Reader Aaron W. writes:
When they express surprise at an event like Knob Creek where everything there is legally owned, transported and used, we reply by saying, “Yeah, but it’s a long and detailed process with a lot of paperwork, scrutiny and strict accountability, so it’s OK.” When they argue for universal background checks, we reply that the vast majority of guns are sold through FFLs using 4473’s. When they talk about rampant “gun violence” we talk about the low rates of crime among licensed concealed carry permit holders. Are gun owners actually making the case for gun control laws?
Yes, both CCW and NFA laws are implicit nods (in opposite directions, mind you) to notion that access to firearms can be limited by legislation.
^ But it can also be said, in the same sentence, that gun-laws (and their bs slide with exponential in-effectivity on what they claim to protect-from) are proof that the Second Amendment shouldn’t be f’d with.
You can always flip their arguments.
Like, where are the pipe-hitting environmental attorneys to go after the “carbon / CO2 sequestration” crowd for “strangulating” trees.
Once we get those two groups in the same courtroom, someone can pour cement over it and we can be done with that sheeot.
Are gun owners making the case? U mean by being the most law abiding demographic in the contry often even more so that cops or by stopping 2 million crimes a year or in general having a deep respect for life and liberty of all people. No I do not belive we make the case for gun control
I think you misunderstood the question.
If the answer to: “Isn’t machineguns scary?” is “No, BECAUSE we have to jump through all manners of petty legal hoops to obtain and shoot them,” we’re implicitly acceding that the laws and other nonsense is what makes the activity acceptable. The morally and ideologically, albeit perhaps not tactically, proper answer, would be to go full aspie and just start chanting “shall not be infringed….” over and over, to the drumbeat of a thousand pickup bed mounted M2s chewing up engines blocks across the nation….
It’s an interesting question. Good post TTAG.
I don’t really have that conversation, but it’s not really making the argument, really. It’s just pandering to their sensibilities. You are just reassuring them in a way that makes them feel better.
These things are not okay because they are vetted, they are okay because nothing bad happens at them. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
No, we’re explaining to folks that there is already a remarkable amount of gun control in place. If disinterested folks listen to the MFM and Bloomy’s mouthpieces, they might think that an 8 year old can legally buy an anti-tank missile at a Circle K in the Red States. We’re educating folks as to how much control is already in place. That’s not a bad thing.
I believe you have missed the point of the post. It seems to me that if we concede that their gun control (Anti-2A) legislation seems to be having the desired effect that the legislation is effective when in fact what we are conceding is that they have the right (the government, that is) to create this legislation at all, whether or not it is effective.
Bottom line – “…shall not be infringed.” None of their legislation is Constitutional and in the long run it does fvck-all to stop actual criminals and just puts a giant chink in our arguments against violating the Second Amendment.
The question is not do we agree that their legislation is effective, but do we agree that their legislation is Constitutional. THIS is my greatest point of contention with the NRA.
It seems to me (leaving aside the post for just a second) that it’s an effective tactic to: Rebut accusations that guns are easier to get than in fact they are, you know. statements like “people can buy machine guns out of vending machines at Walmart” (or similar claims), by pointing out that in fact, you have to go through background checks, fill out 4473s, etc. for non-full auto )and describe the full process for getting “machine guns” if they actually mentioned machine guns). Then loudly point out that the person doesn’t know what they are talking about. Do this NOT to applaud the restrictions we have now, but to discredit the liar (or ignoranus, and yes I spelled it that way on purpose) who is spreading misinformation. Yes, it won’t make the the hard core jerks shut up, but it could make at least some people in the audience realize the antis are full of it. Or its possible you’re arguing not with a hard core grabber, but rather with someone who just read something somewhere that scared them, and they might actually decide that maybe CGSV isn’t a reliable source.
Just DON’T complain that all that stuff didn’t work with respect to the Spree Shooter Of The Month, because it could be taken as endorsing the concept AND complaining we’re not controlling things hard enough.
