Why Must it be Gun Owners that "Compromise"?

[etrain16]

Hoss, You just hit it! We do need a General to take charge, but until we get one, we do what the ARMY does, and fight with gorilla tactics ( as it were) I think what we need to do to start is to figure out how we can get the voice of the people heard! For that we need some one like etrain16, or any number of fine, well spoken folks here! take that mission and make it our own. We have a unique position here on the forum, we have many who are well spoken, well read, and could take our collective voice and spread the message to the masses! Start locally in Orygun at the State capital with Gov'ness Hateful Kate and get them to listen. Take it to the reps, the senators, the congressmen IN MASS, and make them hear! Take these events and get the media to broadcast them to the masses so that the messages will be heard! The NRA has not taken any of these challenges up and I suspect they are waiting for some one to stand up and be the voice of reason, then they will sweep in and use the power they have to further the message! That is another problem I have, You see commercials on utube all the time from the NRA, but you never see them in regular T.V. or on signs and billboards! I think a strong e mail flood to them to get the message out that way would go further! In the end, we need to do something positive to effect changes at the local and State level, make OryGun an example to follow and let that run up the flag poll! Lets put our heads together and come up with some sort of plan, otherwise, the left will just keep pushing untill the changes they want get through, and we get screwed!

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I think we need something more. Yes, there are some very well spoken folks on this forum, you are among them. But what we lack is someone with considerable power and influence, someone that can get these messages to a large group of people. It's fun to share our thoughts on this forum, but it doesn't go anywhere. We need someone with a lot of money to back someone with a lot of power and influence, that can rattle cages in Salem, Olympia, Washington D.C., etc. I honestly don't know if there is anyone of that caliber out there - if there is, I would love to know who they are, because I'd love to put my support behind them. It seems there is a huge hole, just waiting to be filled with the right person. Maybe someone will find that person and we can all encourage them to take the lead, while the rest of us follow.

 

[Ura-Ki]

This is exactly how to go about dong something, vs nothing but hope for some one to come and take charge! Rally our selves first, put aside our differences, and become the voice people need to hear! With our collective differences (oxy moron) we can and should be able to take our diversity and own it to make a positive impact!

 

[L84Cabo]

View attachment 300115

That's always been one of my favorite memes on gun control.

I completely agree with you OP. I'm so done with liberals on this topic. The funny thing is, when I started my "gun journey"some 30+ years ago, I actually was in a pretty compromising mood...before I knew much. Liberals are their own worst enemy. I've had it with the lies, the name calling, people who want to take away my civil rights but can't even bother to spend 5 minutes educating themselves on the topic, the incessant bleating..."you need to compromise," etc., etc.

Why is it that the people who scream the loudest for wanting to have a dialog are the first people to scream the second the dialog doesn't go their way? And the people that scream the loudest for change are the most resistant/unwilling to change themselves? The biggest lie that liberals tell is that they want reasonable, common sense gun control. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they want is total and complete gun confiscation. I wish they would just say it. At least I'd have a little respect for them for being honest.

But you can't have a conversation with these people. They're not reasonable. They're not rational. And they're certainly not honest about what they truly want. Is it any wonder that so many of us have adopted the position of, "not one more damn inch!?"

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Any large complex problem is best solved by making it into smaller achievable pieces. And to solve it we need to understand it.

I have some thoughts as to what some of those pieces are and how we can look at them.

The power and influence issue
As etrain just observed, the crucial leadership factor hinges on influence and power, financial and political. That's what this challenge is about, those with power vs. those without.

Beyond money and connections , (power) there is the artificial divide, weakening influence. The TV box yaps away every day perpetuating these squabbles to their fan groups.

This distraction does not only divide gun owners from each other, but is used to perpetuate a divide between other Americans with whom we agree on many more things than we disagree. The divide prevents us from applying unified pressure to both political parties. The issue of Due Process affects everybody, (D) and (R) and when united in a cause, that unified voting bloc can't be ignored.

Focus on the wrong thing
We are in a struggle over the means used by some people to create harm and fear with their actions. The anti's are fixated on the tools used by the mentally ill and criminal personalities and the group they are calling on to 'compromise' -is us.

The call to "do something" is answered by legislators doing the easy thing: passing more laws describing gun characteristics, capacity, availability and design. So that brings us to two more issues, gun types and access.

Gun types are like curtains
Laws about styles of guns is like an argument over the curtains on the Titanic. Whether the curtains are waterproof or in complimentary colors has nothing whatsoever to do with the breech in the hull.

Similarly, the focus on the style of guns or capacity of guns ignores the broken-minded humans who are ripping holes in the society with their behaviors. That's where the problem lies, really, and instead, the discussion is about the curtains and not the hole in the boat.

So we, as gun owners know better than anybody that if one gun type/design/capacity is made illegal, then the broken-minded will go to the next available tool, which could be a Ruger Mini-14 with a wood stock or a gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter. And on and on and on it goes with the anti's chasing the wrong thing, certain that the tools are the problem, and by this method the root cause is never gonna be fixed.

