How Guns Won?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...120806,00.html

So I bought this.

The article:

1. Makes the point that even horrors like Aurora cannot get reasonable gun control passed.

2. That is because the NRA and gun lobby is so strong after Clinton and Gore got clobbered by their antigun advocacy. Klein feels their analysis is not correct and other factors led to Al going down.

3. That is because Klein doesn't want to admit the gun lobby is really strong and the folks who fear it are just cowardly.

4. He reviews rampages. They are terrible, of course. He does review, with sorrow, that modern research suggests no gun laws or mental health predictors we have today could stop them. He wishes they could.

Does have graphics showing that violent crime has decreased and support for gun control has decreased.

5. He does not understand gun culture, IMHO. He views that in came in part because of 'chesty' Scotsmen coming to the USA. Honor culture argument. He seems to think that today it should be about sports and hunting. There is a quote from Mayor Bloomers about deer don't wear flak jackets. That's the good old, I support the 2nd Amend as you can target shoot and hunt.

No insight into the current gun culture whose growth is driven by the self-defense market and a touch of disaster preppers.

Thus, he doesn't really have a handle on gun culture. He doesn't see anything useful in gun culture or guns. No attempt to discuss positive instances of self-defense. Only negatives.

Also, no insight into that the proponents of gun control to me seem weak and whiney. Maybe we are 'chesty' but watching Schummer whine or Bloomers want to ban guns, big gulps, and baby formula is not in accord with most American's view of self-reliance. Do you think Schummer could be a person you want with you for a Katrina disaster? Looking weak does not convince you to limit your means of self-defense.

Now - we've been through a gun panic after Aurora:

1. The Bloomberg / Piers Morgan hysteria. The usual bills introduced.
2. The Gun World Panic - the new AWB is coming. Here comes the UN - we are doomed!!

But nothing really happened. The article seems to indicate that consenus is that panic 1 will not generate the results the panic 2 fears.

So it is a victory, if Time proclaims it for the RKBA.

[sigcurious]

Interesting, if I see a copy on the newsstand I'll have to pick it up. Thanks for posting the heads up.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Do you think Schummer could be a person you want with you for a Katrina disaster?

Sorta reminds me of back in the day, when you'd be kicked out of the Army if you didn't pass a PT test, but would suffer no adverse action if you couldn't qualify with your individual weapon. I was known to remark that if it all dropped into the pot, I'd a lot rather be in a foxhole with a guy who knew how to shoot, than one who knew how to run!

Didn't win me any friends or influence people. But then I was a CW4 at the time, and couldn't be promoted anyway, so my DOGAS factor was negligible.

[Tom Servo]

So it is a victory, if Time proclaims it for the RKBA.

It's a victory, even if they don't acknowledge it.

I've been watching the media wring their hands over the whole thing. You'll see headlines proclaiming that "we can't have a reasonable conversation about gun control because of the power of the gun lobby." It's a passive-aggressive attempt to guilt the populace into having some sympathy for their cause.

The plain fact is, we've had the conversation. It took place over roughly twenty years. They got to try things their way, and their way didn't work. When the balance turns, they cry sour grapes.

[ClydeFrog]

The Time cover article & other gun control/gun owners media won't really change anything in the long run.
Left wing wags & anti-gun supporters use these tragic events to push their political views.
EDPs(emotionally disturbed people) & people with mental health issues are a part of our society. Guns, extended magazines and action films/TV shows don't have anything to do with it.

[pnac]

Soothing NPR voice: "You have won, gunowners. Now, go to sleep, you are not under assault. All is well."

[johnbt]

"Soothing NPR voice"

At least NPR will soon have a little diversity in its voices, even if they are still liberal in nature. But why does it take a grant of $1.5 million from the CPB to hire 6 people to report on race, ethnicity and culture?

www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/02/npr-gets-15-million-for-race-ethnicity-coverage/#ixzz22izCVsi6"

[Buzzcook]

It is not a victory, it is the status quo.

Joe Klein is one of those squishy centrists that just wants everyone to get along. He always tries to fit what he writes into an inside the beltway script.
We shouldn't be surprised when he frames the issue as political instead of exploring policy.

I am mostly not surprised by his glib dismissal of an expansion of access to mental health care. Studying how that might work would require that he actually do some research.