Which is why if the gun control folks actually provided a real compromise instead of just lip service I would actually listen.
A good start would be discussion of nation wide reciprocity for CCLs.
Using the Vermont model…
EXACTLY!! The NRA and others that should know better continue to tout “concealed carry permits” and other INFRINGEMENTS to the 2nd. All of which are unconstitutional, regardless of what any politician, or judge says or “interprets”. The 4th establishes “reasonable” searches and seizures limits. The 2nd gives NO room for interpretation, is simply says “shall not be infringed”. STOP PLAYING INTO THE HANDS OF THE STATIST, LIBTARD, COMMUNIST, ONE WORLD ORDER BASTARDS!
While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutional allows for “reasonable” searches and seizures, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not allow for ANY infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment does not allow any government — federal, state, or local — to infringe on our right. Remember, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Since the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits all infringements from all entities, the power to infringe is reserved to the people … that means you and I.
To add to this: The NRA also touts “instacheck” as a good thing.
Before someone jumps in and says that they’re actually bragging about getting instacheck instead of a multi-day waiting period, I ask that they go back and read the NRA’s statements. They don’t say “instead of.” They simply brag about instacheck as if it were a good thing in and of itself. If you think they are doing otherwise, you’re reading what you THINK they mean to say, into what they ACTUALLY say.
The NRA ACTUALLY said “NO!” to Manchin Toomey while SAF was saying “YES!.” Should just I forget about that?
I wasn’t shilling for SAF. As you point out they have a blotchy record on this issue. They’re certainly worse than the NRA on this issue…but that doesn’t justify the NRA’s shitty stance.
NRA may have been right on Manchin Toomey, but they continue to be wrong on the issue as a whole, since (apparently) it’s OK (in their minds) to require a background check in SOME instances. The problem is, they’ve conceded the principle when they do this. Requiring it for some transactions and not for others gives the appearance of a “loophole” when it’s really just territory they haven’t got around to infringingly lately; if some of “our” people actively celebrate the existing infringement, we have less of a leg to stand on.
SteveInCo, I understand your concerns and you can be as picky as you want about the NRA — but without them, there wouldn’t be a gun left in civilian hands in the US. We’d be Australia, or worse.
Dunblane led to the end of guns in England. Port Arthur led to the end of guns in Australia. Newtown led to the end of guns nowhere in the United States, although it allowed a few slave states to ramp up their anti-gun jihads. England and Australia did not have the NRA. We do, and I’m damned happy we do.
If you’re looking to the Second Amendment for your right to keep and bear arms, then YOU are the one playing into liberals’ hands. After all, once rights are defined purely in constitutional terms, then rights can be erased by simple majority of nine unelected justices for life.
And the Constitution gives them plenty of wiggle room to do it, too. Take your vaunted 2A, for instance: “…..the right of the People to keep and bear arms……shall not be infringed.” Sounds absolute, huh? Until you define “People.”
Are they the same people, as in article 1, section 2, who elect the Congress and serve in it? Because, those people didn’t include slaves, women or non-landowners at the time. So much for the “the Second Amendment us absolute!” myth.
While you think about that, think about this: the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal government, not the states. Well, not to the states at the time of ratification. In fact, subjecting the states to the BoR was debated and rejected at the time. Well into the 19th century, U.S. Supreme Court cases continued to reject “incorporation” of the BoR; that is, making them binding upon the states.
Even when that tide reversed, it wasn’t automatic and universal. It was piecemeal, amendment by amendment, over the course of centuries, and still in 2015 is not complete. The 2A itself was only recently incorporated via McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
So let’s not hear of this “2A is absolute” silliness, because constitutionally it is not. More importantly, though, let’s not defend our natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms exclusively or even primarily in constitutional terms. That’s too shifting a platform to depend upon.
“While you think about that, think about this: the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal government, not the states.”
