The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 25, 2009, 09:04 AM   #26
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
I think Glenn is on to something.

I have often noticed within the arguments of both antigunners and progunners a good bit of emotion.

I see folks like Sarah Brady, Tom Mauser, Carolyn McCarthy and others whose lives were savaged by gun crime turn rabidly against gun ownership.

However, I also have listened to the testimony of Susanna Gratia Hupp whose parents were murdered in the Luby's Massacre in 1991. She went the other way, became a Texas state rep and later passed CCW over the veto of Gov Ann Richards. There are others but she is the most famous one I can remember.

My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?

What is in their makeup, that emotional set, that makes them want to either ban guns or make them more available for self defense?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 09:08 AM   #27
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,782
Feinstein is an elitist. She thinks that she is important and thus is deserving of owning a firearm. To her most average people don't need a gun and shouldn't be permitted to have them.

She also believes that she has been annointed to determine who should and who should not own firearms. She is more dangerous than the average idiot who knows nothing about firearms and just doesn't like them because they look scary. She is an elitist. And, elitists think that they get privilages that most others don't get simply because they are better and more important than the rest of us.
Skans is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 10:26 AM   #28
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,620
From my reading of the literature, TG - we really don't have a handle on what causes someone to decide that the way to reduce violence is to get rid of guns or get more guns.

There will be a lot of progun self-serving chestpounding that the anti is an elitist, commies, etc. There will be a lot of wailing from antis that gun owners are all blood thirst nuts, etc.

The real answer is that such pop psych blather is useless fun just for the respective choirs. We don't know.

Group polarization leads to extreme rhetoric and they drive the debate. The majority of Americans feel this way:

1. Law abiding Americans should be able to buy guns for self-defense or sport.
2. Laws should exist to prevent criminals from buying guns easily - so they would support NICS, and AWBs.

However, both extreme choirs find the other's proposition totally unacceptable and curse, spew and rant.

Gets us nowhere. Reasonable rhetoric has gotten most of the country to adopt shall issue laws, an increase in castle laws and the AWB not renewed (which that elitist George W. Bush favored ).

Rational presentation and incrementalism works. Some areas probably will take longer. However, clever court challenges like Heller and if it works in Chicago can start to change the climate even there.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 11:25 AM   #29
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Southeastern Utah
Posts: 247
Not sure why people think allowing concealed weapons in National Parks would be any different than allowing concealed (or open carry) in BLM or National Forest lands; where you are legal to carry if you are legal in the state the BLM land or National Forest is located, and the State law allows you to carry on BLM or NF lands.

As for Feinstein...NO comment.:barf:
RETG is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 12:15 PM   #30
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,472
Quote:
Not sure why people think allowing concealed weapons in National Parks would be any different than allowing concealed (or open carry) in BLM or National Forest lands...
At the risk of starting a thread hijack, IMHO the reason is that national parks are much more popular tourist destinations. Many states have little or no BLM land (TX has none), and national forests are often remotely located and/or have very limited facilities.

BLM land and NF's may be attractive to hardcore outdoorsmen, who are likely over-represented on this forum, but these places have little to offer Ma & Pa Tourist from Anytown, USA who are looking for spectacular vistas without having to actually hike anywhere.

As a footnote, my pet cause is allowing legal CCW at USACE parks, since they're quite numerous at many lakes in North Central TX that I like to visit.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; September 25, 2009 at 12:20 PM.
carguychris is online now  
Old September 25, 2009, 12:27 PM   #31
Fremmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
So a liberal democrat is against allowing citizens to exercise thier Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the wilderness. So what's the surprise? Liberals hate guns, and will always attempt to ban them. I guess it's good to remind us about this, but it's not worth getting upset because a hard-core liberal wants more gun control....
Fremmer is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 12:31 PM   #32
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Glenn, the "reasonable" approach is also what's gotten such execrable pieces of legislation as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB enacted. Moreover, I'm sure Neville Chamberlain thought he was being "reasonable" in 1938 when he gave away eastern Europe.

One person's reasonable is another person's capitulation.
csmsss is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 01:11 PM   #33
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,472
Quote:
Liberals hate guns, and will always attempt to ban them.
Many of my political views are quite liberal, but I strongly oppose gun control. There are quite a few other TFL forum members with similar viewpoints.

Assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old September 25, 2009, 01:50 PM   #34
Fremmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
I know, it just doesn't make sense! All of those liberals who hate guns keep electing liberal politicians who also hate guns, and who keep proposing anti-gun legislation, and who are consistently re-elected by....liberals. Who would have thunk it?!? I just can't figure it out.....
Fremmer is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 02:49 PM   #35
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
My question to you Glenn and the forum is what is it that makes these folk savaged by violent crime tilt one way or the other concerning gun rights?
In my completely uninformed opinion it seems that people might already have a bit of an idea where they stand, but not have that idea very high up on their priority list.

Barring undeniable evidence I probably won't change my mind on issues I'm really passionate about (gun control being one of them). However, there are other issues that, while I still care about them, I don't think are as high of a priority. If something happens to make those issues a priority (for example the murder of a loved one as it relates to the death penalty) I would certainly become more active in the legislative process regarding those issues.

However, it does seem to me (again, this is just speculation) that the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree politically speaking. It seems that to really make a dent in how the public perceives gun control some moderates would need to "come to our side" and pass this along to their children.

This happened with one of my old roommates from a few years ago. She started off moderately not liking guns, grew to like them with help from her boyfriend and myself, and now has a baby who will probably grow up with similar political leanings. Has this "swayed the balance" by one future voter?

Last edited by chemgirlie; September 25, 2009 at 03:06 PM. Reason: I can't spell
chemgirlie is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 07:25 PM   #36
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,477
Quote:
Kreyzhorse: The thing is she does not hate guns she has a CCW she hates other people with guns.
Armsmaster - She had a CCW in the 70's or 80's. Her gun has long since been melted into a cross and presented to a religious someone or other, but in general, I agree with you, she hates the masses owning guns more so than guns themselves.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 08:09 PM   #37
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,620
Reasonable approaches have gotten us the 40 shall issue states. I would note that absolutists opposed the idea of permits and licenses because we don't need them - the 2nd is all we need.

So in several states, absolutists opposed the bills and sometimes derailed them for a period.

Empirically, absolutistism has not worked but it is more fun on the Internet.

As far as liberal not liking guns - read my sig articles for a more nuanced view. Of course, it's more fun to be in an exclusive club who MUST hold all your beliefs. I'm a more effective advocate of the RKBA with many because I don't hold social conservative beliefs.

But we've had this absolutist, you must be conservative argument before. It's boring.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 08:35 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,231
I don't have a reference...

So, maybe someone more computer search savy than I can find one...but I recall hearing that

Feinstein did indeed make a big political point of turning in her gun, and having it melted down. However, according to what I have heard over the years (someone help find a reference if you can) she also kept a gun, for her own use.

According to the story, she had two .38 cal revolvers, ONE she turned in, and one she kept!

Anybody able to confirm this?
If true, it does seem typical of the elitist attitude.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 08:59 PM   #39
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
...Reasonable rhetoric has gotten most of the country to adopt shall issue laws, an increase in castle laws and the AWB not renewed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
...the "reasonable" approach is also what's gotten such execrable pieces of legislation as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB enacted....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
...Reasonable approaches have gotten us the 40 shall issue states....
On balance, I'd say the reasonable approach wins. "Shall issue" and Castle Doctrine laws are very big wins for the ordinary, honest citizen. They can have a real meaning in day-to-day real life.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 10:13 PM   #40
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,876
With regards to the apparent cognitive dissonance over Feinstein's political views vs. her CCW, has it ever occurred to anyone that she doesn't believe that gun control works either. Did it ever occur to anyone that Feinstien supports gun control not out of some moral crusade but because it gets her re-elected?
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 10:49 PM   #41
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
...Did it ever occur to anyone that Feinstien supports gun control not out of some moral crusade but because it gets her re-elected?
That is, methinks, a very basic truth that we tend to ignore. With politicians, it's less about what is good social policy and more about keeping their jobs.

I frequently hear (or see in print) someone saying something like, "The politicians don't trust me with guns" or "The government won't trust us with gun."

Actually, I doubt that the politicians really care. They live lives so removed from the rest of us, our guns aren't really much of a factor for them personally. What they care about is getting and keeping their jobs.

