The problem with the gun rights crowd

[reteach]

Like I said; use to be a good buddy. …..

I have a couple of good friends who are far more conservative than I am, and a couple of friends who are far more liberal than I am. Do I dump them because we disagree? They're my friends because of shared experiences that go beyond politics or where we stand on guns. I know I could call any one of them at 3:00 A.M. and get help with no hesitation. I might get a butt-chewing a day or two later for that wake-up, but I can rely on any of these people with whom I disagree about some things to be my friends in other things. I'm not about to shut down those friendships over membership in the NRA or who we voted for.

My daughter tolerates my interest in gun but says she will never own a gun. I ain't about to dump her, either.

[44 AMP]

The problem with some folks is the inability to separate the "gun issue" from all their other political ideas.

If you agree with a political party's platform on one thing, does it mean you have to agree with them in ALL things? Some think so, I disagree.

The people who say "if you agree with us on A, you must agree with us on B are not for me.

I MIGHT agree with them on B, or I might not. Not being given the choice, means they really aren't about individual freedom, only group think, THEIR group.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I know you know this 44AMP; but at the heart of it, the way you view gun politics is shorthand for a lot of other deeply held values. If you believe the government is the representative of the citizen and serves that citizen, it is hard to square the idea that the government should have special privileges on use of force, let alone a monopoly.

The key tenet of advanced civilizations is they have a solid predictive mechanism that allows them to resolve disputes without resorting to use of force. As long as all citizens accept that the predictive method used to resolve conflicts is valid, they can have continual revolutions without destroying infrastructure and human capital. Because that civilization isn’t being reset to zero by conflict, it gains over others.

The problem hits when citizens start to feel like the system is being gamed and doesn’t accurately predict actual conflict results. You can see where disarming your citizenry (in slices or in whole) throws a wrench in that. Then people start thinking that destroying a lot of wealth creating infrastructure is worth the price of escaping perceived enslavement.

[Pahoo]

The problem with some folks is the inability to separate the "gun issue" from all their other political ideas.

My "good" buddy and I went to local Gun-Shows and he would start getting political on me. So, very early, we made a deal to keep politics out of our conversations. More than once I had to remind him of "our" deal...…

Do I dump them because we disagree?

reteach
Well, this time it's a bad call on your part as you could say, he dumped me and to this day, has not give me a straight answer as to why. …..
However, I can thank him for doing us both a favor …..

Be Safe !!!

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The problem with some folks is the inability to separate the "gun issue" from all their other political ideas.

If you agree with a political party's platform on one thing, does it mean you have to agree with them in ALL things? Some think so, I disagree.

How many people do you know where you are virtually on the same page regarding gun rights/2nd Amendment issues but virtually opposed on almost every other issue?

[reteach]

a bad call on your part

I apologize.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How many people do you know where you are virtually on the same page regarding gun rights/2nd Amendment issues but virtually opposed on almost every other issue?

Actually, there are quite a few. Most folks are quite mixed on the hot button social issues that some also want to make a litmus test for supporting guns.

[Pahoo]

How many people do you know where you are virtually on the same page regarding gun rights/2nd Amendment issues but virtually opposed on almost every other issue?

Personally, a hand-full and often surprised at some of the feelings expressed by many Gun and Hunting folks. I avoid "spitting" contests on most issues but instead ask questions of why they feel a particular way. …..

L.B.C. and
Be Safe !!!

[SIGSHR]

The problem with "gun rights people" is that we are very individualistic and think for ourselves. We have no "Great and Wise Leader" or Politburo set the "Party Line". And we have no "Party Control Commission" to enforce discipline and expel those who do not follow "The Party Line."

[44 AMP]

How many people do you know where you are virtually on the same page regarding gun rights/2nd Amendment issues but virtually opposed on almost every other issue?

Personally know people with whom I'm virtually opposed on almost every other issue? Not many, I tend to not associate with people like that.

Personally know people where we are opposed on SOME other issue? I know TONS of those people.

I think most people fit into that category.

[Skans]

We need to champion the repeal of senseless gun laws; not the enactment of more gun laws.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Well, I know you know this 44AMP; but at the heart of it, the way you view gun politics is shorthand for a lot of other deeply held values. If you believe the government is the representative of the citizen and serves that citizen, it is hard to square the idea that the government should have special privileges on use of force, let alone a monopoly.

I'd add to that the idea that constitutionally protected rights are distinguishable from mere policy disagreements.

One could believe as a matter of public policy that privately held firearms should be prohibited, or only men should be permitted to vote or that the federal government should outlaw alcohol. However, if one asserts that the constitutions permits all those and we should have Sup Ct justices who will hold that the COTUS permits those, then we aren't having a disagreement on policy and social issues; we are disagreeing on whether the COTUS is a governing legal document and whether there is good faith in ignoring its text.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We need to champion the repeal of senseless gun laws; not the enactment of more gun laws.

Slight nuance, we need more gun laws that void what I see as unconstitutional state laws, in a manner similar to the Civil Rights acts, which denied civil rights in the various states.

[TXAZ]

The good news is "gun rights people" agree on much more than they disagree on. Much of the agreement isn't stated above, but (most here) agree on the key tenants of the 2nd amendment, which are monstrous compared to background checks or not.

Further, we're *FOR* something, not against, which many of the anti's can't articulate a specific position they support, only they don't want .... .

We're not that far apart gentlemen and ladies.

[5whiskey]

The problem with "gun rights people" is that we are very individualistic and think for ourselves. We have no "Great and Wise Leader" or Politburo set the "Party Line". And we have no "Party Control Commission" to enforce discipline and expel those who do not follow "The Party Line."

I think this is a lot of it honestly.

