Civility and Discipline

[mattdomes]

People don’t join these organizations because they hate freedom. They simply fear for the lives of themselves or their children and are fed skewed pictures of violence by media outlets. It’s easier to support gun bans than enact root solutions for the poverty and social inequality that fuels social turmoil of all kinds. People who favor increased gun control care about their communities and, as such, deserve respect, even though their analysis appears superficial. No one changes their mind after being threatened, but usually become more hard line.

Let’s show the anti-gun crowd that just as operating firearms requires discipline, so does talking about this serious subject.

I became keenly aware of this after marrying my wife who had never shot a gun of any kind her entire life. All she had been shown is people dying in movies "because of guns." When I would go out shooting she would worry that I would die, while when I climb Hood or some other Mtn she would be fine. After she had handled a gun a few times her fear subsided and now she is interested and is going to take an all woman class on firearms.

People are afraid of guns because they are not informed or experienced with them.

 

[Dunerunner]

You are mixing thing up there, Dune.

There are a great many liberal, Democratic gun owners out here in America. Most all of us strongly support the 2A. Lots of us like and keep dreaded black rifles with big mags. We think that the Dems are on the wrong side of the gun rights issue.

The problem is that we also think the Dems are on the right (correct) side of some other policy issues. Things like public education, women's rights, abortion rights, certain entitlement programs (not all for sure). The GOP is wrong on many social issues (as borne out by the last two elections), but they are right on the gun rights issue. Go figure.

It would be nice if we could always stick everything in nice neat packages, but public policy, human rights, freedom and life itself just don't work out that way. It is a messy business.

And you, Sir; are exactly the person I want to talk with. That is if we can keep the discussion on the 2A without that other stuff getting in the way. That was the gist of my post, after all.

 

[Dunerunner]

How do you expect a pro gun liberals defense of the 2A to be any different than yours?

Actually, I don't. I just have difficulty understanding how you could balance that belief in the 2A with liberal political beliefs. Just never have been anywhere that I have had an opportunity to discuss it in a rational manner.

 

[dmancornell]

- Actually supports government theft and violence

Try again.

Keep deluding yourself.

 

[DireWolf]

Actually, I don't. I just have difficulty understanding how you could balance that belief in the 2A with liberal political beliefs. Just never have been anywhere that I have had an opportunity to discuss it in a rational manner.

That's part of the problem. People like to classify and categorize. It's our nature as people, I think.

"We" think there are two parties (generally), and believe that based on what we consume from corporate media - "these" people think X, and "those" people think Y.

When you (global you, not personal you) entrench yourself into a rut, and only listen to the people/new/opinions that enforce your own biases/prejudice, "those" people quickly become the enemy. The anger in some of the posts in this thread and forum in general (when the discussions turn to politics) simply reinforce this. There was a thread in the legal/political subforum recently that got closed where a person stated that they could never have a friend that was a liberal. Why? He was convinced befriending liberals required a "compromise" of his beliefs.

When dogma triumphs over reason, the plot has been lost.

 

[kumabear17]

Dealing with your opponent by explaining facts is the optimum means of negotiating a professional settlement. Does much of anything you see happening in Congress seem to reflect any of this. I agree "facts" are a tool which needs to be continually communicated as part of an education of all sides as to what really has happened. Unfortunately our Politicians seem more interested in building emotions based on sound bites and outlandish statements based on both lack of knowledge and just plain stupidity. I can acknowledge it wrong to use the "Stalin" and "Hitler" caricature to demean the other side or to threaten shooting someone (why warn them, ammo is expensive), but we better find a way to turn the emotional side of the equation if we want this current effort stooped now and for the next four years at least.

 

[AGCR]

Actually, I don't. I just have difficulty understanding how you could balance that belief in the 2A with liberal political beliefs. Just never have been anywhere that I have had an opportunity to discuss it in a rational manner.

