Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Lately, I’ve seen a couple of requests for help from TFL members on issues I’ve got maybe 20 years of professional and private experience with. I didn’t comment because I know those members support additional restrictions on gun ownership and I don’t want to help them.

So, why am I wrong? What benefit do I gain by helping out people who will use my knowledge against me when they vote? I should just be nice to them and hope they change their minds later?
 
Help anyone you want to for what ever reason and withhold help from anyone you want for what ever reason. You have that right just be polite, no reason to make it personal (not saying you have).
Oh yea, I’m not big of supplying means or material to those who seek to limit or eliminate my constitutional rights ????????????.
 
Politics is a process of forming coalitions to bring about a compromise solution that everyone shares some pain in but ultimately everyone is better off with the end result.

So would you rather have 51% of the people in favor of (voting for) a proposal you can live with or only 5% that believe exactly what you believe (and you're going to lose the battle)?
 
Last edited:
Politics is a process of forming coalitions to bring about a compromise solution that everyone shares some pain in but ultimately everyone is better of with the end result.

So would you rather have 51% of the people in favor of (voting for) a proposal you can live with or only 5% that believe exactly what you believe (and you're going to lose the battle)?
Click to expand...

This was so on point. But I fear we're heading in the 5% direction.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
So, why am I wrong? What benefit do I gain by helping out people who will use my knowledge against me when they vote? I should just be nice to them and hope they change their minds later?
Click to expand...
I don't think you're wrong. I do think it's a nuanced question.

Personally, if I thought my helping someone had a reasonable (meaning, to me, well above 50%) chance of inducing that person to be more supportive of the RKBA, I would probably help. If, on the other hand, I was reasonably certain the person would welcome my help and then thank me by continuing to advocate against things that I consider to be important -- then no way would I help.
 
Pond said:
Divide and conquer....
Click to expand...
The people he's talking about are members of this forum, yet they support restrictions on what most of us regard as a fundamental constitutional right that's not supposed to be subject to restriction ("infringement"). It would appear that we are already divided, and just waiting for the conquerors to march triumphantly down Main Street.
 
I have to question why this question is even brought up. I don't believe anyone on this forum knows, keep track or cares who or who you are not helping. I really don't think it is any of my business why you help or not help.

You certainly don't need my validation for what you do.

So then let me ask you, does it bother you that you don't help some people?
 
Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?
Click to expand...

Because, some of them are people, too?? :rolleyes:

Seriously, I think it's dependent on the individual, what "gun control" they support, and the degree they support it, and how much you feel they are wrong, and if they are malicious, or just misguided.

We have people who think any kind of regulation or restriction at all, is wrong. I do agree that's what "shall not be infringed" means. We have people who are unhappy with what we currently have, but recognize the reality that we are here, and there's not much to be done about that, and we must resist going any further.

We have people who support certain restrictions in principle but not what results in practice. And we have people who support certain things because the principle sounds reasonable, and don't know "the rest of the story".

And probably dozens of variations on that.

I support a degree of gun control, but not what most people think. I'm an "after the FACT" kind of guy about this. I think people who have proven themselves incompetent, or have proven a deliberate intent to harm others (by having done so) should not be allowed to possess weapons. I also happen to think they should not be allowed physical freedom.

For an example;
A true "shall not be infringed" point of view must support allowing convicted felons to own guns. AFTER their "debt to society" is fully paid.

We used to do that. We stopped doing that in 1968, and created (essentially) lifetime prohibited person status. Was that wrong? Technically, with a "shall not be infringed" in any way point of view, then yes, it was wrong, It was unconstitutional. Most people today don't think so, and no court seems to think so. I think it was wrong because it was done as a blanket prohibition. I think such things (legal restriction of rights) should be done as a case by case thing. Unfortunately doing that takes effort, time, and MONEY, and the govt decided to take the simple, easy and cheap route to "do something".

Many people support the idea of background checks. On the surface, how can it be harmful?? but they don't know, don't understand, and some don't care about what lies beneath.

And most of them don't understand the basic flaw relying on background checks carries with it (and I'm not talking about the insult of "prove your innocence") which is it only checks RECORDS and not people.

Why is it that these same people see the warnings about buying stocks, that "past performance is no guarantee of future behavior" and think, well, yes, that's just common sense, but completely ignore that when it comes to people and their past performance??

would I help out the guy who has a problem with his deer rifle or his duck gun or his handloads who doesn't happen to think people should own "assault weapons"? (I refuse to call them "Fudds" because Elmer NEVER pushed any kind of gun control)

Its a yes and no thing. Yes, I'd help them, if, no matter what their personal opinion was, they kept it to themselves and did not try to force it on anyone else. There's a lot of guns I just don't like. I don't, and won't own them. But I will NOT be telling you, or anyone else that you shouldn't be allowed to own them. If that guy asking for help is doing that, then he won't get any help (and very little sympathy) from me. Ever.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the wrong ones. It is when you move from having a personal opinion to becoming an activist, forcing your opinion on others that I draw the line between acceptable and not.
 