The winning strategy has got to include moving the focus to the root cause, the doers of the crimes. The undiagnosed mentally ill and the mis-programmed criminal minds -and those two types are very frequently not exclusive to each other.

Access Mental
One of the major problems in evaluating suitability for gun ownership is in evaluating a dynamic personality (humans) which can be marginally good in one year and gradually worsen so slowly that even their family members don't see it coming. Or it can happen so quickly there's no warning.
None of the reasonable gun owners I know want mentally ill people to have access to dangerous tools, and yet the state of the art in Psychiatric science is, to be candid, pretty inadequate.
Evaluating personalities that change, using inadequate techniques could require periodic testing, and few gun owners are gonna want to go through that, and even if they did, some are going to pass that maybe shouldn't and there we go, nightclub or school shooting.

There's also the major problem that some who need testing the most are going to cooperate the least.

Access Legal
The other major problem regarding suitability to be armed is criminal behavior and history.
Habitual criminals are not role models when it comes to following rules, so a burglary to steal guns gets around that pesky old BGC and 3-day wait, if a friendly visit to some well armed associates can't fix the 'I got no guns' problem.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this regard. I agree that some non-violent felonies (importing plant material for example) shouldn't prevent someone from returning to a normal life. But the Power-Focus-Gun Types-Access Mental and Access Legal issues are way more formidable than restoring gun rights to embezzlers.

Summing it up
Consolidate power and influence in the right place
Bring the focus to the problem instead of the tools
Concentrate on the common goals that can unite otherwise divided voting groups

Then:
Clarify the challenges to find simpler solutions to restrict mental and criminal access
Make mental health a real option and restoring ownership rights inexpensive and practical.

I saved the easy part for last.
It's a compromise because the position of the anti-side is that nobody should be armed other than police and military.
To the anti's, any private ownership at all is a "loss", so they are compromising, too. See?

.

 

[etrain16]

Any large complex problem is best solved by making it into smaller achievable pieces. And to solve it we need to understand it.

I have some thoughts as to what some of those pieces are and how we can look at them.

The power and influence issue
As etrain just observed, the crucial leadership factor hinges on influence and power, financial and political. That's what this challenge is about, those with power vs. those without.

Beyond money and connections , (power) there is the artificial divide, weakening influence. The TV box yaps away every day perpetuating these squabbles to their fan groups.

This distraction does not only divide gun owners from each other, but is used to perpetuate a divide between other Americans with whom we agree on many more things than we disagree. The divide prevents us from applying unified pressure to both political parties. The issue of Due Process affects everybody, (D) and (R) and when united in a cause, that unified voting bloc can't be ignored.

Focus on the wrong thing
We are in a struggle over the means used by some people to create harm and fear with their actions. The anti's are fixated on the tools used by the mentally ill and criminal personalities and the group they are calling on to 'compromise' -is us.

The call to "do something" is answered by legislators doing the easy thing: passing more laws describing gun characteristics, capacity, availability and design. So that brings us to two more issues, gun types and access.

Gun types are like curtains
Laws about styles of guns is like an argument over the curtains on the Titanic. Whether the curtains are waterproof or in complimentary colors has nothing whatsoever to do with the breech in the hull.

Similarly, the focus on the style of guns or capacity of guns ignores the broken-minded humans who are ripping holes in the society with their behaviors. That's where the problem lies, really, and instead, the discussion is about the curtains and not the hole in the boat.

So we, as gun owners know better than anybody that if one gun type/design/capacity is made illegal, then the broken-minded will go to the next available tool, which could be a Ruger Mini-14 with a wood stock or a gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter. And on and on and on it goes with the anti's chasing the wrong thing, certain that the tools are the problem, and by this method the root cause is never gonna be fixed.

The winning strategy has got to include moving the focus to the root cause, the doers of the crimes. The undiagnosed mentally ill and the mis-programmed criminal minds -and those two types are very frequently not exclusive to each other.

Access Mental
One of the major problems in evaluating suitability for gun ownership is in evaluating a dynamic personality (humans) which can be marginally good in one year and gradually worsen so slowly that even their family members don't see it coming. Or it can happen so quickly there's no warning.
None of the reasonable gun owners I know want mentally ill people to have access to dangerous tools, and yet the state of the art in Psychiatric science is, to be candid, pretty inadequate.
Evaluating personalities that change, using inadequate techniques could require periodic testing, and few gun owners are gonna want to go through that, and even if they did, some are going to pass that maybe shouldn't and there we go, nightclub or school shooting.

There's also the major problem that some who need testing the most are going to cooperate the least.

Access Legal
The other major problem regarding suitability to be armed is criminal behavior and history.
Habitual criminals are not role models when it comes to following rules, so a burglary to steal guns gets around that pesky old BGC and 3-day wait, if a friendly visit to some well armed associates can't fix the 'I got no guns' problem.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this regard. I agree that some non-violent felonies (importing plant material for example) shouldn't prevent someone from returning to a normal life. But the Power-Focus-Gun Types-Access Mental and Access Legal issues are way more formidable than restoring gun rights to embezzlers.

