It's Our Own fault!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wildalaska

Moderator
I postulate that each and every Federal Gun Control Law since 1968 is as a result of this:

They see them as lower- and working-class redneck bible-thumping hillbillies, and this guy lives right up to that standard... an anti-gun stance is more about socioeconomic and cultural snobbery than anything else.

Yep. Add rascist to the adjectives.

Go back to the 60s and see what I mean. Bull Connor with a Smith.


WildandevenmoresoaremnantofreconstructionAlaska

PS...so if we lose that image? Is the gun movement becoming more of the intellectual elite now too?
 
That may be true among politicians, but I think the rank-and-file anti-gunner has developed that attitude largely through ignorance and/or simply not thinking the matter through.

Tim
 
I think old Bull gave fire hoses, white cotton sheets and German Shepherds a bad name.

I tend to think urbanization did more to hinder firearms law than the civil rights movement.
 
Socioeconomic and cultural snobbery exists within the firearm community as much as in the gun-control crowd. I think Zumbo did a good job illustrating that.

And the OP if I understand him correctly. Are you suggesting "lower- and working-class redneck bible-thumping hillbillies" don't deserve to own certain classes of weapons?
 
so if we lose that image

Who's "we"? You are extremely anti-gun-freedom in my view, and only trying to gain intel on YOUR enemy, gun owners who believe that 2nd Amendment means what it says. So why would we help you, who would send us to prision for exercising our rights? Get real. Don't feed the troll folks. WA is an expert in guns, and generally a very good and intelligent guy. But his freedom stances are diametrically opposed to 99% of gun owners on this board. We've seen that again and again and again in threads on TFL. :barf: It is *someone's* fault all right - people like you who don't stand up 100% for gun freedoms, and cower to/placate/Quisling the anti-gunners.

[Above is MY opinion - obviously WA and others may disagree. :) ]
 
That may be true among politicians, but I think the rank-and-file anti-gunner has developed that attitude largely through ignorance and/or simply not thinking the matter through.

I think you've actually got that reversed, at least in some ways. I've talked to plenty of rank-and-file anti-gunners (and used to be one). The public image of "firearms enthusiasts" has done much to sour them to the idea of gun ownership, and in particular "scary" gun ownership ("high capacity" magazines, "assault weapons," etc.), than anything else. And for those that actually made their decision based on fear/ignorance alone, the public image of "firearms enthusiasts" is what makes them almost impossible to reason with...the kinds of people who push for unrestricted gun ownership are often the kinds of people they don't want to own guns. Yes, they're willing to throw away the second amendment to achieve that goal.

This idea will be continued....

And the OP if I understand him correctly. Are you suggesting "lower- and working-class redneck bible-thumping hillbillies" don't deserve to own certain classes of weapons?

No, but he's saying that the tendency for those who want to own certain classes of weapons to be "lawcrbth's" is part of the reason that a lot of mainstream folks are okay with not allowing anybody to own them.

Folks here obviously put a lot of stock in the second amendment. Including me. The problem is that certain classes of weapons, in particular "assault rifles," are not so useful for things like personal defense against criminals. They're more useful for things like keeping the government in check and protecting us from tyranny (well, that at protecting us from foreign invaders of the military persuasion...but now that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined that's not as much of an issue).

But to many mainstream folks, and nearly all liberals, the form of tyranny that is perceived as most likely and thus most feared nowadays is of the religious/racist persuasion. Religious in the form of legislating Christianity, and racist primarily regarding perceived "enemies" (most likely Arabs, possibly Hispanics). And guess what: the average gun rights activist and/or firearms enthusiast is perceived as the kind of person most likely to participate in this kind of tyranny, not use his cool new AR-15 to stop it.

And that's besides the fact that most liberals value the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments over the 2nd. And it's arguable that those amendments are more necessary to a free society than the second...at least directly. The second may be necessary to protect the rest, but in recent history particularly those who most strongly support the second seem willing to compromise on the "more important" ones, especially if you can give them somebody to be scared of and/or despise. So how exactly does the second amendment protect the rest (and a free society) if the people most likely to buy the guns don't seem to care about the rest?