That is simply wrong. If that were the case, RKBA would be included in the 1A, under “Congress shall make no law …”, which rather clearly restricts the federal government only. Try to imagine any reason at all, why RKBA would be separated from a collection of things which the federal government was enjoined from pursuing by 1A, and placed in a separate category of “shall not be infringed”. Not only Congress, but everyone else is prohibited from infringing. “Interpretations” since say precisely the opposite, but try reading it yourself and attempting to rationalize exactly why RKBA is separated from speech, religion, assembly, and on and on. Also, just while you’re at it, try to figure out how 1A has been “interpreted” to govern states’ actions, most notably sending US Army to Utah to enforce monogamy on the Mormons, or kill them all for violating Vatican law.
larry, old friend, you pickeled off the first statement, but not the following. he noted that the constitution was written to control the central government (the colonies at the time even had theocratic laws on the books). at the writing of the constitution, the states were “sovereign”, meaning they controlled what happened inside their borders, not the central government. his overall point is that no constitutional right is absolute because….they can be altered by political action. in a nation with no immutable moral code, there can be, are, no absolutes. the foundation of the declaration of independence, a creator with absolute morals (unaleinable rights), is gone in this nation. since the founders created a means short of gunfire to change the constitution, none of the rights acknowledged as belonging to “the people” are absolute, because “the people” can amend the constitution, or the courts can interprete rights out of existence. thus, ben franklin was on the money, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. only by influence of mindset can we prevent “the people” from throwing away their “natural and civil rights”. and the hordes of emotionally driven children in adult bodies are becoming more numerous every day.
>> Are they the same people, as in article 1, section 2, who elect the Congress and serve in it? Because, those people didn’t include slaves, women or non-landowners at the time. So much for the “the Second Amendment us absolute!” myth.
It can reasonably be argued that “people” really did mean everyone, as far back as the Constitution itself. In particular, Article 1, Section 2 just has a generic statement “elected by the people”, but it doesn’t specify the procedure for said elections, and otherwise it was assumed that it would be determined by the specific states (the only limit is that “the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature”). Any given state could have allowed the women to vote in the federal elections even before 19th Amendment was adopted – indeed, 17 states had full female suffrage before 19A, and some had experimented with it even before the Civil War. At the same time, all people – not just those people who vote – were counted for the purpose of determining the number of representatives.
Until the Supreme Court clarifies “shall not be infringed” unambiguously once and for all, the infringements will continue to rise and fall depending on the political landscape of the jurisdiction.
And even if SCOTUS were to uphold that unambiguously proclaimed Second Amendment protection, anti-gun liberal ‘progressive’ political hacks positioning themselves as goody two shoes nanny statists, and gun-grabbing Democrat government entities will continue to con the voters, legislate and enforce disarmament laws unconstitutional as they may be on their face and or in execution.
Because of the judicial appointment politics involved, we will continue to play judicial Russian roulette on this issue for–ever.
Look at SCOTUS; the pro 2A Justices are afraid of Kelly, and unsure of Roberts. Why? Because of the influence politics involved, rather than objective application of the law, The Constitution, and the words agreed upon by the framers of the Bill of Rights, clearly enough stated their intent. “Shall not be infringed” does not leave wiggle room, no matter how often the anti-gun scholars and various gun grabbing judges want to muddy it up with ancillary deviations from the basic directive of “shall not”
The Constitution is hardly a living document, nor should it ever be, when it comes to the basic protections it enumerates.
In my argument, I say these laws in place are no deterrent, therefore more laws are not the answer.
It merely demonstrates that those people who choose to be responsible and try to follow the law, are responsible and try to follow the law.
All the laws are doing, in effect, is providing statistical evidence that says good guys try to act like good guys.
We are demonstrating that the vast majority of gun owners are capable of being civilized human beings and will behave accordingly regardless of the false security that gun control provides.
