Quote:
by pax
Some of it is projection . . .
|
Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I too do not believe that every anti-gunner shares one single reason for their beliefs, as not all pro-gun folks do either.
I do believe that some of the most influential "anti" movers and shakers are motivated by a fundamentally flawed philosophy that believes you can legislate a perfect world and in their view banning guns would ultimately lead to the end of gun and other violence, as guns would be only in the hands of LE and the military. Actually, their misguided view goes well beyond firearms in their attempts to legislate this perfect world and I think many if not most of the laws that have been passed over the better part of the last century illustrate this. I ascribe purely evil motives toward highly restrictive gun control or outright banning of guns for the purpose of "control of the masses" to a small minority of the antis who wield some power. I believe most truly believe they are involved in some crusade for the greater good, regardless of how wrong they are.
I have read that approximately 25% of the voting US population is pro-gun, maybe 25% is anti-gun and the remaining ~ 50% is fairly neutral (I have no idea of how legitimate these numbers are and would be happy to see any stats anybody has to clarify this but think it isn't far off the mark). These continued assaults on 2A rights represent at any given time what form of gun ban/control those who wish to impose them believe they can politically sell to the "uncommitted" voting populace, who largely believe more or less in the 2nd Amendment. In this sense I do believe it is a divide and conquer mentality, with the ultimate goal remaining of total gun ban, or at least a
de facto ban, paying lip-service to the 2nd Amendment for the "greater good". A substantial number of politicians merely are riding the wave at any given moment for there political career, with a fair percentage truly committed one way or the other.
Remember how the Brady folks focused on handguns? If you look at how people die because of firearm violence in the US, that argument at least on its face value might make some sense, but guess what? That agenda has failed for them as John Q public isn't ready to give up their handguns and rightfully so. That's why we have seen for the better part of the last 20 years a move to ban semi-auto firearms with detachable mags and/or limit mag size, which does include many, if not most pistols. They have made a lot of hay out of highly publicized, isolated tragedies when in reality these unfortunate deaths are a proverbial "blip" on the screen. I would bet there is nobody here who doesn't know an intelligent person who owns guns for shooting, hunting or self-defense who doesn't back some form of ban on "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines because they have bought into the "there's no legitimate reason for any law abiding person to own these" mantra.
This is what we are up against IMHO and this is where we need to focus. It is that middle ground of fairly uncommitted citizens, many who are gun owners we need to convince that there are those who are out to ban guns, and that may eventually lead to a ban on theirs. I ultimately look to the 2nd Amendment as a saving grace for us, though the limits of how far that will protect us has yet to be determined. I've looked at laws in other Western countries and many still have reasonable gun privileges, but we need to continue to work to assure our gun rights.