BTW Al Gore lost because the media chose Bush. To blame it on the NRA is simple scapegoating.

On edit, NPR stands for "nice polite republicans".

[Tom Servo]

Let's take it easy on the conservative/liberal stuff. One of our great mistakes has been allowing the gun culture to be portrayed as tied to one particular side of the political spectrum.

[pnac]

I should have said NPR type voice. I was implying the article is a sort of "reverse phycology" Tokyo Rose deal. "You have won, GIs, stop fighting, go home, we are defeated!"

Some folks see everything as left-right, Dem- Rep. Sheesh!

[a7mmnut]

Good info for now, but let's not forget the back door policies that have just recently come to light. New legislation may blanket obvious attempts for easily recognizeable bans or lists. The 2A has never been solely about guns; it has always included a defense against a tyrannical government. This must be brought up again and again whether politicians want to hear it or not.

-7-

[Mr. James]

I'm with pnac. Perhaps not even as a conscious strategy, but it's stand down, gun owners, we've been whipped. Of course, they [the statists] have not.

Originally Posted by Winston Churchill

Never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

And with that, I bid you all a good night!

[raimius]

Overall, support for gun control is down, but in certain areas, those with gun rights restrictions on their agenda are still very much in power.

[medalguy]

That's sorta how I see the story, too-- "You won, we give up, ignore the man behind the screen." We have to be ever vigilant in the effort to keep the 2A alive and well. Any time the opposition thinks they have a chance, they'll try to squeeze anti-firearms legislation into Congress. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but some time.

As far as trying to have a reasonable discussion on firearms, all they will consider as a "reasonable discussion" is a complete outright ban on firearms. How's that for a reasonable discussion for you?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem with a reasonable discussion of firearms policy is that most of the antigun side is not able to start with the premise that law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for self-defense, as well as defense against tyranny. They may acknowledge limited sporting uses of specialized firearms.

If you look at the 1st Amend. , 4th and 5th - the basic premises of those amendments are not in doubt. Then one can discuss the grounds for limiting free speech (child ****, fire in a theatre), what constitutes a legit search (Terry, stop and firisk) or how confessions are gathered (Miranda).

But the discussions of gun rights from Klein's side start with the premise that the 2nd really shouldn't exist. They then bemoan the fact that they can't get rid of it. I think I was trying to make that point.

There may be legit issues to discuss but you have to start with accepting the basic premises.

That's the problem with those discussing attitudes. Overall support for gun control is dropping. But the antigunners say that is not true because certain measures have support (supposedly banning 100 round mags for example). That's true after rampage and you get reflexive public opinion.

However more scholarly opinion research as compared to political motivated research indicates that:

1. People may support background checks, NICS and some bans on weapons types.

2. But on the flip side, the majority strongly supports that law abidiing citizens have the right to own firearms. That is not mentioned when someone says, for instance to ban, 100 round mags.

I regard the article as an attempt/whine to get more people outraged to support gun control.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I regard the article as an attempt/whine to get more people outraged to support gun control.

Agreed. And that's the good news -- that even after such a senseless tragedy, the gun banners can't whip up enough emotion to pass even an incremental restriction.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't know about you guys; but I love how every one of these whines starts off with the implied assumption that anyone who doesn't favor even MORE gun control is defacto unreasonable.

I think it is important to punch a hole in that balloon every chance we get by pointing out all the gun controls laws that have already been passed and remain on the books - especially in those states where you can become a felon for silly, inconsequential acts.

And the list of politicians who got bit by pushing gun control isn't limited to just Clinton and Gore. John Kerry lost the popular vote by 3,013,000 votes (the NRA has 4.5 million members). Tom Daschle was a sitting Senate Majority Leader when he got his walking papers, due in no small part to his role in attempting to renew the 1994 AWB. There is no shortage of politicians who can attest that the NRA's bite is worse than its bark; but every 10 years or so we get another herd of lemmings ready to jump over the cliff after the gun control crowd assures them that the NRA isn't as powerful as it seems.

It always strikes me as telling that the NRA is powerful precisely because it is a true grass-roots organization focusing on a single civil liberty and supported by millions of voters. It is the very essence of how this country was intended to work. It is no wonder certain groups hate it with such a passion.