So what it comes down to is that enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our community, enough of the people in our town, enough of the people in our county, enough of the people in our state, and enough of the people in our country don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, that politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to be waged with our fiends and neighbors in out communities.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 11:55 PM   #42
raftman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.
Exactly. Demonizing liberal-minded people, turns them into enemies, makes them all the less interested in gun rights. People tend to listen to your position more if you don't go around calling them commies.
raftman is offline  
Old September 26, 2009, 09:59 AM   #43
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
Assuming that "liberals" are a unified voting bloc who march in lockstep with politicials such as Mrs. Pelosi is an oversimplification that hurts the gun rights cause.
While that is fundamentally true, the problem comes in unifying a group of people around one issue of agreement when their core beliefs are radically different.

I have seen many situations wherein a group or even 2 peoples beliefs systems were 99% in accord with one another and yet they would separate from one another based on that 1% passionate difference.

It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to create unity around that single passionate issue when the the other 99% is not in agreement at all. A problem made all the more complicated by the infinite variation within that other 99% within a large group.

The inability to cooperate on an agreed issue due to other disagreements is one of the basic reasons why groups of people on both sides of ANY issue tend not to coalesce into organized resistance until the threat against their beliefs is extremely severe. Severe enough to essentially overwhelm any other issues between them.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; September 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM. Reason: spelling
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old September 26, 2009, 05:11 PM   #44
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Southeastern Utah
Posts: 247
carguychris

I won't do a long hijack, just a statement that you do no understand the areas controlled in the west by the BLM and NF. (I understand your statement on those states west of the the continental divide)

I was talking concealed...which means ma and pa should not know you are carrying.
RETG is offline  
Old September 26, 2009, 05:19 PM   #45
orionengnr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2004
Posts: 4,981
One thing I noticed in her response was the use of the code term "reasonable restrictions" (it's twin brother is "common-sense laws"). Who among us does not want to be reasonable (or use common sense)? Implying, of course, that if you disagree with her position, you are not being reasonable (or using common sense). A favorite weapon in the anti's arsenal, used by everyone from Sarah Brady to Charles Shumer to Barack Obama.

As long as we allow "them" to frame the discussion, we come up short in a lot of peoples' minds. We need to extoll the virtues of self-defense in terms of "common sense" and "reason". We are behind the power curve in this area.
orionengnr is offline  
Old September 26, 2009, 05:20 PM   #46
orionengnr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2004
Posts: 4,981
Oh, and as an aside:

Quote:
I think less of Feinstein than I do my dog.
I think that was a poorly thought-out statement. My dogs are well-behaved and have never done anything to harm me or my neighbors. They have no ill will toward anyone.

Last edited by Shane Tuttle; September 26, 2009 at 05:45 PM. Reason: unnecessary description
orionengnr is offline  
Old September 26, 2009, 05:25 PM   #47
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
I'll never forget this one:

feinsteinAK47.jpg

Finger on trigger, 75 rd. drum in gun, bolt in battery in a crowded room full of people. A real gun safety classic for a [person] who hates guns. -7-

Last edited by Shane Tuttle; September 26, 2009 at 05:46 PM. Reason: subtraction
a7mmnut is offline  
Old September 26, 2009, 05:47 PM   #48
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,549
Let's get one thing straight, here. You can attack the position Feinstein takes on our 2nd Amendment. However, the name calling ENDS HERE!
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old September 27, 2009, 02:56 AM   #49
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
She will never change her attitude IMHO.

It is an interesting attitude since she once had a concealed carry permit. And it was issued by the City of San Francisco. VERY rare.

So, if she can see the need for owning a firearm (i.e., for self defense), her position is illogical and hypocritical IMHO.

I have written her off as a total lost cause because she apparently does not, or has not, practiced what she preaches.

I simply cannot respect a hypocrite in such a serious moral area.

She did respond to my letter many years ago stating she needed the CPL to protect her and her husband from serious threats she had received. She went on to state that she had turned in that CPL and no longer has one.

People can be attacked in National Parks by thugs and predators. That is a simple fact, and people should be able to defend themselves accordingly. Afterall, that's what she did when threatened.
RDak is offline  
Old September 27, 2009, 06:48 AM   #50
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Just As Bad

California has Feinstein, we have Reid. You want to trade?
roy reali is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13068 seconds with 8 queries