Summing it up
Consolidate power and influence in the right place
Bring the focus to the problem instead of the tools
Concentrate on the common goals that can unite otherwise divided voting groups

Then:
Clarify the challenges to find simpler solutions to restrict mental and criminal access
Make mental health a real option and restoring ownership rights inexpensive and practical.

I saved the easy part for last.
It's a compromise because the position of the anti-side is that nobody should be armed other than police and military.
To the anti's, any private ownership at all is a "loss", so they are compromising, too. See?

.

Well said! I like it

 

[Koda]

"Compromising" is a lie. There is no compromise from the antis no matter how you try it because they don't have anything we want them to give up. They will never come around to accepting an armed citizenry. Its not just that its a lie, when they say "we don't want to take away your guns", its that hypothetically in order for gun control to work the only way is complete disarmament... hypothetically. Some of the antis don't understand this, that's why they say they don't want to take away our guns and that we should compromise, for "common sense". But then if we allowed that we all know it wont affect crime or tyranny from happening, so then next the only natural course is complete disarmament. Bloomberg knows this... Recently in the gun control topic protecting due process has been in the spotlight... think about this, we've reached a point with gun control where the only thing left in their agenda is to deny ones due process

Now tell me how all these years of compromise has worked out.

Its worth noting, the model for gun control is the countries that (supposedly) have lower gun violence than us, at best have an ask permission policy for sporting events only. These countries also have completely different cultural and demographic nature. It wont work the same here in America, and if they had our demographic and culture it wouldn't work over there. Rest assured it isn't 'really' working over there anyways, as now they don't have the choice and with the rise in terrorism in gun free Europe they are finding out what it means to not have true freedom. They gave up their freedom, gave it up. This is what compromise means...

We need to actually work on laws affecting the criminal, protect due process and repeal existing gun control and replace those with laws that affect the criminal. But we must absolutely refuse to compromise any longer.

 

[etrain16]

"Compromising" is a lie. There is no compromise from the antis no matter how you try it because they don't have anything we want them to give up. They will never come around to accepting an armed citizenry. Its not just that its a lie, when they say "we don't want to take away your guns", its that hypothetically in order for gun control to work the only way is complete disarmament... hypothetically. Some of the antis don't understand this, that's why they say they don't want to take away our guns and that we should compromise, for "common sense". But then if we allowed that we all know it wont affect crime or tyranny from happening, so then next the only natural course is complete disarmament. Bloomberg knows this... Recently in the gun control topic protecting due process has been in the spotlight... think about this, we've reached a point with gun control where the only thing left in their agenda is to deny ones due process

Now tell me how all these years of compromise has worked out.

Its worth noting, the model for gun control is the countries that (supposedly) have lower gun violence than us, at best have an ask permission policy for sporting events only. These countries also have completely different cultural and demographic nature. It wont work the same here in America, and if they had our demographic and culture it wouldn't work over there. Rest assured it isn't 'really' working over there anyways, as now they don't have the choice and with the rise in terrorism in gun free Europe they are finding out what it means to not have true freedom. They gave up their freedom, gave it up. This is what compromise means...

We need to actually work on laws affecting the criminal, protect due process and repeal existing gun control and replace those with laws that affect the criminal. But we must absolutely refuse to compromise any longer.

Exactly. Compromise, as it applies to gun control is a one-way street, and only one side is expected to compromise - us. And when we don't, we're labeled as people that 'don't care', that we're 'terrorists' and we don't have the best interests at heart. We try to defend our constitutional rights and they respond with character assassination. Eventually we respond in kind, and lose any support we may get from those on the fence. It's all a big mess. I only hope we find a way to get it together and finally mobilize a well-coordinated group, with proper leadership, that will end this talk of one-way compromise once and for all.

 

[Boboclown]

Why must it be the gun owners who compromise? Cause its not fair to have to find something that actually works in the long run as opposed to something that'll only work now and just be a band-aid. I'm more for undoing some laws (if not all) in regards to guns. It starts with a compromise, it leads to worse.

Its just a feeling vs. logic type of debate. Logic dictates that because people will always try to kill each other, and find worse ways to do it if guns aren't available (think, Daegu subway fire), then guns should not be banned. Nor should the right be infringed on. Whereas feelings, well we hear enough of that.

