The problem with the gun rights crowd

Status
Not open for further replies.
Opinions are just that !!!

Folks on both sides of an issue, have "opinions". Opinions are not facts and obviously the truth, gets cloudy. Hard to do, but we need to respect each others' "opinions". The way I respond to others opinions that I disagree with, is to ask them questions that hopefully leads to more thought. It opens the door for reviewing ones opinion. A problem presents itself when folks try to force their opinions on others.…... :mad:

Case in point;
Prior to Iowa going to shall-issue, I attended a country meeting on this subject. There were a number of county and state representative there. One person was a state Congress-Person Who made the statement that it was their feeling that we needed more common sense Gun Control laws. Then they asked for questions. I replied that I appreciated that she qualified their statement and an opinion on the subject but was not based facts. I asked; what facts did you base your opinion on? The meeting really opened up after that and was mostly constructive. … ;)

Opinion
An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. A given opinion may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive.
Click to expand...
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll see your nuance and raise you one nuance: I don't think federal laws attempting to override state laws is the appropriate way to deal with it. The SCOTUS has now established that the Second Amendment applies to the states. IMHO, then, the proper approach (which admittedly requires a proper judiciary) is for the federal courts to start shooting down state laws that violate ("infringe") the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Y'all that are making reference to the NRA president enriching himself and providing poor leadership: Are you referring to now-outgoing president Oliver North, or are you really referring to Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre?

Personally, I am troubled by an employee being able to force an elected president out when the employee is asked to account for his actions and expenditures. I am sure there is plenty we don't know about this situation, and I am personally among the most ignorant of the membership about the functioning if the NRA, but that aspect of it doesn't feel right to me. It feels like the tail is wagging the dog.
 
We have another NRA thread, so let’s not do Wayne here.
As far as courts vs laws, I will take what I get. A federal law like the Saga act, which went nowhere, if passed, would be challenged by some states and might eventually get SCOTUS off its butt. If its butt toots the right way is the great gamble.
 
I also see disagreement within the gun control crowd. There are some in the gun control crowd who want to outlaw all guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns, guns used for hunting, ect. If it goes bang they want it outlawed. Then there are those who only want certain types of guns outlawed such as handguns or rifles on AR platforms. Then there are those who just want to ban certain features and accessories such as pistol grips on rifles or adjustable stocks or barrel shrouds or magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds. So I would figure there would be much fighting within the gun control crowd.
 
PhotonGuy said:
I also see disagreement within the gun control crowd. There are some in the gun control crowd who want to outlaw all guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns, guns used for hunting, ect. If it goes bang they want it outlawed. Then there are those who only want certain types of guns outlawed such as handguns or rifles on AR platforms. Then there are those who just want to ban certain features and accessories such as pistol grips on rifles or adjustable stocks or barrel shrouds or magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds. So I would figure there would be much fighting within the gun control crowd.
Click to expand...
Don't be fooled. They ALL want to ban all guns. To whatever extent they may appear to disagree, the disagreement isn't over what the endgame is, it's only a question of "Do we go after the guns incrementally, or do we go after everything at once?"

Have you read LawDog's blog on compromise? In most contexts, "compromise" means each side gives up something to arrive at a result that both sides can live with. That's not how it works with the anti-gun crowd. No matter what they get, it's never enough. It's always "a good first step."

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
 
So I would figure there would be much fighting within the gun control crowd.
Click to expand...

There might be, so what?

The only real difference between the ban then all, everything, group, and the only ban some group, and the only ban certain features group, is what will make them happy, TODAY.

Ever hear any of them say, "agree to this and we'll never ask for another thing, ever?" No. And you won't.

Because the only ban certain guns, and the only ban certain features groups would ALSO be happy with banning everything. They just demand less, now, because they understand that demanding what they can't get, today, actually works against their cultivated patina of reasonableness.

They claim to be about "common sense" and 'reasonable first steps", and "compromise". But that's just a smokescreen.

What do the pro gun people want? Our zealots want a return to 1789, where the only "gun control" law was the 2nd Amendment, which isn't actually gun control, its Government control.

they know they aren't going to get that, either, but we can wish....

There are a lot of good people working to try and "disarm" the bad laws that infringe on our rights, as well. We have had some successes in the last few years, and we need to keep it up.

By the numbers, I would guess the majority of us would accept just being left the hell alone. Of course, our opponents being who and what they are, that's not going to happen, either.
 
Ever hear any of them say, "agree to this and we'll never ask for another thing, ever?"
Click to expand...
Actually, that was pretty much the rhetoric we heard around 1994. The Brady Act was never going to be used to create a registry. The Assault Weapons Ban was just going to be a 10-year experiment on some guns, but they're not coming for your Mini-14.

The ink wasn't even dry on the President's signature when Feinstein talked about how "weak" the AWB was and how they'd tighten and expand it as soon as they had the votes. The next session (and every session after), Schumer was pushing for the same expansions to the Brady Act he promised us he wouldn't.
 
We need more Libertarians on our side.
Click to expand...

(sheepishly raises hand) I think we have every Libertarian on our side of this issue. As a matter of fact, we have the CATO Institute (THE primary Libertarian think-tank) to thank for DC v. Heller.
 
IIRC. the Libertarian VP candidate (whom I won't bother to look up) was pretty rabidly antigun and didn't know squat technically about guns.
 
Aguila Blanca said
They ALL want to ban all guns.
Click to expand...