The equation of Liberalism with anti-gun politics is a relatively recent development. Conservatives had few qualms with early gun controls which were implemented to keep racial and cultural minorities from being armed. In just one example, there was the 1926 case of Ossian Sweet, a black doctor who defended his home against a lynch mob and was put on trial for murder. Neither the NRA, nor any other gun rights groups showed any interest in defending his use of the 2nd Amendment. It was the American Left who took up his cause, including the socialist labor lawyer Clarence Darrow who declared "The right to defend your home, the right to defend your person, is as sacred a right as any human being could fight for."

 

[Just Me]

Neither the NRA, nor any other gun rights groups showed any interest in defending his use of the 2nd Amendment.

Can you provide your source for that?

 

[Charliefox]

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately most people's opinion is shaped by who screams louder. Our voices must be that of calm assusrance. Educate people, don't try to indoctrinte. Converse, don't compete. And most importantly; don't try to convince someone who has thier mind made up - it will be a sad and frustrating exercise. People like Ted Nugent and James Yeager cannot be the faces of rational, law abiding gun owners - unfortunately they are the ones getting the airtime.

 

[Siuslaw Warrior]

This is the most important thread yet in support of the 2A.

There are numerous historical accounts of the US govt removing gun rights from civilians. Its happened over and over in spite of our 2A. We must unify our support and not point fingers at others who don't share our ideology. If someone won't budge .. move on. Use logic, reason, and facts to support your case. Emotional arguments will not win the day.

Divide and conquer is a common strategy and its being used effectively against those who support civilian firearm ownership.

I support those who resist the mass media's attempt to socially engineer consent to repeal the 2A through law or redefinition. The key words are 'unity' and 'inclusion'.

 

[packman]

It is a very good point.
Thanks for shareing.
I think many people would be surprised how many more staunch 2A supporters there really are out there who are alienated because of race creed sexual orientation. As much as I hate to say it " I swear everytime gun control is mentioned, it most always goes to a dem/rep argument." Who cares for who voted for who, as a human they can still have the same personal feelings as the other person on gun ownership!!!! Just not the same political view on other issues!!!!
As far as I am concerned both parties have been lacking any care for the Constitution, or what it stands for, as long as thier personal political agenda is met!!!!
Sorry for the rant!!
But I for one am sick of the narrow mindedness!!!

this and I couldn't have said it better

 

[Siuslaw Warrior]

Its important to note that the most important ongoing battle in the war (against the 2A) isn't the latest gun legislation. The key battle is the one being waged to control the opinions of our children. For if we lose that battle, there will be no one left to resist.

 

[katsnatchfever]

ITT: Gun owners sympathetic to the "more liberal point of view", push the responsiblity of irrational threats onto people that don't agree with them. Based on some of your comments, you'd think the secret service took an 8 year vacation while Bush was prez since he clearly had zero people threaten him. Were any repub/ conservative legislators asked about threats they have received over the years?
Gun owners cannont be held responsible for what a few idiots choose to say or do. These threats are being issued by short tempered folk who are taking certain govt actions very seriously...like when a group at West Point Military Academy publishes a study painting a rather broad definition of "The domestic terrorist threat". I doubt that anyone willing to publicly threaten a govt official gives a crap what anyone thinks about it as they are holding their line in the sand.
Perhaps, Ginny wouldn't be threatened if she didn't present bills based on completely retarded false logic that even the New York Sheriff Assoc disagrees with.
Perhaps, Kevin doesn't receive threats because he is a rational, responsible guy whose cause is to fight for law abiding gun owners.

Just a thought.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Sometimes a good slap is called for.

 

[AGCR]

Can you provide your source for that?