[DaleA]

A political cartoon. Picture it:

A bratty little child throwing a tantrum in the middle of a play room. He is surrounded by a ton of toys but he is throwing a tantrum because there is a new toy being advertised on TV.

All the toys on the floor are labeled ‘existing gun laws’ the toy on the TV is labeled ‘new gun law’. (Or maybe label it with the actual name of whatever new law the antis are currently pushing.)

The harried adult is pleading with the bratty child saying, “but your not even playing with the toys you already HAVE.”

The bratty child could be labeled as ‘gun control advocates’.

I suggested this once, years ago but as far as I know it’s original and I’m putting it out for anybody in the general public who could draw.

[Eghad]

The Gun lobby is that strong. We had representative Jack Brooks who had served several decades and he voted for the Assault Ban in 1994. That was his last year in Congress. Speaker of the House Foley even asked Clinton to not try for the ban in 1994. I do know that the NRA here was on Rep. Brooks like flies on garbage.

Even now we hear statements from Obama's spoke persons that He supports the Second Amendment and will use the laws on the books to prosecute folks who break them.

This migth be a close election and Obama is not going to risk losing votes that might switch if he talks about firearms bans.

The Second Amendment exists because the founding fathers knew that freedom of speech and private ownership of firearms were things that helped us win our Independence. The first thing the Brits did when they got here was try to shut down free speech and confiscate firearms. The next thing was to get rid of due process for anybody opposing the crown. The Bill of Rights was written precisely because of that and to recognize rights that were the people's and was not governments to give or take. Alan Dershowitz who is a liberal lawyer and anti gun person recognizes the Second Amendment. He didn't favor judicially writing out the Second Amendment because that was the slippery path to making all the rights in the Bill of Rights null and void.

[44 AMP]

Even now we hear statements from Obama's spoke persons that He supports the Second Amendment and will use the laws on the books to prosecute folks who break them.

If that were true, then why was Holder found in contempt of Congress?

[Eghad]

Because Holder was stupid and arrogant in lying to Congress and the gun lobby would like to tack his hide to the wall as a trophy as a reminder to anybody in the political arena not to mention the GOP looking to bag bigger game for the election in November.

I didn't say that the current administration believes in what it says....but they are mindful of the consequences that anti gun sentiment may sway votes to the other candidate.

[wayneinFL]

Let's take it easy on the conservative/liberal stuff. One of our great mistakes has been allowing the gun culture to be portrayed as tied to one particular side of the political spectrum.

But it IS tied to one end of the political spectrum, if there is such a thing as a political "spectrum". There's no way you can be for the self-reliance of responsible gun ownership and be for the nanny state. They're opposing viewpoints.

[Tom Servo]

There's no way you can be for the self-reliance of responsible gun ownership and be for the nanny state.

It's not nearly that black-and-white. I've supported representatives for both parties over the years, and will continue to do so as I see fit. The right letter next to a politician's name on the ballot is no guarantee that he'll do everything his constituents want, nor does it guarantee that he won't go back on his word.

Take a look at who voted for what in 1993, then tell me this breaks evenly at party lines.

[Botswana]

I love how every one of these whines starts off with the implied assumption that anyone who doesn't favor even MORE gun control is defacto unreasonable.

That is why "reasonable" is such a weasal word. It's no different then the old "Have you beat your kids lately?"

The conversation starts with "Let's have a reasonable discussion on guns. Hey, no one NEEDS an assault rifle."

Gun owners respond "It's not about need, it's about my rights"

Gun control advocates say "See! They're being unreasonable!"

"Reasonable" is just code for "You should agree with us because we have all the answers"

[JimPage]

Tom Servo:
"It's not nearly that black-and-white. I've supported representatives for both parties over the years, and will continue to do so as I see fit. The right letter next to a politician's name on the ballot is no guarantee that he'll do everything his constituents want, nor does it guarantee that he won't go back on his word."

I think we are looking at two political spectrums: One the Republican/Democratic Parties specturm.

The other is the progressive/conservative spectrum.

But in each spectrum there is crossover. Usually most people are not totally committed to either, but vary from issue to issue. So a socially liberal person (advocating welfare etc for example) may still support RKBA while a conservative person (opposing welfare etc for example) may support gun control.

So labelling is a dangerous thing to base assumptions upon.