The MSM to some better known as Lame Stream Media has sold out and reports their opinions mixed in with half truths and assumtions. They don’t go to shooting competitions and report on the sports they won’t encourage hunting and the respect WE hold for the land and the animals WE harvest or the value of being respectful and conscientious of others. WE the pro 2nd types IMHO don’t seem to want to force people to owning or even supporting RKBA WE want to have the freedom to choose to.
For anyone who is not aware, several people bring full-auto machine guns to Knob Creek and shoot them. It is a bedazzling sight.
What is also bedazzling (in a bad way) is that our federal government requires (unconstitutional) additional background checks and taxes above and beyond the existing background checks and taxes that the feds already impose (unconstitutionally) on existing sales and transfers.
Oh, and the feds won’t allow mere people to purchase, transfer, or own full-auto machine guns manufactured after 1986. This ban is also unconstitutional.
No, I owned firearms for a very long time prior to getting my CCW. The lack of a CCW made me no more likely to go on a shooting rampage than the acquisition of a CCW makes me less likely.
The CCW just meant I was able to carry my defense weapon with me more often and at a wider range of locations.
It’s the same for me. My CCW permit is an administrative convenience that simplifies acquisition, ownership and transportation of handguns. If I should find it necessary to carry on a daily basis, having the permit means I can begin doing so immediately since I have already gone through the two month long training and application process.
In a perfect world no gun laws are required-and we all sit around and sing Kumbya…but we live in a vile imperfect world. No law-abiding gun owners aren’t a problem. And we need to get rid of everything but constitutional carry. But we’ ll never get rid of laws-rant and rave all you want.
No, we are not. The “success” of gun control laws reflects the fact that law abiding people abide by the law. The kind of person who goes to the effort and expense to acquire a Class III weapon is not the kind of person who will use one in a crime. The same is true for people who buy any other firearm by filling out a 4473. Criminals will acquire them some other way.
Of course there are always crimes of passion, and these can’t be ascribed to any particular class of people. A previously law abiding gun owner may unjustifiably shoot somebody in a fit of rage. By the same token, a person may beat or stab another in a fit of rage. The anti’s argument that a law abiding gun owner is only peaceful until they aren’t ignores the basic fact that guns aren’t required for violence.
The problem with the anti’s arguments is that gun control laws are subject to the law of diminishing returns. Mexico bans civilian ownership but has out-of-control gun violence. France heavily regulates civilian ownership but has seen two mass shootings in the past year. Japan bans civilian ownership but has the highest suicide rate in the world, and the Yakuza still have guns. The point is, if you disarm all your law abiding civilians, the criminals remain armed, and the suicidal will find other ways to die. The idea that we can end violence by banning weapons is as Utopian a vision as you can get.
That said, I don’t believe we should repeal all gun control laws, contrary to many here. I think we do have an interest in denying sales to convicted criminals and those judged to be a danger to themselves and others due to mental illness. The system should be as streamlined as possible, and there should be a mechanism to restore the right to people who lost it. I don’t think it is anyone’s interest to allow people we know are dangerous to legally buy guns. Maybe they will get them anyway, but I’m in favor of making that as hard as possible, if for no other reason than if we do nothing, then the calls to ban guns will get louder. At bare minimum, we can point to the laws we have as a reason not to enact more.
I was with you until your last paragraph.
(1) Once a felon is out of prison, they are free to steal firearms, make their own firearms, convince someone to purchase a firearm for them, purchase a firearm themselves on the black market, and purchase alternate weapons (hammers, knives, axes) from local stores. Background checks are thus a totally ineffective solution for preventing violent attacks. Keeping dangerous, violent felons in prison is the right solution. Good people who are armed and able to stop a violent attacker are the right solution.
(2) The potential for abuse of a background check system is astronomical. For example politicians can declare quite literally any class of people to be prohibited persons — especially if there is enough popular support. And what stops politicians from purposely providing inadequate resources to operate the background check system? Providing one staff person to manage the database and take all calls would effectively shut down all firearms sales.