WE get upset when THEY lump all of us together in one pigeonhole. Maybe we should avoid doing the same to them.

I don't care whether they're Libertarians or Democrats or Republicans or Antimacassars, we gun rights people should try to respectfully teach and convince them to at least respect and preserve the right keep and bear arms. Maybe along the way we also convert some of them into gun nuts.
 
Don't be fooled. They ALL want to ban all guns. To whatever extent they may appear to disagree, the disagreement isn't over what the endgame is, it's only a question of "Do we go after the guns incrementally, or do we go after everything at once?"
Click to expand...
That would definitely apply to some, maybe even most of the people in the gun control crowd but I wouldn't say it would apply to all of them. There are some people in the gun control crowd who even own guns themselves. Why would somebody want to ban ALL guns when they themselves have got guns? They might want to ban some guns, kinds they don't own, but to say they want to ban all guns would be inaccurate especially if they've got guns themselves.

I once saw a case of a man buying a shotgun in Japan. Japan has among the strictest gun control in the world but it is possible to legally get a shotgun in Japan by going through a very long and very difficult screening process. While getting the shotgun the man said that it was a tool that can end somebody's life and as such should be heavily screened, so while he was definitely in favor of the long and difficult procedure he was going through he was not for banning all guns, even in Japan, otherwise he wouldn't've gotten the shotgun in the first place.
 
The thing is, the Japanese government’s screening will eventually fail and they’ll give a ahotgun to the wrong guy. And when they do, they’ll do the same thing New Zealand did - instead of acknowledging their bureaucratic error, they’ll take his shotgun - whether he wants shotguns banned or not.

And he won’t be able to do anything about it politically (just as NZ gun owners couldn’t or wouldn’t) because the same screening he supported to make it harder for people to own a gun also acts to make gun owners politically insignificant by reducing their overall numbers to where they don’t matter in a democracy.
 
The thing is, the Japanese government’s screening will eventually fail and they’ll give a ahotgun to the wrong guy. And when they do, they’ll do the same thing New Zealand did - instead of acknowledging their bureaucratic error, they’ll take his shotgun - whether he wants shotguns banned or not.

And he won’t be able to do anything about it politically (just as NZ gun owners couldn’t or wouldn’t) because the same screening he supported to make it harder for people to own a gun also acts to make gun owners politically insignificant by reducing their overall numbers to where they don’t matter in a democracy.
Click to expand...
Apparently there already is lots of gun crime in Japan, not with legally owned guns but with illegally owned and obtained guns. The numbers you see might be very small in studies but Japan under reports so the actual numbers would be much higher than those you would see in studies.
 
The numbers you see might be very small in studies but Japan under reports so the actual numbers would be much higher than those you would see in studies.
Click to expand...

Some time back it became known to a few people, outside of Japan that there was a kind of murder so common to their society it wasn't even listed by them as a crime!! Basically a family member, usually the head of the household, flips out from stress and murders the family, then himself with the family sword, or some edged weapon, even a kitchen knife. (it has a specific name, though I no longer remember what it is..)

IT got a brief mention in the "western press" apparently because Japan had finally decided to start counting them as crimes.

We have also learned that Great Britain, under-reports certain crimes. They have a rather unique way of doing it with murder. From what I've heard, if there is a murder and they don't solve it, or even have a suspect, its not reported as a murder, just as an "unsolved crime".

A couple of decades back, when one of the big gun control groups was "Handgun Control, Inc." they put out "statistics" about "death of a child due to a handgun". It was a frightening large number.
After a few years of this number being thrown around as if it were fact, a "defector" from their group made public what information went into making that number.

Everyone under the age of 25 was classed as "a child"
It included not just murder, but also suicides, criminal on criminal killings and people the police shot in the line of duty. And it was those people shot with anything, not just handguns.

After this became known, Handgun Control, didn't apologize, didn't make any correction, did offer a retraction, or anything like that, they just stopped using that particular number...

"lies, damn lies, and statistics" isn't just an empty quote...
 
There is no middle road for a person that opposes firearms of any kind. For example, I had a HR manager work for me for a short period of time. He came into my office and said we needed a "no gun policy". I asked why. He responded he wanted my employees to feel safe. I asked if there had been a problem. He replied no, but that he also did not want to have one, hence the need for the policy. I asked if having a policy would keep a person that wanted to shoot another, from bring a firearm to my plant, with them. He said he could not answer, but want others to feel safe. Again I asked if there had been an issue and again he replied no. I replied that he should look at the books on the shelves in my office and think for a moment, if I would agree with his ill-perceived need.

Several weeks later, he was discharged, with cause, for an unrelated issue.
 
There is no middle road for a person that opposes firearms of any kind. For example, I had a HR manager work for me for a short period of time. He came into my office and said we needed a "no gun policy". I asked why. He responded he wanted my employees to feel safe. I asked if there had been a problem. He replied no, but that he also did not want to have one, hence the need for the policy. I asked if having a policy would keep a person that wanted to shoot another, from bring a firearm to my plant, with them. He said he could not answer, but want others to feel safe. Again I asked if there had been an issue and again he replied no. I replied that he should look at the books on the shelves in my office and think for a moment, if I would agree with his ill-perceived need.

Several weeks later, he was discharged, with cause, for an unrelated issue.
Click to expand...
You're from Pennsylvania aren't you? Somebody with an attitude like the HR manager you described has no place in the Keystone State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top