The problem with the gun rights crowd
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
- Status
There was a rally here in missouri, I believe that it was, and civilians all marched through the streets with their black rifles. Dressed in swat uniforms, hunting camo, putting the absolute worst image possible out there to prove that people who own them are just ordinary dudes who go to church and coach soccer. Man, that wasn't the impression that the public got.
The photo in the paper showed a woman in a skin tight and very revealing black top, black glasses, blond hair, marching with a frown on her face. Dude, she was wearing a terminator costume for halloween. My hair literally stood on end.
How did that help?
A few years ago one of the halloween pop up stores opened and they put a guy out on the sidewalk wearing a scary costume. So here this knucklehead was, swinging a plastic machete at traffic, and four people called 911. Officers who arrived put him on the ground at gunpoint.
Think carefully, everyone, if a minimum wage earning doofus swinging a toy was dragged to the ground by armed police because he scared people in traffic, It's obviously not a great idea to walk around in full paramilitary costume while carrying a rifle and tactical backpack. The citizens are asked to report anything that is disturbing or suspicious. How does a passer by know that the guy on the street is just picking it up from the gunsmith, rather than taking it into the next building, a church, intending to make a political statement?
The photo in the paper showed a woman in a skin tight and very revealing black top, black glasses, blond hair, marching with a frown on her face. Dude, she was wearing a terminator costume for halloween. My hair literally stood on end.
How did that help?
A few years ago one of the halloween pop up stores opened and they put a guy out on the sidewalk wearing a scary costume. So here this knucklehead was, swinging a plastic machete at traffic, and four people called 911. Officers who arrived put him on the ground at gunpoint.
Think carefully, everyone, if a minimum wage earning doofus swinging a toy was dragged to the ground by armed police because he scared people in traffic, It's obviously not a great idea to walk around in full paramilitary costume while carrying a rifle and tactical backpack. The citizens are asked to report anything that is disturbing or suspicious. How does a passer by know that the guy on the street is just picking it up from the gunsmith, rather than taking it into the next building, a church, intending to make a political statement?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Problems with the gun rights crowd? We’ve got two “gun rights” people IN THIS THREAD who support registering firearms owners or universal background checks and are happy to say so.
What’s the upside of encouraging people who don’t believe what you do and think they can survive by feeding the alligator feet first to join you? You can’t trust or rely on them. At best you convince them to occasionally side with you in tight on the margins issues.
Look at New Zealand. Gun owners there bent over backwards to accommodate “reasonable gun control” and went far beyond what people here suggest. They agreed to restrictions and licensing that would never fly here. Then their own government granted a gun license to a known, unstable, dangerous immigrant - and when he misused the “privilege” the government granted him, they used that as an excuse to further disarm their own law-abiding citizens - despite the fact that the terrorist stated that this was exactly his intention.
We need more jellyfish to support gun rights! Why? They’re jellyfish.
What’s the upside of encouraging people who don’t believe what you do and think they can survive by feeding the alligator feet first to join you? You can’t trust or rely on them. At best you convince them to occasionally side with you in tight on the margins issues.
Look at New Zealand. Gun owners there bent over backwards to accommodate “reasonable gun control” and went far beyond what people here suggest. They agreed to restrictions and licensing that would never fly here. Then their own government granted a gun license to a known, unstable, dangerous immigrant - and when he misused the “privilege” the government granted him, they used that as an excuse to further disarm their own law-abiding citizens - despite the fact that the terrorist stated that this was exactly his intention.
We need more jellyfish to support gun rights! Why? They’re jellyfish.
I have a couple of good friends who are far more conservative than I am, and a couple of friends who are far more liberal than I am. Do I dump them because we disagree? They're my friends because of shared experiences that go beyond politics or where we stand on guns. I know I could call any one of them at 3:00 A.M. and get help with no hesitation. I might get a butt-chewing a day or two later for that wake-up, but I can rely on any of these people with whom I disagree about some things to be my friends in other things. I'm not about to shut down those friendships over membership in the NRA or who we voted for.
My daughter tolerates my interest in gun but says she will never own a gun. I ain't about to dump her, either.
The problem with some folks is the inability to separate the "gun issue" from all their other political ideas.
If you agree with a political party's platform on one thing, does it mean you have to agree with them in ALL things? Some think so, I disagree.
The people who say "if you agree with us on A, you must agree with us on B are not for me.
I MIGHT agree with them on B, or I might not. Not being given the choice, means they really aren't about individual freedom, only group think, THEIR group.
If you agree with a political party's platform on one thing, does it mean you have to agree with them in ALL things? Some think so, I disagree.