 

[Ura-Ki]

That's why we need to change the game, remove all compromise! We give nothing, they give what we want, the time is close at hand to do just that, the big question is do we have enough support to do just that? NO we don't, and THAT is the problem! Breaking it down into smaller chunks is a good first step, constant pressure on the powers that be is going to work,, but will take time! Having some one to take up the call and be the voice people can rally behind is another step we need, and we need to be looking for just such a person! I am thinking one of our retired Constitutional Sheriff's would be a good person to take the podium to start with, some one people know and respect, and some one who knows the laws, the ins and outs, and can begin to push the powers that be into "negotiating" the changes we need made! It's a long hard road ahead, but if we don't start this journey soon, all will be lost, And soon! We need to pull together on this, make our differing opinions into our greatest strength and use that to work for us instead of against! Right now, many if not must of us and banging our heads against the wall, trying to come up with a solution that can work, I think we all have good ideas, time to post them up with the idea that WE the People have a voice, and that if we come up with a good plan to use that voice in a way that people will listen, we gain ground! Change is hard, but we have a chance, TOGETHER!

 

[rick benjamin]

Crims doing crimes?
I'm not the crim who did the dirty deed.
Why crim me?
How about capitol punishment?
Horrors!
What's wrong with removing bad apples from the barrel?
Doesn't teach a lesson!
True, but less germs in the gene pool

 

[ZigZagZeke]

In the wake of another thread where a question was posed about what 'we' can do to help curb 'gun violence', I find myself continuing to wonder why it is that the gun owners/gun community are the only ones expected to give something up in the spirit of "common sense gun laws" and "compromise"?

As I look back on the history of gun rights in this country, there appears to be a long history, going back to the 1930's, of "compromise" by gun owners in this country. Seems the standard solution presented when a high-profile event occurs where guns are involved, is to look to us to compromise yet again. Give up some more of your rights, and we'll finally be safe. Give away some more of your liberty and we'll finally be safe. Lay down your arms and we'll finally be safe. You don't need guns to protect you, your government will protect you.

And, it seems, they are piercing the hearts of gun owners across the country. A recent comment in the other thread stated that gun owners simply "don't care" about guns getting into the hands of bad people. I stated in the other thread that that statement pissed me off - and it still does. I know a lot of gun owners, and not a single damn one of them is okay with bad people getting guns. In fact, most would happily do something to prevent it - with one big exception - stripping us of yet more of our rights. Does that make us 'uncaring'? Does that mean we won't or can't do something about it? Or does that mean that there is a line many of us are unwilling to cross with respect to our constitutional rights? To imply that people who care about their rights don't care about crimes such as murder, terrorism, etc. just because they want to protect their rights, is just a very poor assumption. It seems at least some in our gun community are giving in to the anti-gun rhetoric and are willing to sell their rights, along with ours for the false promises of the anti's. It is sad to see.

I don't know if it's out of a sense of guilt that some gun owners are starting to sound just like the anti-gun crowd. I don't know if they seem to feel as if it is, in some way, their fault that these events happen. I guess I can see why they might feel that way when the news and anti-gun politicians keep telling them they ARE part of the problem. Well, I call B.S. on that whole idea. It is NOT my fault. I did NOTHING to allow these events to happen, and I refuse to feel guilty over the decisions and actions of a terrorist, psychopath, criminal or gang banger. Unless I do something personally to put a gun into the hands of one of these types of people, I own no guilt. I can't understand why some take that guilt onto themselves, and then proceed to use their guilt to attack others - particularly by trying to guilt them into the same notions they have. Those are the tactics of the anti-gun crowd, and I don't think they belong among gun owners.

In that thread, myself and many others offered real solutions, real opportunities to help reduce the kinds of crimes that lead to our rights being under attack. The anti-gun crowd, and unfortunately, some within the gun community, prefer to turn a blind eye to those ideas. They want more laws because they believe, even though time and time again they are proven wrong, that laws will make us safer. They will not. We see that day after day. Gun free zones do not work, they will never work, and people are dying because people believe in this fantasy of personal safety.

Why are people on this site so concerned about their gun rights? Well, remember, this is a forum of gun owners. The gun community watches their rights remain under constant attack. It's only reasonable to see people here, in a place they should feel safe to share their concerns over that loss of rights, react negatively to anyone that suggest giving up even more rights is the answer.

I am passionate about my rights. Gun rights reflect only one area of my concern with respect to the government constantly finding more and more laws to restrict our freedom. That passion sometimes may come out as anger, sometimes it truly is anger. Some people may take those statements personally, but since I am very careful to avoid 'attacking' others on this forum, if my statements offend, it is likely because you simply disagree with me and perhaps how I state my feelings/beliefs on the matter. It's too bad that so many folks get offended so easily over a simple discussion. But it's even more disappointing that so many allow being offended to lead to more repression and restriction on their rights. No doubt some here would hit the 'dislike' button on some of my comments if that button existed. I don't expect to appease people here, I only wish to speak my mind as freely as I am allowed.

I believe in personal responsibility, in this case with particular emphasis on personal safety - for myself and my family. I respect the police and the military and I certainly look to them to protect me as well. But when I'm trapped in my home or somewhere in public and some lunatic is stabbing, shooting, or attempting to blow up a place, I shouldn't have to have someone's permission to fight back if that's my best option. I shouldn't have my hands tied by more laws and regulations. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my life on the alter of government control so that others can 'feel' safer, even when they've made themselves into victims, just waiting for the next attack.