(3) There was no background check system in the 1940s or 1950s. Anyone could purchase any firearm anywhere “cash and carry”. There was no violent crime or spree killing epidemic.
These three reasons alone should be sufficient cause to eliminate the background system.
Attempts to abuse the NICS system have already happened. Earlier this year, the administration wanted to classify veterans who didn’t manage their own finances as prohibited persons.
And more recently, the Dems have been pushing for classifying anyone on the no-fly list as a prohibited person, despite the fact that the list is hideously inaccurate, and even at one point included Ted Kennedy…
1) I bear no illusion that background checks will put an end to violent crime. I completely agree that good people should be armed and dangerous felons in prison. Unfortunately, that’s not the situation we have. There are a whole lot of people and politicians who want to release felons from prison and give them a second chance. As long as we are forced to participate in that social experiment, I’m in favor of keeping background checks in place. Better yet, arrest the felons who try to buy a gun and get denied by the system. It should be a parole violation, and chances are they aren’t taking up (paper) target shooting. But to my original point, we shouldn’t do away with background checks if we won’t keep the felons locked up. Either one of those would be a big political pill to swallow, and we would be extremely unlikely to get both passed with the way the winds are blowing these days.
2) Every law has the potential for abuse by politicians with an agenda. We will always have to stand up for our rights. Politicians could have done all the things you suggest years ago, but they know they will face a huge backlash from the voters. If we get rid of the background checks, then what? Like it or not, it does prevent people who are dangerous from legally buying guns. It’s not perfect, but no system is. The violence will continue whether we get rid of it or not. If we leave it in place, it’s up to the antis to explain why the system isn’t preventing the violence they are decrying. If we remove it, then it’s up to us to explain why it’s ok to do nothing to prevent people we know are dangerous from acquiring weapons. Personally, I would rather have the former conversation than the latter. Frankly, I don’t think we have the votes to get our way in a referendum on the 2nd Amendment. We need the Fudds and the undecided and the apathetic on our side, or at least not turning out in droves to support the antis. We risk galvanizing them for the antis if we abolish controls like background checks. Just my $.02.
3) Our culture was very different in the 40’s and 50’s. People had a basic respect for human life. We weren’t infested with drug gangs willing to kill each other over turf. Kids were raised with discipline and a value system. Criminal behavior wasn’t glorified in music and movies. Violent criminals went to prison for a long time or they went to the electric chair. A lot more than gun laws have changed in 70 years. We can’t roll back the laws unless we can roll back the culture too. Do we really want to enable a twice-convicted Crips thug to walk into Walmart and buy a gun, cash and carry? Do we want to tell the families of his victims that this was his right? Do we want to tell that to all the liberal-leaning Millenials who are starting to vote? It comes down to the basic principle that there are evil people in the world that we need to oppose. Stopping known bad guys from buying weapons legally is a very basic step. If we refuse to do even that, then we are making the antis case for them that we are heartless and don’t care about the victims. Frankly, I think that is the fastest road to repealing the 2nd Amendment.
“Do we really want to enable a twice-convicted Crips thug to walk into Walmart and buy a gun, cash and carry?”
Why is such a person walking the streets? Where is demand to fix the catch-and-release joke that is our criminal justice system?
Why are we talking about using a system that burdens everyone for the sins of a few percent (felons) … a system that politicians can easily abuse to radically reduce or even eliminate “legal” firearm sales?
” I think we do have an interest in denying sales to convicted criminals and those judged to be a danger to themselves and others due to mental illness. The system should be as streamlined as possible, and there should be a mechanism to restore the right to people who lost it. I don’t think it is anyone’s interest to allow people we know are dangerous to legally buy guns.”
Two quotes for you, and I am trying to be civil:
“The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right not subject to the democratic process or social utility.” (Paraphrasing the original text as closely as I can remember it.) In other words, it doesn’t matter what you or anybody else thinks is reasonable for somebody else, the right exists and cannot be infringed.