So yeah, many people don't buy the whole "we need these guns to protect us from tyranny" argument because to them the most likely tyrants in our country today are the "conservative middle class white Christian with a lot a latent racism and the impression he's being downtrodden" and the "overtly racist redneck hillbilly who's still pissed off that the South lost and that states don't have the right to decide for themselves if people should be property and women should be able vote." Or possibly "patriotic American who believes that maybe the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply if it means we can catch more terrorists."

EDIT: WA's point being, at least the way I see it, that the more inclusive we are to such people the more we are perceived as a "fringe" group who is more dangerous to freedom than losing the second amendment. The only question I have, and I posed it in the other thread, is whether these people are a vocal minority of firearms enthusiasts...or actually the majority. I mean, if we didn't include such people how many would we actually have left? At least as far as people who vehemently support the right to own more than revolvers, maybe shotguns, and maybe "hunting rifles" (if we're lucky) go.
 
It is *someone's* fault all right - people like you who don't stand up 100% for gun freedoms, and cower to/placate/Quisling the anti-gunners.

Gun freedoms are what is allowed by law and the constitution. Your idea of willy nilly gun anarchy is the view of the fringe that makes it harder for the rest of us..

So why would we help you, who would send us to prision for exercising our rights?

Be careful. Im watching :)

WildthedirtyratAlaska
 
Wild, what is supposed to be wrong with a man that works out in the sun (redneck), makes $30-40K per annum, supporting himself and family and relies on the Bible for his guide to ethics by which to treat others as he wants to be treated? And believes in a Supreme Being who created all of this?

Leaving out the nutcases in the above group I would have to believe that you would consider them your worthy equals? Sadly we have gun owning nutcases in the rich, successful, learned, and also in the middle, and lower classes. We gun owners are allies and I know that myself and many others respect your opinions and words but you went out on a limb on this one.

The 2nd amendment applies to all. Have a good day.
 
Wild, what is supposed to be wrong with a man that works out in the sun (redneck), makes $30-40K per annum, supporting himself and family and relies on the Bible for his guide to ethics by which to treat others as he wants to be treated? And believes in a Supreme Being who created all of this?


Nothing, what makes you think I am implying there is anything wrong with that?

WildyoudoseethedifferencedontyouAlaska
 
Wild, what is supposed to be wrong with a man that works out in the sun (redneck), makes $30-40K per annum, supporting himself and family and relies on the Bible for his guide to ethics by which to treat others as he wants to be treated? And believes in a Supreme Being who created all of this?

Nothing, provided he makes no attempt to and does not support having morality out of the Bible legislated and actually treats others, even those who his Bible says are wrong (but who aren't actually infringing the rights of others), the way he'd want to be treated.

EDIT: And yes, I realize this wasn't addressed to me, and that WA had already answered...just felt like jumping in.
 
Wildalaska said:
Gun freedoms are what is allowed by law and the constitution.
Slight correction: Gun freedoms are what is guaranteed by the Constitution. "Laws" that are contrary to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights are not laws at all, but are illegitimate edicts that no one has any duty to heed.

No person or group of people has the absolute right to rule over anyone else. Ruling is a privilege, and it can be rightfully taken away if it is abused. That's why gun freedoms are important. If the law attempts to change things such that people no longer have the ability to take away the rulers' privileges, instead placing them under the rulers' boots, then everyone has a duty to resist the law.

This is how the Founders of America saw things, and they put it into practice with their British ruler. It's one of the foundations of this country.
 
Gun freedoms are what is guaranteed by the Constitution

Actually, gun freedom is established by the constituion :)

Laws" that are contrary to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights are not laws at all, but are illegitimate edicts that no one has any duty to heed.

Self evident, once the Supreme Court decides a law is unconstiutional, no one need obey it.

hat's why gun freedoms are important. If the law attempts to change things such that people no longer have the ability to take away the rulers' privileges, instead placing them under the rulers' boots, then everyone has a duty to resist the law.