I wrote out this thread just to get some thoughts off my chest and maybe to see what you folks think. I know many people here feel the same way, and I know some disagree, even vehemently with my position on these things. So, feel free to weigh in. Share your ideas for how we could make things better - even though we can never eliminate the issue of evil/bad people - or the fact that they will get weapons - many different types - regardless of what our laws are. But are there some options that are being ignored by the anti-gun crowd that might work? Share them here, again, if you like. To recap from other posts I've made, here are some ideas that I think could really help, but so far, are left on the table, passed over by the anti-gun crowd:

* Mandatory jail sentences for anyone convicted of a gun crime - no parole, no early release
* Mandatory jail sentences for anyone convicted of assisting with a straw purchase
* Mandatory deportation of any immigrant (illegal or legal) convicted of any violent crime
* Funding and expansion of mental health care for those unable to get it for themselves, up to and including institutionalization if necessary
* Conviction and mandatory jail sentence of any person who knowingly harbors or otherwise hides information on known criminals, with particular emphasis on those that commit crimes with firearms
* Re-introduce gun safety training as mandatory in all public schools beginning in grade school and continuing through high school.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. I know we can come up with more.

We need to turn the focus on criminals, not on the law-abiding public. We have committed no crimes, yet increasingly, we are treated as if we are the criminals. No more compromising. No more giving up even more than we already have. Compromise means only one thing to the anti-gun crowd - we give something up and they don't. It's all B.S. and it needs to stop. I hope more of my fellow gun owners will stand up, get involved and become more vocal on this issue. Our rights are not secure under the current administration and they will not be secure under any administration unless we act - vote, speak up, get involved where you can, donate to pro-gun groups. And dammit people, find a frickin' pro-gun billionaire or two that can help us get some big pro-gun movements solidly funded!!! Why is it only the anti-gun billionaires put their money out on such things??

If you disagree with me, I don't mind hearing from you too. I'm open to discussion. I won't attack anyone personally, but I may counter your comments or arguments. I may even say your arguments stink - and you can say the same about mine. If you can deal with that, then please, do share what you think. Let's keep it civil, but I'm happy to see people present their ideas and thoughts with some passion.

Ultimately, I think the time for gun owners to compromise has long past - we've compromised enough. It's time to restore the rights that have been stolen from us under the false promise of safety and security. It's time to give us back what we should never have allowed to be taken in the first place. The only compromise I'm interested in, is the compromise that leads to the anti-gun crowd giving us our rights back. It's time THEY learned to compromise rather than demanding it from us.

Sorry for such a long post - just needed to get that off my chest.

See, the thing is that it's not about safety (except in an abstract way), or crime prevention, or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. No, it's about attacking one of the defining characteristics of people the anti-gunners fear and loathe.

Let's take a look at who the combatants are here. On the "anti" side are the power hungry politicians, "civilized" younger males, "civilized" soccer moms, bureaucrats, and aging cat ladies. On the "pro" side are aging "uncivilized" males, veterans, hunters, and prickly people who are sensitive to attacks on their civil rights. Those people on the "anti" side are "civilized" in that they have been taught, and are convinced that someone else is responsible for fixing whatever goes wrong in their lives. The fire department will put out fires. The police will protect them from crime. The city will repair the streets. The landlord will fix the plumbing. Food comes from the supermarket. The mechanic will fix the car. They don't know how to take care of these things themselves, and wouldn't want to do them if they could because being a good citizen, to them, means following the rules, using "best practices", and never thinking for one's self. Being different, going your own way, having original thoughts, and taking care of your own problems, to them, is anti-social. When you do those things you belittle them and their reliance on the system. It makes them feel inadequate, which leads to being fearful, which leads to anger at those who refuse to work within the system. You threaten to add personal responsibility to their responsibility-free social contract, and they don't like that.

Also, many of them have a problem with male authority. Maybe their fathers beat or abused them, or other family members. Maybe daddy left when they were young and mommy made sure they knew how horrible and dangerous daddy really was. Maybe daddy was an alcoholic who failed to support the family. Whatever caused it, they have a grudge against maleness.

One of the defining characteristics of people on the "pro" side of things is taking care of one's self. Guns are one set of tools for doing so. People who take care of their own problems usually don't follow the herd, especially if it involves waiting for a repairman, begging a bureaucrat, dealing with power hungry politicians, or waiting for the police while watching someone commit a crime against them. These independent thinkers and actors make the "anti" folks feel uncomfortable, inadequate, afraid, and angry. So how do the "anti's" lash out at these people who smack of independence and maleness? By striking at the very heart of who they are. If they can take the tools of independence away from those independent thinkers and actors, then their thinking is that these "uncivilized" people will be forced to be dependent, just as they are. The people they fear and loathe will be brought to heel and made to behave.

