Fire with Fire.....idle thoughts...AWB and Mag cap

[Lohman446]

There’s also groups of people that are heart broken because America’s children are being murdered in the classroom with guns. We shouldn’t consider their concerns?

"Not one more life" is a favorite cry from proponents of gun control. It sets the "goal" of what an acceptable level of violence is. How are we getting there? I also want to know who exactly is not heart broken by the murder of our children. Is there some implication here that because i do not favor gun control I am not? The premise that these things are heart breaking does not carry over to a regulation of a constitutional right. I'm heart broken by the children killed every day by our national transportation system while going to or from school or even while in school. That is not an argument of abolishing it.

[rickyrick]

Ok, if we discount what a group of people want because they want action for emotional reasons, then how is trying to enhance or further qualify the right to own a gun because guns are fun going to help?
I’m not talking about politicians that use blood to further their agenda. I’m talking about the public.
Not really different than saying “sorry you loved one was killed by a drunk driver, but drunk driving sure is fun.”

[Lohman446]

Ok, if we discount what a group of people want because they want action for emotional reasons, then how is trying to enhance or further qualify the right to own a gun because guns are fun going to help?

Wanting action for emotional reasons does not mean that the proposed action is going to be effective. Further proposing action that violates the rights of others because you want it for emotional reasons is not legitimate.

You mention the drunk driver and the proposed defense of drunk driving in jest. The "gun control crowds" answer to the drunk driver has little to do with stopping drunk driving and everything to do with prohibition of alcohol. Your analogy does not work for a pro gun control argument.

No one here is arguing that shooting children in school is an activity that should be protected.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Ok, if we discount what a group of people want because they want action for emotional reasons, ...

Your premise is incorrect.

As stated, the authenticity of the sentiment is at issue. No one is heart broken over a traffic fatality, but then just fine with airplane crashes. The instrumentality can't be the genuine source of grief.

Originally Posted by rickyrick

...then how is trying to enhance or further qualify the right to own a gun because guns are fun going to help?

No one suggested that. The suggestion is to present it to people in a social context as a normal activity. Bart set it forth well in his analogy.

Making it social in a low key way doesn't enhance the right, but may destigmatize its practice.

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Not really different than saying “sorry you loved one was killed by a drunk driver, but drunk driving sure is fun.”

Yes, it is really different. No one is suggesting a message that "Sorry your loved one was killed in a school shooting, but school shooting sure is fun."

An arm may be useful for securing or defending one's rights, but let's not underestimate the role of clear thinking in preserving rights.

[Lohman446]

I'm liking this drunk driving analogy. The statistics are about 29 people a day killed in alcohol impaired vehicle crashes. This isn't even getting into the subject of alcohol related violence or long term health effect. Yet we make laws against drunk driving and against the particular violence rather than a new movement for prohibition. We need to start discussing why the difference in our reactions and illustrating why one response is appropriate while another is neither appropriate nor likely to be effectively implemented.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

BTW, Rachel Maddow - who is all for gun control - likes to shoot guns and you can find videos of her enjoying a 1911 and AR. Just saying entertainment value may not be enough to support the kind of access we want for firearms.

Entertainment value is clearly not enough as some of our own members who do find firearms fun demonstrate. But firearms are fun, and that’s a good place to start the discussion. I’ve argued with people for months to no avail and then made more progress in 20 minutes with an Airsoft BB gun and some reactive targets in the living room.

It certainly doesn’t instantly convert everyone into Ted Nugent; but it opens their mind a wee bit wider and to use zukiphile’s analogy, they at least know fish from cow in the future. If nothing else, they notice the more obvious lies.

[rickyrick]

I’m not really putting out my views, I’m giving the views of of “the other side”. They do have a dog in this fight.
We are saying to them, “your concerns about gun violence are not valid, because the constitution” a constitution that is open to interpretation and we are adding “... it’s really fun to shoot”
Been shot at... nothing close to fun about it.
Tried to call 911 once with blood soaked hands too... not fun either.

You are not going to make any progress if you continually claim that wanting an environment safe from gun violence is not valid.
I think it is a valid concern, yet we respond by acting like they are stupid.

I also blame the media and our political leaders for the irrational fear of gun ownership.

I’m all for all the good reasons for gun ownership. I love shooting and hunting. Going out shooting is pretty fun. I think for whatever reason the 2nd Amendment was written is our only legitimate claim to a right to own them. Lots of speculation as to why it was written, but I don’t think it was for fun and recreation use.

All the while gun control is creeping towards everyone’s doorstep and we keep doing the same thing.

Now nothing wrong with the original suggestion of competition, fellowship and fun. I’m all for it.
A lot of gun people aren’t very personable, some people won’t like hanging around with them.