44 AMP said:
I support a degree of gun control, but not what most people think. I'm an "after the FACT" kind of guy about this. I think people who have proven themselves incompetent, or have proven a deliberate intent to harm others (by having done so) should not be allowed to possess weapons. I also happen to think they should not be allowed physical freedom.

For an example;
A true "shall not be infringed" point of view must support allowing convicted felons to own guns. AFTER their "debt to society" is fully paid.

We used to do that. We stopped doing that in 1968, and created (essentially) lifetime prohibited person status. Was that wrong? Technically, with a "shall not be infringed" in any way point of view, then yes, it was wrong, It was unconstitutional. Most people today don't think so, and no court seems to think so. I think it was wrong because it was done as a blanket prohibition. I think such things (legal restriction of rights) should be done as a case by case thing. Unfortunately doing that takes effort, time, and MONEY, and the govt decided to take the simple, easy and cheap route to "do something".
Click to expand...
I am one of those who thinks that a convicted felon's rights (including the right to keep and bear arms) should be restored after completion of his/her sentence (including any parole period). If an ex-felon can't be trusted to be among society with a weapon, then why is he (or she) not still behind bars?

To make it more ridiculous, the blanket, life-long prohibition applies even to ex-felons who committed non-violent crimes. Just as an example, there was a young woman some years ago who was a teller in the bank branch where I do my banking. She came from a good family -- her father was a year ahead of me in high school and we played on the same basketball team. For whatever reason, she decided to embezzle money from the bank. She was caught (of course). The bank prosecuted, she was convicted ... and she is now deprived on the right to possess a firearm for any reason. Was she ever a danger to society? Certainly not. She was harmless. She just made a mistake, and the consequences will haunt her for the rest of her life.

To make it worse, federal law provides a way for people like her to regain their right to keep and bear arms ... but the Congress has refused for many years to approve any funding for that particular function of the government, which frustrates the intent of the original law by making it impossible for non-violent ex-felons who have rehabilitated themselves to regain the rights that were lost upon their conviction. That's not right.

But, as 44 AMP expressed it, that's where we are. I don't agree with people who think this is "right" and appropriate, but I don't condemn them for not agreeing with me. But gun owners who actively support and advocate for additional restrictions on the RKBA are anathema to me. I can't understand their failure to comprehend that the RKBA -- all arms, their cherished hunting rifle/bullseye pistol/fowling shotgun, whatever -- will be gradually lost, one restriction at a time. Even today, I'm sure a very large percentage of gun owners can't even imagine that it was once legal for ex-felons to possess firearms. People born in 1968 are 52 years old today. I'm sure a lot of gun owners -- and members of this site -- are 52 or younger, so they literally cannot remember a day when an ex-felon could lawfully possess a firearm. That's how we lose our rights -- they get eroded, one "small" restriction at a time, until they're all gone, and there's nobody left alive who even remembers the day when it wasn't that way.

The irony is that the ex-felons who aren't a danger generally abide by the law and suck up the reality that they can't touch a firearm, while the ones who ARE a danger to society just go out and buy guns on dark street corners late at night. So how is the law doing anything to keep the rest of us safe?

I'm sure many readers have seen Law Dog's diatribe on the incremental erosion of the RKBA. For those who have seen it, forgive me. For those who haven't read it, please do so now:

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

And if you are one of those gun owners who supports additional restrictions, maybe Law Dog's blog will help you to understand why Bartholomew Roberts doesn't feel inclined to help you nibble away at his remaining ten percent of his RKBA cake.
 
It would appear that we are already divided, and just waiting for the conquerors to march triumphantly down Main Street.
Click to expand...

It's probably true. That point was made earlier, though, by TXAZ.

On controversial issues such as this there tend to be 3 groups. Those who are in favour with a principled view on the subject, those who hold a principled view and are opposed, and the middle ground who may be in favour or against but are more pragmatic about the realistic outcomes. It tends to be that middle ground where final agreements are forged.

I've said a number of times over my years on here: firearms owners in the States, indeed anywhere, are a minority.

What Mr Roberts or any other decides to do is up to them, but my personal view is the more solidarity there is, the stronger the pro firearms movement will be.

I'm not sure ostracising certain members of the firearms community because they differ on the finer points of what the RKBA should mean in the modern era is the best way to bolster that solidarity.