It's no accident that it is the "anti" side that sexualizes guns. They coin terms like "ammosexual" and advance theories about guns being penis extensions. This says a lot more about how THEY view guns than about how gun enthusiasts do. It's important to them that guns are not only removed from society, but they become positively giddy when those guns are mutilated and destroyed. When you realize that they view guns as male sex organs this takes on a whole new connotation.

So it becomes obvious that the supposed concerns they express publicly, like the safety of school children, are just a smokescreen for the underlying causes of their animosity toward firearms and the people who use them. Offering compromises, or trying to debate based on those public rationalizations and stated goals gets us nowhere. Nothing we offer in the way of a compromise will work because their stated goal isn't their real goal. Nothing we say when debating them will have any effect because their stated positions are not their real positions. They don't want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. They want to keep guns out of the hands of EVERYONE. They aren't really interested in protecting school children. They are really interested in neutering all of those mostly male independent thinkers and actors, like their bad daddies.

The fact is that they are out to destroy who we are. When someone threatens your very existence you do not compromise or debate with them. You take action to make sure that they are defeated. We may be outnumbered, but we can be vocal. It's time to make some noise. It's time to quit hiding and apologizing. It's time to tell it like it is and to slap down misinformation and underhanded tactics whenever and wherever they appear. It's time to stop trying to be civilized and nice about it.

 

[etrain16]

See, the thing is that it's not about safety (except in an abstract way), or crime prevention, or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. No, it's about attacking one of the defining characteristics of people the anti-gunners fear and loathe.

Let's take a look at who the combatants are here. On the "anti" side are the power hungry politicians, "civilized" younger males, "civilized" soccer moms, bureaucrats, and aging cat ladies. On the "pro" side are aging "uncivilized" males, veterans, hunters, and prickly people who are sensitive to attacks on their civil rights. Those people on the "anti" side are "civilized" in that they have been taught, and are convinced that someone else is responsible for fixing whatever goes wrong in their lives. The fire department will put out fires. The police will protect them from crime. The city will repair the streets. The landlord will fix the plumbing. Food comes from the supermarket. The mechanic will fix the car. They don't know how to take care of these things themselves, and wouldn't want to do them if they could because being a good citizen, to them, means following the rules, using "best practices", and never thinking for one's self. Being different, going your own way, having original thoughts, and taking care of your own problems, to them, is anti-social. When you do those things you belittle them and their reliance on the system. It makes them feel inadequate, which leads to being fearful, which leads to anger at those who refuse to work within the system. You threaten to add personal responsibility to their responsibility-free social contract, and they don't like that.

Also, many of them have a problem with male authority. Maybe their fathers beat or abused them, or other family members. Maybe daddy left when they were young and mommy made sure they knew how horrible and dangerous daddy really was. Maybe daddy was an alcoholic who failed to support the family. Whatever caused it, they have a grudge against maleness.

One of the defining characteristics of people on the "pro" side of things is taking care of one's self. Guns are one set of tools for doing so. People who take care of their own problems usually don't follow the herd, especially if it involves waiting for a repairman, begging a bureaucrat, dealing with power hungry politicians, or waiting for the police while watching someone commit a crime against them. These independent thinkers and actors make the "anti" folks feel uncomfortable, inadequate, afraid, and angry. So how do the "anti's" lash out at these people who smack of independence and maleness? By striking at the very heart of who they are. If they can take the tools of independence away from those independent thinkers and actors, then their thinking is that these "uncivilized" people will be forced to be dependent, just as they are. The people they fear and loathe will be brought to heel and made to behave.

It's no accident that it is the "anti" side that sexualizes guns. They coin terms like "ammosexual" and advance theories about guns being penis extensions. This says a lot more about how THEY view guns than about how gun enthusiasts do. It's important to them that guns are not only removed from society, but they become positively giddy when those guns are mutilated and destroyed. When you realize that they view guns as male sex organs this takes on a whole new connotation.

So it becomes obvious that the supposed concerns they express publicly, like the safety of school children, are just a smokescreen for the underlying causes of their animosity toward firearms and the people who use them. Offering compromises, or trying to debate based on those public rationalizations and stated goals gets us nowhere. Nothing we offer in the way of a compromise will work because their stated goal isn't their real goal. Nothing we say when debating them will have any effect because their stated positions are not their real positions. They don't want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. They want to keep guns out of the hands of EVERYONE. They aren't really interested in protecting school children. They are really interested in neutering all of those mostly male independent thinkers and actors, like their bad daddies.

The fact is that they are out to destroy who we are. When someone threatens your very existence you do not compromise or debate with them. You take action to make sure that they are defeated. We may be outnumbered, but we can be vocal. It's time to make some noise. It's time to quit hiding and apologizing. It's time to tell it like it is and to slap down misinformation and underhanded tactics whenever and wherever they appear. It's time to stop trying to be civilized and nice about it.

Great points. I think you're right in that our desire to own guns represents a self-sufficiency, or at least a desire to remain a self-protecting individual, something they really don't like. They want us to be good little subjects, bowing to the king and relying on the government for everything. But many of us don't want that, we want the opposite. That type of thinking doesn't work in the globalization model that most of the anti's are heavily in favor of. Too much individual thought derails the need to bring everyone together under one umbrella of economy, law and justice.