The funny thing is: for whatever reason when they talk gun control, gun owners will say “it will never happen!” “Take the guns it’s CIVIL WAR!” But then fun control IS happening on an increasingly frequent basis.

I’m opposed to any gun control, but to say that non-gun people don’t have any valid concerns is not honest.
Denying that guns are dangerous is dishonest.
Saying that an AR15 is not anymore dangerous than other rifles is just as dishonest as saying that the AR15 is the most powerful rifle out there.

We just need to be honest with why we have that right. Sugar coating doesn’t make gun violence any easier for some people to swallow.

People are mad and getting madder. Dangerous political times for conservative things like gun rights.

Lots of people are ready to give republicans a political kick in the _______ . They’re going to hit republicans where it hurts. Guns are high on the list.

[Lohman446]

You are not going to make any progress if you continually claim that wanting an environment safe from gun violence is not valid.
I think it is a valid concern, yet we respond by acting like they are stupid.

Banning legal ownership of firearms will not accomplish an environment free from gun violence the same as banning alcohol did not prevent the problems associated to the consumption and abuse of alcohol.

This point needs to be hammered home.

[rickyrick]

Exactly, but you do first have to acknowledge their concerns as valid, then you can talk about solutions.
There will be disagreement about the solutions, no doubt. But having meaningful discussion about the solutions would be a start. We can’t get to that point because we aren’t listening.
We acted like our ARs were better than other rifles, we went out bragging about them. We liked them because they looked like what the military uses. We post on social media showing how fast they can be fired... back in the day, shooters bragged about their assault rifles. WE made them scary, and now we deny that they are.
Half the AR misconceptions were the product of gun owners. Now we lie and say they are harmless.

[Lohman446]

I don't recall the same AR dialogue you do.

I don't own one, I don't see any reason for me to own one, but I don't see any reason why other competent adults should not be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Exactly, but you do first have to acknowledge their concerns as valid, then you can talk about solutions.

Where someone's concern is that I can buy an AR with a regular magazine and their solution is to keep me from buying one, they do not have a valid concern.

[rickyrick]

I do agree, just presenting how it’s viewed on the other side.

The world is awash in these type of things.

https://youtu.be/7RdAhTxyP64

Why not try to understand what motivates them, we all know what motivates us?

[rickyrick]

So we don’t acknowledge that 30 round magazines allow a gun to fire more time before reloading than a 10 round?

The point is, I don’t think we should have any limits on firearms. So to me there should be no discussion.
People that want to make guns seem fun and warm and fuzzy are part of the problem.
If it is your absolute right to own a gun, why are we even worried?

No compromise means no discussion.
If you decide to have a discussion, you should have something a little stronger than “its fun”

I see a lot of cruelty from gun owners when these events happen. The same can be said about the anti-gun side. We are supposed to be better than that.

[zukiphile]

I do agree, just presenting how it’s viewed on the other side.

The world is awash in these type of things.

https://youtu.be/7RdAhTxyP64

I don't really understand why he thinks that is worth doing, but magazine dumps aren't interesting to me. Also not interesting to me: sitting in a little boat on a lake fishing, gardening, parachuting, woodworking, Downton Abbey and drag racing. Those also aren't reasonable bases for tighter firearm restrictions.

Why not try to understand what motivates them, we all know what motivates us?

You can listen to and understand what motivates a person without taking whatever he utters as valid. You can sit politely while someone speaks a fundamentally flawed position, then tell them it is fundamentally flawed. Or you can refrain from any response if you think their words are less than rational manifestations of normal grief.

[Lohman446]

So we don’t acknowledge that 30 round magazines allow a gun to fire more time before reloading than a 10 round?

I think it would be a difficult premise to argue. I would question the conclusion that often follows it.

What cruelty in such discussions? I still want to know who is celebrating the loss of innocent life. These keeps getting put up as some straw man argument and I want to know who exactly is making it.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

So we don’t acknowledge that 30 round magazines allow a gun to fire more time before reloading than a 10 round?

That doesn't follow from anything anyone has written in this thread. Who has suggested that you should not acknowledge a true statement?

Originally Posted by rickyrick

The point is, I don’t think we should have any limits on firearms. So to me there should be no discussion.

The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. How are other people supposed to learn that you believe in no limits if you never discuss it?

Originally Posted by rickyrick

People that want to make guns seem fun and warm and fuzzy are part of the problem.

If you ever find such a person, bring him to our attention.

Originally Posted by rickyrick

If it is your absolute right to own a gun, why are we even worried?

Governments that don't recognise peoples' rights are prominent in history. That one has a right doesn't mean he should not worry about keeping it.

Originally Posted by rickyrick

No compromise means no discussion.

That's clearly false. Do you need examples of people who've discussed a matter but not compromised?

