writing a column defending Zumbo after his show was cancelled and sponsors dropped him. He labeled the people upset by his comments on "Terrorist Guns" as ignorant malcontents.

Or am I thinking of another column?
 
warp, i get your point, and obviously, if you have the opportunity to educate people by all means do so. where that is less practical en masse, we have to do what we can, but it is very easy to argue against magazine restrictions and very difficult to argue against education.
 
Metcalf is advocating giving up ground already won with this "well regulated" argument.

From the Heller syllabus (Hat tip to Ace of Spades)
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.
That is hard fount ground now enshrined in stare decisis. There is plenty of room to talk tactics about advancing but for God's sake Do not retreat!

Mike
 
warp, i get your point, and obviously, if you have the opportunity to educate people by all means do so. where that is less practical en masse, we have to do what we can, but it is very easy to argue against magazine restrictions and very difficult to argue against education.

I find that it is very easy to argue against government mandated training prior to exercise a Right-turned-privilege.

As I pointed out earlier, the first place to start is by asking what problem it "solves". Because it doesn't.

Most people are intelligent enough to realize that the onus, the burden of proof, the weight of evidence rests on those who want a law to be passed and who want to require people do something. With a lot of people it begins and ends right there, because they can't even come up with a legitimate need based on the actual factual real world.
 
guys, i am not in favor of any significant restrictions or impediments to firearm ownership, but we do need to keep things in context. There are almost as many people living in Brooklyn today as there were in the whole 13 colonies when the Declaration was signed.

All I'm saying is, as we try to reach out to people on the fence, we would do well to realize that people can believe a few hours of training is 'reasonable' without needing professional psychological help.


If 'compromise' meant give and take, I would in a heartbeat take a requirement for 16 hours of training in exchange for getting rid of some totally nonsensical gun laws, like 15" barrel length needing a $200 stamp, or restrictions that both sides agree are totally cosmetic.

As long as 'compromise' means all give and no take, I agree we hold the line.
that is suicidal thinking because gun owners always compromise and they never do. that is why gun rights are being eroded away. they always win gun guys always lose. and I notice the more guys get entrenched in a business, association, web site the more they lean to govt control
 
While it's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws, politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

So we can't forget that it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough enough people don't like guns, don't trust the rest of us with guns, and are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.
I blame gun owners and the phony NRA for losing gun rights they are always compromising. instead of being on the defensive (where they can collect more money) the NRA should try to get machine gun ban ended along with FFL's where a un can be bought in the mail etc. let the antis run around wasting money and time fighting that. but then the NRA would not have to scare guys into signing up
 
The second I got my copy of Guns and Ammo this month, I read the back article while on the porcelain throne after getting home from work, and I thought... "Hoo boy, guess I need to make some popcorn and log on to the gun boards!"

I am a regular member on three forums including this one, and the thread dedicated to this issue on each one has exploded to 20+ pages in less than a week, and I have not seen so many pro-2A folks at each other's throats ever.

My $0.02... *ducks*

I think a lot of 2A people are just as guilty of magical thinking as the anti-2A types are.

You can say that it's your right to buy a machine gun without a background check and carry it wherever you darn well like because the Second Amendment says "... shall not be infringed."

But neither you, nor anyone else on this or any other gun forum get to decide what the Second Amendment means as a matter of law. That is the job, delegated by the Constitution, for the Supreme Court.

You have every right to disagree with their conclusions, but a loud and proud insistence that "It's my right!" has zero practical value.

What you think your rights are is utterly irrelevant. What matters is what everyone else is willing to recognize.

... but they're stupid and ignorant and emotional and WRONG!

... so what? They outnumber you! By a lot! If you think you're going to win all the fights just because you're right, you watch too much television.

What should be and what actually is ain't ever exactly been the same thing.

I happen to think that permitless concealed or open carry at the national level is the most honest reading of the Constitution.

But I recognize that I am in a distinct minority and have no interest in baiting enough bears that the rights that I currently do have find themselves shrinking.

I will win more 2A arguments by quiet empathy, reasoned and High Road discussion, and willingness to talk to and compromise with people who do not agree with me 100% than I will by a shrill insistence that all gun laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed.
 
look, i didn't say i was FOR it. I very carefully said I would take it in exchange for getting rid of some NFA laws and other nonsense.

but that's not the point. the point is, most people in the country are going to tell you people SHOULD get training before owning a firearm. so making statements like this just make us sound like out of touch extremists. and extremists aren't going to win many elections.

again, the whole point of this website/forum is promoting RKBA. we should keep the world focused on the massive flaws in the gun-control movement's logic. trying to debate the constitutionality of requiring training that most people obviously need is just silly.

warp, to answer your previous question, if i were conducting the training (which again, I am not advocating for), it would include simply safety and law. Heck, just reading the sticky thread on what "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" etc ACTUALLY MEAN would be a pretty big help to most people.
do you have a training facility where you can gain from "training" 16 hours
 
Warp, to your Post No. 88: I think that's sound advice. I deleted the post.

It is indeed about stopping the threat. I would appreciate it if you would delete the quote of my deleted post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top