But gun owners who actively support and advocate for additional restrictions on the RKBA are anathema to me. I can't understand their failure to comprehend that the RKBA -- all arms, their cherished hunting rifle/bullseye pistol/fowling shotgun, whatever -- will be gradually lost, one restriction at a time.
Click to expand...

How do you hope to help them understand your point of view if you don't engage with them, even in an unrelated, positive manner?

After all, I'd much rather try and persuade one of them of the dangers of "giving an inch" than a rampant anti-gun advocate.
 
Last edited:
B. Roberts said:
What benefit do I gain by helping out people who will use my knowledge against me when they vote?
Click to expand...

Good will, possibly.

Without admonition, I would note that I've helped some people in real life with views far more odious than a mere disagreement on a civil right. It gives rise to a peculiar situation in which a person who in another time and place one might have had a duty to render harmless, but who in this time and place one counts as a friendly acquaintance.

Of course, people one helps may also be cynical, deceptive and opportunistic, but this will reflect more on them than the people who help them. I see something lost if our default setting is to expect the worst, even if as a professional matter we prepare for the worst.

It's fair to pose the converse: What injury do I suffer by helping out people who will use my knowledge against me when they vote?
 
Last edited:
To me, it's not a simple question. Would I drive my anti-gun neighbor to a anti-gun rally? Would I help the same neighbor out by mowing his lawn after he had a heart attack? Is political affiliation any different than religious affiliation? How about color, race, or sex? They have words for that. They also have words like selfless and selfish.

Hard to believe that anyone legitimately on a gun forum is after any more gun restrictions than UBCs, and that percentage is pretty high among gun owners(many polls show a major majority). Seems most anything one could do would maybe help change their mind. I dunno.
 
buck460XVR said:
Is political affiliation any different than religious affiliation? How about color, race, or sex?
Click to expand...

Are you proposing that political affiliation is an immutable characteristic?
 
Last edited:
zukiphile said:
Are you proposing that political affiliation is an immutable characteristic?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily immutable, but heavily influenced by genetics, to the tune of about 80%, and similar to height as an adult and suchlike characteristics. Sure, current orthodoxy of the ruling class is blank slatism, but anyone with experience in animal husbandry and not educated out of their empirical observations learns this sort of thing.

TL;DR:
Biology is upstream of politics.

Biology > Culture > Politics > Economics

=============

As for the OP query, I am participating in The Great Sorting. Folk are going to sort out more & more into like groups, even in the face of gov't policy and force. At the end of the day, it is risk mitigation. "If I help this anti-gunner and he learns I am a pro-gunner who dissents from ruling class orthodoxy in other ways, too--how likely is he to doxx me, get me SWATted, or Red Flag me & mine?"

"Live and let live" is no longer operative and we must be much more careful than in the past when deciding who we interact with.
 
i don't care about a persons political persuasion and will willingly help anyone with stuff in my area of expertise. Don't care what the persons stance on gun control is. Don't care if the person is a liberal wiccan or a fire breathing conservative preacher.

i well remember re-building an engine for a man in the 60s. The man was poor and i gave him a rock bottom price. He later said: "i didn't think you would help me because i'm opposed to the war". i was a US Army SFC at the time: Told him i didn't care what his stance on the war was.

IMO: Political polarization sucks to the extreme.
 
Maybe we should encourage the moderators to put a big red X next to anyone's name on the forum that supports more laws restricting our firearms rights?
 
Personally, I would not assist an anti-gunner in any way that advances his anti-gun agenda, but other than that I would not hesitate to ask. Whether or not I hold his ladder while he climbs up to his roof has no impact upon gun rights or restrictions. Several of my close relatives, who are Leftists and strongly anti 2nd Amendment, have "unfriended" me on various social media websites, saying that my pro-gun, pro-2A stance "offends" them. So be it. But I don't feel the need to reciprocate in kind since it gains me nothing. My oldest daughter marches in the Woman's March, for example, and is a strong pro-abortion voter and she knows that I am strong anti abortion advocate. Yet I still love her, would help her out in almost anything, but as someone else stated earlier, I would not drive her to some anti-2A rally that she wished to attend.
 
Politics is a process of forming coalitions to bring about a compromise solution that everyone shares some pain in but ultimately everyone is better of with the end result.
Click to expand...

I'm all for compromise, but it seems every 2A compromise is us giving up our rights. What are the "pro gun control" allies giving up? Do we have national reciprocity for our constitutional rights? For example: I can drive my car in any state based on my state issued DL, but I have an incomplete, hodgepodge, "right" to carry in only 43 states even though every state has passed it's own version of CCW. In just the past couple years we've given up bumpstocks and Fix NICS didn't pan out how we wanted either as "red flag" laws are spreading across the US as well. We're getting boned with all these compromises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top