Well, this country was founded by people that didn't want that crap. They wanted to live their lives with a minimum of interference by any government. They did recognize government, limited, as a necessity to handle certain things that the individual cannot. But as time passed, even the Constitution has not restrained the explosive growth of the massive, bloated governments we find ourselves under. Gun control is simply a way to help disarm and restrain the individual, as it removes the #1 tool they have to stop the government.

Guns aren't the real enemy to them, the ability to be self-sustaining, to not need the government to do everything for you, that is the real enemy. And that is why, as you stated, compromise on gun control must end now. It's time to draw a clear line and refuse to step over it again. I don't know how we'll stop that, but I think we need to start by agreeing, collectively as gun owners across the nation, that we will not ever compromise on our gun rights again.

 

[Boboclown]

Not just draw a line and refuse to step over it. We need to undo some laws as well. Undo the ban on automatics, undo the NFA, and I'll support going further than that too. Making it so states can't infringe on the rights of its citizens would help greatly too, but can of worms that is.

 

[PaulB47]

Point taken, and I do get that. But when they refuse to see it that way, perhaps we need to learn to fight them on the same grounds and push them back, showing they refuse to accept any offers for alternate solutions.

Look, we shouldn't care if they refuse to see it that way. It's not our job to convince everyone of the rightness of our position; we are just trying to get the boot off our neck.

In this debate there are roughly 10% pro-liberty, 10% anti-liberty, and 80% people who may be swayed. When we ask, "Why is a murder with a knife is more acceptable than a murder with a gun?", we may be asking the anti-liberty people, but we are really appealing to the 80%, who understand it is not more acceptable. We don't need to fight on the well-prepared battlespace of the anti-liberty people, and we don't need to convince them of anything. We just need to remove their support, the 80% - and not even all of them.

By definition, participating in a straw purchase, is a criminal act. Simply choosing to participate in a straw purchase of a firearm makes both people guilty of a crime. So yes, they are a criminal, no matter how you want to state it.

Talk about a circular definition. Better call the department of pre-crime!

Funny, I thought people were not felons until convicted in a court of law. Never mind the constitutionality! Here we have a gun owner arguing for the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Is it any wonder constitutions do not protect people from government? This is exactly the reason I don't believe in them - because they don't do anything. Constitutions are not even supported by their supposed advocates.

You still haven't identified any victim. This law is mala prohibita, a clear infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256

It's a good thing the people of New York are not taking your advice, with the "SAFE" act. Otherwise there would be no stopping gun control there.

Look, I get that people think we need to compromise (while trying to make it not look like compromise). Back in the 1990's it looked like compromise was all that was left to us. But it's not the 1990's any more. The antis are losing their constituencies; liberals are going out and buying guns. Resistance is known to work, and non-cooperation is known to work. People understand that the places with the most gun control have the most crime.

We aren't stuck with using a failing strategy, of having to choose between going to tyranny at 50mph or 100mph. Some of you seem to be trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[etrain16]

In this debate there are roughly 10% pro-liberty, 10% anti-liberty, and 80% people who may be swayed. When we ask, "Why is a murder with a knife is more acceptable than a murder with a gun?", we may be asking the anti-liberty people, but we are really appealing to the 80%, who understand it is not more acceptable. We don't need to fight on the well-prepared battlespace of the anti-liberty people, and we don't need to convince them of anything. We just need to remove their support, the 80% - and not even all of them.

I think you may be a bit generous with your belief that 80% may be swayed, I would say that's a much lower number, which does make it all the more important that we get as many of those as possible.

Talk about a circular definition. Better call the department of pre-crime!

Funny, I thought people were not felons until convicted in a court of law. Never mind the constitutionality! Here we have a gun owner arguing for the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Is it any wonder constitutions do not protect people from government? This is exactly the reason I don't believe in them - because they don't do anything. Constitutions are not even supported by their supposed advocates.

You still haven't identified any victim. This law is mala prohibita, a clear infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256

It's a good thing the people of New York are not taking your advice, with the "SAFE" act. Otherwise there would be no stopping gun control there.

Look, I get that people think we need to compromise (while trying to make it not look like compromise). Back in the 1990's it looked like compromise was all that was left to us. But it's not the 1990's any more. The antis are losing their constituencies; liberals are going out and buying guns. Resistance is known to work, and non-cooperation is known to work. People understand that the places with the most gun control have the most crime.

We aren't stuck with using a failing strategy, of having to choose between going to tyranny at 50mph or 100mph. Some of you seem to be trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Of course people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is something I certainly agree with. For the sake of my comments, I was making the internal assumption that they would ultimately be held accountable for their actions. Jumping ahead, yes, but trying to shorten the response a bit. Okay, how about I rephrase what I said - they are committing a criminal act, as defined by the law - whether or not they will be both accused of said crime, prosecuted and found guilty, has yet to be determined. And if they are found guilty, then yes, both are in fact criminals, guilty of a felony offense. Now that that is cleared up...