Of course. The trial transcript can be found in "Attorney For the Damned: Clarence Darrow in His Own Words." Simon and Schuster, New York, 1957. p.229-263. The NAACP also prominently assisted with the case but in arguments before the jury, Darrow lamented racism that kept other groups from helping fight officials who would "send [Ossian Sweet] and his companions to prison because they defended their constitutional rights." Furthermore, I checked with the NRA-ILA and they do have an article mentioning the Sweet trial, but nowhere do they claim to have provided legal support, which if they had, would surly be trumpeted now that such a stand could be seen as socially acceptable.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/1999/selective-disarmament-no-guns-for-the.aspx

 

[AGCR]

I
Perhaps, Kevin doesn't receive threats because he is a rational, responsible guy whose cause is to fight for law abiding gun owners.

Just a thought.

That is an absolutely correct character assessment of Starrett. However, not one anti-gun folks share. The stark fact is, under the current dialogue, even a liberal gun rights supporter like Mark Roberts has to live with his wife and family being threatened by right wingers. Starrett does not because even though gun control advocates think he's a menace, they are civil enough to not send death threats.

 

[ThePhonMan]

Rather than dredge up ancient history about who did or didn't do what to/for whom, we should all just agree to stop labeling, name calling and alienating anyone who may have a slightly different view than our own on any number of other subjects.

If you are a 2A supporter then I could care less about your other political, religious, social or fiscal views when we are talking about the 2A.

If you want to talk about those other leanings there are plenty of other places on the internet to bare your soul.

2A supporters of all stripes have to work together to keep our rights. Once that's done we'll have plenty of time to argue the other crap. But don't hold your breath for too many to participate civilly in those discussions.

 

[AGCR]

2A supporters of all stripes have to work together to keep our rights. Once that's done we'll have plenty of time to argue the other crap. But don't hold your breath for too many to participate civilly in those discussions.

Agreed. But this is very simple and my expectations are low. Call people names- fine, drag every argument into the gutter- ok, just don't claim to be a 2nd Amendment supporter and then threaten to murder people and their families whom you disagree with. That's my minimum standard of acceptable conduct.

 

[BillB1960]

That is an absolutely correct character assessment of Starrett. However, not one anti-gun folks share. The stark fact is, under the current dialogue, even a liberal gun rights supporter like Mark Roberts has to live with his wife and family being threatened by right wingers. Starrett does not because even though gun control advocates think he's a menace, they are civil enough to not send death threats.

OK I liked your first article but you're painting with a pretty broad brush here. I certainly don't think that gun grabbers are inherently more civil than 2A supporters. Did you miss Burdick's speech after the NRA advocated putting armed guards in schools? She claimed that their solution was to put "jack booted storm troopers" in schools. The woman is a raving, hyperbole spouting harpie and civil is hardly the adjective I'd use to describe her.

How about that cute new online game, Bullet to the Head of the NRA? Doesn't sound very civil to me.

 

[Boats]

I am willing to be the skunk at this kumbaya singing garden party.

"Lefty 2A Supporter" is oxymoronic in any context outside of an initiative or referendum vote.

Why? Because they enable the gun controllers with their election votes and they don't have the pull on the left to affect state or national policy making.

To borrow a notion from George Patton, I'd rather have the loudmouthed gun controllers all in front of me than have lefty gun owners covering my back. As recently demonstrated by NRA A+ Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, just when gun rights supporters needs their leftist "friends" the most, that's the very moment the lefties cut and run, leading with Fudd blather about sportsmen and hunting, and other mealy mouthed crap about not REALLY violating anyone's rights, and finishing up with votes for gun control.

I remember Speaker Tom Foley, he had the NRA's back too. He had to just to hold a seat as a Democrat in Eastern Washington. Had this politician been a man rather than a lefty jellyfish, he could have singlehandedly killed the Clinton AWB. He decided to feed his voters back home a bull scat sandwich instead and expected them to like it and ask for more.

I feel no compunction to be civil to "allies" like that.

And yes, those "gun owners" voting for "gun safety" are figuratively voting to cut every other gun owner's throat along with their own. Who can respect that and call him or herself a 2A defender with a straight face?