Originally Posted by rickyrick

If you decide to have a discussion, you should have something a little stronger than “its fun”

That's a solid response to the argument that one should say nothing stronger than "it's fun". Happily, no one urged that.

[rickyrick]

I’m just playing devils advocate here. My stance is no restrictions on firearms.
I live amongst Americans so I try to understand my fellow citizens. I talk to anti gun people all the time. I hear what they tell me, I listen to conversations that they have.

The basic response here to every anti-gunner’s position has been basically to shoot it down.

If we don’t want to compromise, then why are we trying to appease them by sugar coating and trying to qualify it based on the recreational aspect of guns.

Now the “fun” aspect of gun ownership is what makes them the most angry, yet we keep on doing it.
The last thing they want to hear about guns is that they are just grownup toys, especially when there’s dead kids involved.
If wasn’t for the constitution, our guns would have been gone years ago.

Edit to add:

The constitutional aspect is the only thing that’s working in our favor, why dilute it? Are we ashamed so we try to add something else to make gun ownership legitimate?
I don’t think recreation adds any legitimacy to the gun debate. They say there’s no legitimate reason to own an AR for sporting reasons. Only the reasons why it’s in the constitution are legitimate, whatever they may have been originally.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

If we don’t want to compromise, then why are we trying to appease them by sugar coating and trying to qualify it based on the recreational aspect of guns.

Who is doing this? Can you quote someone doing that?

Those are not rhetorical questions.

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Now the “fun” aspect of gun ownership is what makes them the most angry, yet we keep on doing it.

Are you trying to appease someone by omitting the recreation use of arms?

Originally Posted by rickyrick

The constitutional aspect is the only thing that’s working in our favor, why dilute it? Are we ashamed so we try to add something else to make gun ownership legitimate?

Do you believe that reading a good book for the joy of it dilutes the 1st Am? (hint: it doesn't)

Do you believe that stating that you read for fun is a feckless attempt to make free speech legitimate?

Originally Posted by rickyrick

I don’t think recreation adds any legitimacy to the gun debate. They say there’s no legitimate reason to own an AR for sporting reasons. Only the reasons why it’s in the constitution are legitimate, whatever they may have been originally.

Emphasis added.

Rick, I don't think you are a bad person, I understand that much of what you've written in this thread is intended to be challenging, and that you aren't a gun control advocate.

Immediately above, you've repeated a belief that the 2d Am. was included for a fairly specific reason, and that you know that reason despite no such language in the amendment itself. I'm happy to kick the point around with you. I find your position not well reasoned, not supported by the decision in Heller, and not an especially useful position for 2d Am. advocates.

There is no personal animosity in that; you just seem to have a strong sentiment on this that you might like to explore more.

[fredvon4]

OK since I started this exercise I need to admit I was just frustrated by much current hatred for a particular rifle and what might be a way to defend against an out right ban on just that one weapon.... an effort I believe should fail for all sorts of common sense and logistical problems

No way the Thousands of them we already own, are gong to be confiscated or bought back...in this society

I have many HOBBIES... Model Airplanes and Amateur Radio are, relative to gun owners, a VERY small group..so my experiences do not easily relate

HAM radio is regulated by the FCC. Amatuer radio guys have a entity to help defend against loosing our Frequencies and Privileges.. a hobby NOT codified as an Constitutional Right

Model airplanes are recently heavily regulated by the DOT FAA as lumped n with Drones and we also have a entity to help defend new draconian limitations ...again not codified as a Constitutional Right

Not sure how effective any of our efforts were trying to increase membership or total USA citizen participation but we tried.... seems when you lobby your state or federal rep...they focus in real fast on your group size..(voters)

I am aware there are many competitions where the AR 15 is one of the rifles
I am aware that ma and pa tax payer is unaware of even local fun/competition clubs, ranges, and firearms sports

Missed in my original though and my fault not written well...BIG PRIZES

Yes requires deep pockets

Bob Carver (yes they guy with superb Stereo Equipment) was a sponsor for years of a Model Airplane Combat Match in Seattle called the Bladder Grabber...2018 will be 40th event

When Bob sponsored with $10,000 worth of prizes the participation, 70+ contestants were from all over USA and 2~3 foreign teams...This year, like last, will be maybe 13~15 old guys

During the 80s it was such a big event, local papers and TV covered it. Each year saw more and more spectators.....

Big Block Fast Combat is a relativity dangerous event... and requires a lot of space and it is very NOISY..... There were always safety and noise pollution efforts to kill the event

Most failed (locally) due the the good will of a lot of non participants telling their council man to lay off..they only do it once a year and it is GREAT FUN

NOT sure what I proposed would work on any national scale to garner GOOD WILL for the HATED GUN

And I am ashamed to admit I am cheap and Lazy... so I apologize for throwing out an Idea with no intention to do any of the hard work to organizes such events and find the $$$$$

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Agree to disagree, folks. What actually works as an argument to defend gun ownership is an interesting empirical question.