The people who say "if you agree with us on A, you must agree with us on B are not for me.
I MIGHT agree with them on B, or I might not. Not being given the choice, means they really aren't about individual freedom, only group think, THEIR group.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, I know you know this 44AMP; but at the heart of it, the way you view gun politics is shorthand for a lot of other deeply held values. If you believe the government is the representative of the citizen and serves that citizen, it is hard to square the idea that the government should have special privileges on use of force, let alone a monopoly.
The key tenet of advanced civilizations is they have a solid predictive mechanism that allows them to resolve disputes without resorting to use of force. As long as all citizens accept that the predictive method used to resolve conflicts is valid, they can have continual revolutions without destroying infrastructure and human capital. Because that civilization isn’t being reset to zero by conflict, it gains over others.
The problem hits when citizens start to feel like the system is being gamed and doesn’t accurately predict actual conflict results. You can see where disarming your citizenry (in slices or in whole) throws a wrench in that. Then people start thinking that destroying a lot of wealth creating infrastructure is worth the price of escaping perceived enslavement.
The key tenet of advanced civilizations is they have a solid predictive mechanism that allows them to resolve disputes without resorting to use of force. As long as all citizens accept that the predictive method used to resolve conflicts is valid, they can have continual revolutions without destroying infrastructure and human capital. Because that civilization isn’t being reset to zero by conflict, it gains over others.
The problem hits when citizens start to feel like the system is being gamed and doesn’t accurately predict actual conflict results. You can see where disarming your citizenry (in slices or in whole) throws a wrench in that. Then people start thinking that destroying a lot of wealth creating infrastructure is worth the price of escaping perceived enslavement.
reteach; Bad call !!!
My "good" buddy and I went to local Gun-Shows and he would start getting political on me. So, very early, we made a deal to keep politics out of our conversations. More than once I had to remind him of "our" deal...…
Well, this time it's a bad call on your part as you could say, he dumped me and to this day, has not give me a straight answer as to why. …..
However, I can thank him for doing us both a favor …..
Be Safe !!!
My "good" buddy and I went to local Gun-Shows and he would start getting political on me. So, very early, we made a deal to keep politics out of our conversations. More than once I had to remind him of "our" deal...…
reteach
Well, this time it's a bad call on your part as you could say, he dumped me and to this day, has not give me a straight answer as to why. …..
However, I can thank him for doing us both a favor …..
Be Safe !!!
Last edited:
How many people do you know where you are virtually on the same page regarding gun rights/2nd Amendment issues but virtually opposed on almost every other issue?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Actually, there are quite a few. Most folks are quite mixed on the hot button social issues that some also want to make a litmus test for supporting guns.
The problem with "gun rights people" is that we are very individualistic and think for ourselves. We have no "Great and Wise Leader" or Politburo set the "Party Line". And we have no "Party Control Commission" to enforce discipline and expel those who do not follow "The Party Line."
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I'd add to that the idea that constitutionally protected rights are distinguishable from mere policy disagreements.
One could believe as a matter of public policy that privately held firearms should be prohibited, or only men should be permitted to vote or that the federal government should outlaw alcohol. However, if one asserts that the constitutions permits all those and we should have Sup Ct justices who will hold that the COTUS permits those, then we aren't having a disagreement on policy and social issues; we are disagreeing on whether the COTUS is a governing legal document and whether there is good faith in ignoring its text.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Slight nuance, we need more gun laws that void what I see as unconstitutional state laws, in a manner similar to the Civil Rights acts, which denied civil rights in the various states.
The good news is "gun rights people" agree on much more than they disagree on. Much of the agreement isn't stated above, but (most here) agree on the key tenants of the 2nd amendment, which are monstrous compared to background checks or not.
Further, we're *FOR* something, not against, which many of the anti's can't articulate a specific position they support, only they don't want .... .
We're not that far apart gentlemen and ladies.
Further, we're *FOR* something, not against, which many of the anti's can't articulate a specific position they support, only they don't want .... .
We're not that far apart gentlemen and ladies.
I think this is a lot of it honestly.
I also agree with this. We often split hairs. I remember when we discussed national reciprocity after the 2018 election. The key hangup was a knee-jerk reaction against the Federal government mandating that states honor CCH permits, and over whether the CCH Permit standards would be more California style. Everyone liked the idea of National Reciprocity, but not everyone liked swallowing the pill it would likely take to get us there. There were a few threads here on it (and on THR) with a fair amount of reasoned debate. As you said, we really aren't that far apart.
- Status