We're not that far apart gentlemen and ladies.

I also agree with this. We often split hairs. I remember when we discussed national reciprocity after the 2018 election. The key hangup was a knee-jerk reaction against the Federal government mandating that states honor CCH permits, and over whether the CCH Permit standards would be more California style. Everyone liked the idea of National Reciprocity, but not everyone liked swallowing the pill it would likely take to get us there. There were a few threads here on it (and on THR) with a fair amount of reasoned debate. As you said, we really aren't that far apart.

[Pahoo]

Folks on both sides of an issue, have "opinions". Opinions are not facts and obviously the truth, gets cloudy. Hard to do, but we need to respect each others' "opinions". The way I respond to others opinions that I disagree with, is to ask them questions that hopefully leads to more thought. It opens the door for reviewing ones opinion. A problem presents itself when folks try to force their opinions on others.…...

Case in point;
Prior to Iowa going to shall-issue, I attended a country meeting on this subject. There were a number of county and state representative there. One person was a state Congress-Person Who made the statement that it was their feeling that we needed more common sense Gun Control laws. Then they asked for questions. I replied that I appreciated that she qualified their statement and an opinion on the subject but was not based facts. I asked; what facts did you base your opinion on? The meeting really opened up after that and was mostly constructive. …

Opinion
An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. A given opinion may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Slight nuance, we need more gun laws that void what I see as unconstitutional state laws, in a manner similar to the Civil Rights acts, which denied civil rights in the various states.

I'll see your nuance and raise you one nuance: I don't think federal laws attempting to override state laws is the appropriate way to deal with it. The SCOTUS has now established that the Second Amendment applies to the states. IMHO, then, the proper approach (which admittedly requires a proper judiciary) is for the federal courts to start shooting down state laws that violate ("infringe") the Second Amendment.

[TailGator]

Y'all that are making reference to the NRA president enriching himself and providing poor leadership: Are you referring to now-outgoing president Oliver North, or are you really referring to Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre?

Personally, I am troubled by an employee being able to force an elected president out when the employee is asked to account for his actions and expenditures. I am sure there is plenty we don't know about this situation, and I am personally among the most ignorant of the membership about the functioning if the NRA, but that aspect of it doesn't feel right to me. It feels like the tail is wagging the dog.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have another NRA thread, so let’s not do Wayne here.
As far as courts vs laws, I will take what I get. A federal law like the Saga act, which went nowhere, if passed, would be challenged by some states and might eventually get SCOTUS off its butt. If its butt toots the right way is the great gamble.

[PhotonGuy]

I also see disagreement within the gun control crowd. There are some in the gun control crowd who want to outlaw all guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns, guns used for hunting, ect. If it goes bang they want it outlawed. Then there are those who only want certain types of guns outlawed such as handguns or rifles on AR platforms. Then there are those who just want to ban certain features and accessories such as pistol grips on rifles or adjustable stocks or barrel shrouds or magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds. So I would figure there would be much fighting within the gun control crowd.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

I also see disagreement within the gun control crowd. There are some in the gun control crowd who want to outlaw all guns, handguns, rifles, shotguns, guns used for hunting, ect. If it goes bang they want it outlawed. Then there are those who only want certain types of guns outlawed such as handguns or rifles on AR platforms. Then there are those who just want to ban certain features and accessories such as pistol grips on rifles or adjustable stocks or barrel shrouds or magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds. So I would figure there would be much fighting within the gun control crowd.

Don't be fooled. They ALL want to ban all guns. To whatever extent they may appear to disagree, the disagreement isn't over what the endgame is, it's only a question of "Do we go after the guns incrementally, or do we go after everything at once?"

Have you read LawDog's blog on compromise? In most contexts, "compromise" means each side gives up something to arrive at a result that both sides can live with. That's not how it works with the anti-gun crowd. No matter what they get, it's never enough. It's always "a good first step."

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

[44 AMP]

So I would figure there would be much fighting within the gun control crowd.

There might be, so what?

The only real difference between the ban then all, everything, group, and the only ban some group, and the only ban certain features group, is what will make them happy, TODAY.

Ever hear any of them say, "agree to this and we'll never ask for another thing, ever?" No. And you won't.

Because the only ban certain guns, and the only ban certain features groups would ALSO be happy with banning everything. They just demand less, now, because they understand that demanding what they can't get, today, actually works against their cultivated patina of reasonableness.

They claim to be about "common sense" and 'reasonable first steps", and "compromise". But that's just a smokescreen.

What do the pro gun people want? Our zealots want a return to 1789, where the only "gun control" law was the 2nd Amendment, which isn't actually gun control, its Government control.

they know they aren't going to get that, either, but we can wish....

There are a lot of good people working to try and "disarm" the bad laws that infringe on our rights, as well. We have had some successes in the last few years, and we need to keep it up.

By the numbers, I would guess the majority of us would accept just being left the hell alone. Of course, our opponents being who and what they are, that's not going to happen, either.

[Tom Servo]

Ever hear any of them say, "agree to this and we'll never ask for another thing, ever?"

Actually, that was pretty much the rhetoric we heard around 1994. The Brady Act was never going to be used to create a registry. The Assault Weapons Ban was just going to be a 10-year experiment on some guns, but they're not coming for your Mini-14.

The ink wasn't even dry on the President's signature when Feinstein talked about how "weak" the AWB was and how they'd tighten and expand it as soon as they had the votes. The next session (and every session after), Schumer was pushing for the same expansions to the Brady Act he promised us he wouldn't.

[Aguila Blanca]

BREAKING NEWS! THIS JUST IN!


Politicians lie. Details at 11:00.

[Onward Allusion]

We need more Libertarians on our side.