There is the popular excuse route:
1. 223 isn't powerful
2. ARs are for sport. Don't take my toys!
3. They aren't fully auto so don't call them assault boom-booms
4. They are tools like pliers and only people are dangerous
5. Well, Johnny could have made anthrax or Sarin and killed more people. A bomb did that - so no action is needed if you only kill 20 kids.

Do we know if that works? Did the NRA or other gun organizations do some legit research to test those messages?

Then there are the legalistic, Constitutional, real purpose arguments.
1. Shall not be infringed - Enuf said.
2. We are the militia - Enuf said
3. God said so
4. Defense against tyranny and self-defense. Debate if that was the purpose as you can find various old political sources saying this or that.
5. Defense against foreign invasion. Funny, that used to be a popular theme. 50,000 Chinese in California or Mexico on the way to TX to take our guns. Here comes the UN! Remember those. Really heated. Say that today and you would be seen as an idiot by a majority of gun folk and antigun folk.

Use what works. If you think you have it nailed, good for you. I see merit in many of the statements if used in a manner that would be convincing. Any of them can be stated in a way that only appeals to the choir.

So let's lay back a bit. If it gets personal, we all lose.

[rickyrick]

I’ll admit that I’ve failed in my attempts to point out where our arguments are falling short.
That’s my only intent.

I don’t have the greatest writing ability and I am multitasking when I’m posting lol.

People can change their opinions on guns.

When I was young I didn’t think civilians needed the assault boom booms either. Because logically, I didn’t think you needed one.
I was a gun owner, just the recreational type. I was also a soldier for my first tour of adulthood. Didn’t think civilians needed ARs.

I changed my opinions when some fellow explained to me why we have the second amendment.

[Tom68]

"Usually a progun demonstration is an embarrassment."

Glenn, I'd submit that the reason is that by nature we are not the demonstrating type. Gun owners come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and political preferences, but one key thread I often experience in gun owners is individuality and self-reliance, at least in my part of the world anyway. Folks who take pride in their individual liberty aren't easily persuaded to travel to participate in a demonstration.

I would bet that many of the folks on this board view gun ownership as a personal decision and are not inclined to advertise themselves in such a way.

[fredvon4]

Tom68

your quote above sparked a thought---- but I can not find who you are quoting to see context..

No matter---- it made me remember the Recent Texas Open Carry debates

I live in Lampasas near fort Hood and as imagined, a very high rate of gun ownership population...Susana Hupp is from here, and we sent her to Austin as our rep...she is solely responsible for the Current Texas Concealed Carry Law

Many years later we debated Open Carry....now passed (with a license/permit)

What struck me during the debates leading up to the Texas House session--- was several dozens...of "Demonstrators" made a point to march on the Capitol a few times with long rifles on their backs.....

As I watched on TV most seemed to be Rickey Rambo with a AR ...... ready for a fight..... NOT a group of people who seemed harmless and non threatening

NOT sure how I can describe this with out ticking off the 2A folks too much

If I was to gather a group to Demonstrate. I would have all dressed as Hunters, with a long gun and Belt Holster Revolver....

A great argument that worked in the debate was:

Hunting in remote Rural counties is BIG business in Texas... so City guy gets all set up. Moves into hunt camp... need supplies...heads to local town to get deer corn, beer, food, ammo, gun supplies... has to leave his side arm in the vehicle... might forget... should not be arrested for having a six gun on his hip...Open

Fortunately this logic worked but was compromised with the need of a permit to open carry

Back to the point... I thought-- all around Texas the hard core "Demonstrators" the way they dressed, and the weapons they carried.. looked to much Rambo-ish TO ME

and made me shake my head and think... You All Are Not Helping

[SIGSHR]

How many of these people concerned with school shootings are concerned over teen drug use, or texting while driving ?
The basic idea is to create a Surveillance and Snitch society, sow mistrust, fear and paranoia.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry, this kind of statement is not productive. While the gun control advocates may not be sensible on why we need the 2nd Amend. to assignment such a motive of societal control to folks who saw their children killed or were a survivor of a rampage is not going to convince anyone.

The major parties just use gun control as totems to rile up their bases - Ban Guns vs. No controls - say what gets me votes. They don't really care - you are naive to think the party head honchos do care. They just care about trashing the other party.

At the grass roots of the antigun movement that specifically sprung up around this one - they are not trying to have your kindergarten teacher make you a socialist that surveills you and sows paranoia.

The gun world makes a terrible mistake if it thinks it can defend gun rights with such rhetoric.