With regard to your response back to 'mala prohibita' I think I need to ask you to clarify something rather than assume what you mean by bringing this up several times. Is it your belief that any law that creates a 'mala prohibita' action is inherently wrong, immoral or tyrannical? I'm guessing that's your position, but I would like to ask you to clarify. Obviously we have many laws that are 'mala prohibita' rather than 'mala in se' in this country, would you believe them all to be wrong? And do you agree that 'mala in se' laws do belong, at least for those actions that say, the average person would agree is a 'universal' wrong, such as murder, rape, robbery and assault? Again, I'm not a student of the law, so I must rely on my ability to do a little research, read and attempt to comprehend things that I've not studied in depth. So bear with me, and please, feel free to provide further clarification on these items for myself that may not be as schooled in these items.

I'm frankly thrilled that a large majority (some believe upwards of 85-90% of gun owners) in NY are flaunting the SAFE act. I am equally thrilled that a similar number are doing the same thing with the mandatory registration in CT. Same for those in LA that are refusing to turn in their "high cap" (standard cap) magazines. I'm all for it. Even though, at least at this point, it's accomplishing exactly nothing, at least with respect to slowing or stopping the assault on our rights. I am quite certain that many, maybe better than 50% or higher of residents in OR are ignoring SB941, and similar results are likely happening in WA under I-594. But honestly, other than making those who ignore the law feel better about making that choice, what impact is it having? Is it changing minds? Is it making the anti's step back and say "this isn't working"?

How much will that kind of disobedience accomplish when it's all done in the shadows? Maybe it will have an impact, perhaps in encouraging others to join them?

As far as compromise goes, I'm not interested in it. What I'm hoping to offer instead is our own set of solutions - not necessarily new laws - I'd rather we roll back the laws on gun control rather than try to modify existing laws. I'd like to see laws on murder, assault, etc. (those 'mala in se' laws as you've referred) to remain in place, but actually enforced. If we have to have laws, at least those that would be the most just should be enforced, would you agree?

This venue can be difficult for discussions like this, I've found. I suspect it might be easier in person. I don't think we're exactly diametrically opposed in our view points, but take different tacks in how we approach it. Either way, it's worth continuing the conversations if nothing more than to bring as many to light on the difficulty these subjects present.

 

[PaulB47]

I'm all for it. Even though, at least at this point, it's accomplishing exactly nothing, at least with respect to slowing or stopping the assault on our rights.

You are certainly wrong here. This is a terrible defeat for the prohibitionists.

Keep in mind that homeschooling is now legal in all 50 states, primarily through the law-breaking actions of parents (mostly moms). It didn't happen though negotiating with the teacher's unions!

Legislators do not like to pass laws that they know will be ignored en masse. Eventually this will have a telling effect.

Finally it gives the gun owners in those states a backbone, and lets them know there is nothing wrong with violating evil laws. That will make imposition on them that much harder in the future.

These actions are of far more value to us than some back-room negotiation with gun prohibitionists.

I'd rather we roll back the laws on gun control rather than try to modify existing laws.

Mandatory jail sentences for the prohibitionists' phony "gun crime" does not look like rolling back to me. It looks like adding more gun control laws to the 20,000+ unconstitutional laws already there, laws that are guaranteed to be expanded on and abused by gun-hating prosecutors and others in government. You do not advance liberty by throwing even more people in jail (America has over 2.3 million in prison already, a number that any dictator would be proud of).

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

"The tool is irrelevant " Now take a 2x4 and beat that into the brain of every anti gun person in the US.

^^agreer. as i posted in another thread... why is it "gun violence" isnt it just violence? violence is violence no matter the tool used. "gun violence" is a term antis love because it puts the blame on an EVIL GUN instead of a person. you never hear "piano string violence" or "car violence" or "baseball bat violence" why? doesnt fit the agenda.

 

[Caveman Jim]

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I think we need something more. Yes, there are some very well spoken folks on this forum, you are among them. But what we lack is someone with considerable power and influence, someone that can get these messages to a large group of people. It's fun to share our thoughts on this forum, but it doesn't go anywhere. We need someone with a lot of money to back someone with a lot of power and influence, that can rattle cages in Salem, Olympia, Washington D.C., etc. I honestly don't know if there is anyone of that caliber out there - if there is, I would love to know who they are, because I'd love to put my support behind them. It seems there is a huge hole, just waiting to be filled with the right person. Maybe someone will find that person and we can all encourage them to take the lead, while the rest of us follow.

That ultimate pro gun/constitutional person had better be prepared for an onslaught of scrutiny from the left, as you know, they are masters of deception and treachery.

 

[Diamondback]

As I like to say, "Why is it any more wrong to shoot somebody than to Drop Trou and beat them to death with Little Richard?"