Enough of that silliness already. This isnt 1776. We arent rising up against a distant tyrant, even assuming that the American Revolution was about that.

WildallpowertothepeopleAlaska
 
Slight correction: Gun freedoms are what is guaranteed by the Constitution. "Laws" that are contrary to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights are not laws at all, but are illegitimate edicts that no one has any duty to heed.

Great, we have nothing to worry about then.:confused:
 
So why would we help you, who would send us to prision for exercising our rights?

I have a feeling that I'm missing part of a story here. If you would care to elaborate I'd greatly appreciate it.
 
Correction Wildalaska...The Constitution does not estabish a right to keep and bear arms..it ENUMERATES that right along with others. It lists a right that predates the Constitution.
 
Someone please point me to a law that isn't an attempt to legislate someone's morality. Please, drop that shop-worn shibboleth. All man-made law is legislating morality, at least as the lawmakers perceive it.
 
Someone please point me to a law that isn't an attempt to legislate someone's morality. Please, drop that shop-worn shibboleth. All man-made law is legislating morality, at least as the lawmakers perceive it.
One could argue that laws against murder are not legislating morality but instead legislation to ensure that rights are not infringed. Legislating morality would be laws against adultery, fornication and cohabitation.
 
btw

JC said:
I think you've actually got that reversed, at least in some ways. I've talked to plenty of rank-and-file anti-gunners (and used to be one). The public image of "firearms enthusiasts" has done much to sour them to the idea of gun ownership, and in particular "scary" gun ownership ("high capacity" magazines, "assault weapons," etc.), than anything else. And for those that actually made their decision based on fear/ignorance alone, the public image of "firearms enthusiasts" is what makes them almost impossible to reason with...the kinds of people who push for unrestricted gun ownership are often the kinds of people they don't want to own guns. Yes, they're willing to throw away the second amendment to achieve that goal.

This idea will be continued....

Folks here obviously put a lot of stock in the second amendment. Including me. The problem is that certain classes of weapons, in particular "assault rifles," are not so useful for things like personal defense against criminals. They're more useful for things like keeping the government in check and protecting us from tyranny (well, that at protecting us from foreign invaders of the military persuasion...but now that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined that's not as much of an issue).

But to many mainstream folks, and nearly all liberals, the form of tyranny that is perceived as most likely and thus most feared nowadays is of the religious/racist persuasion. Religious in the form of legislating Christianity, and racist primarily regarding perceived "enemies" (most likely Arabs, possibly Hispanics). And guess what: the average gun rights activist and/or firearms enthusiast is perceived as the kind of person most likely to participate in this kind of tyranny, not use his cool new AR-15 to stop it.

And that's besides the fact that most liberals value the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments over the 2nd. And it's arguable that those amendments are more necessary to a free society than the second...at least directly. The second may be necessary to protect the rest, but in recent history particularly those who most strongly support the second seem willing to compromise on the "more important" ones, especially if you can give them somebody to be scared of and/or despise. So how exactly does the second amendment protect the rest (and a free society) if the people most likely to buy the guns don't seem to care about the rest?

So yeah, many people don't buy the whole "we need these guns to protect us from tyranny" argument because to them the most likely tyrants in our country today are the "conservative middle class white Christian with a lot a latent racism and the impression he's being downtrodden" and the "overtly racist redneck hillbilly who's still pissed off that the South lost and that states don't have the right to decide for themselves if people should be property and women should be able vote." Or possibly "patriotic American who believes that maybe the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply if it means we can catch more terrorists."

EDIT: WA's point being, at least the way I see it, that the more inclusive we are to such people the more we are perceived as a "fringe" group who is more dangerous to freedom than losing the second amendment. The only question I have, and I posed it in the other thread, is whether these people are a vocal minority of firearms enthusiasts...or actually the majority. I mean, if we didn't include such people how many would we actually have left? At least as far as people who vehemently support the right to own more than revolvers, maybe shotguns, and maybe "hunting rifles" (if we're lucky) go.
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

D'oh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top