“If you concede that any government entity has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of that government entity may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep YOUR name off of that list?” – Cliff H
In other words, you are allowing the very entities that the Secodn Amendment was intended to enjoin the authority to decide that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply whenever they say it does not apply and to whomever they decide they need to fear. One more quote:
“They came for the Jews and I said nothing, for I was not a Jew…” You finish it.
I agree with all of that, up to a point. I believe that people who have chosen to engage in criminal behavior and been convicted by due process in a court of law have forfeited some of their rights. That is not in disagreement with the founders or the Constitution in any way. They had no problem imprisoning or executing convicted criminals, i.e. taking their rights away.
In today’s kinder and gentler society we are letting people out of prison who should be staying inside.These people have high rates of recidivism. While I believe that there should be a mechanism to restore a felon’s Second Amendment rights, they would need to prove that they are reformed. I can not support allowing somebody who walked out of our revolving door prisons to buy a gun legally. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Similarly, we used to institutionalize and treat people with severe mental illness, i.e. take away some of their rights. Now our kinder and gentler society dumps them on the streets because it’s cheaper and “kinder.” We assume they will just take their prescribed medications, even though they may not be able to understand the necessity in their condition, and many of them can’t afford it anyway.
Gun laws do not exist in a vacuum. The founders did not envision a country where we would tolerate violent felons or the dangerously mentally ill to live freely among us. They even said that the Constitution would only work if we maintained a moral society (I’m paraphrasing, can’t remember the exact quote). One way or another we have to restrict the rights of dangerous people: either confine them or limit what they are allowed to do while living freely among us.
Yes, I realize that allowing the government to restrict our rights has potential for abuse. That is why I think every restriction needs to be subject to due process and not some arbitrary whim of politicians (such as the No Fly List). It all comes down to freedom being difficult and the constant need to battle for our rights. But unless our society is willing to confine people who are a known danger, I think background checks are a necessary evil.
We are simply seeing a correlation, not causation. “Good” people who happen to have concealed carry licenses and ATF tax stamps for suppressors and full-auto machine guns were never going to attack anyone anyway. All of the laws associated with firearms ownership did not compel these people to behave, they inherently behave because they inherently respect human dignity. Thus laws that supposedly compel them to behave are a waste of resources.
To an extent – yes.
By jumping through all the hoops and “playing the game” one is to a degree enforcing it. That is even more so if one’s current livelihood depends on these “legalities”. If U.S. Inc. got rid of all weapons infringements many people in the firearms industry would lose their jobs. Granted new jobs would be created, but many people today are employed (in part) because of said “regulations”.
A similar thing is happening in California where the medical marijuana industry has been at times against the wholesale (re)legalization of cannabis. Their industry depends on a legal monopoly of the product. Ditto on steroids for drug legalization as a whole and large pharmaceutical corporations. When you can buy synthetic opiates at a dollar store, mega markups on all drugs will disappear. Availability makes drug clones easier etc.etc.
This type of question has beset many groups throughout history that have had to deal w/ questionable laws and institutions: slavery/abolitionism, prohibitions/regulations on substances, etc.
If with the same numbers and fervor, Americans had openly defied the 1934 National Firearms Act, the way they did w/ The Volstead Act, then this “debate” would not even be happening.
No, gun owners are not making the case for gun control laws. Instead, we are using the Democrats’ weapons against them.
No, we are not.
All the points in the article, and more, combined with the increasingly shrill tone of the grabbers, are holding the line against more infringement. The points in the article make sense to everybody. They excellent rebuttals for members of the public who aren’t conversant with firearms and existing regulation. We are gaining momentum in the states. Remember that when Florida enacted concealed carry there were solemn predictions of rivers of blood, and the opposite happened? That’s happening all over the country right now, and as restrictions relax without dire consequences people will accept guns as another feature of their everyday lives.
At present, though, not even all gun owners see the wisdom of unregulated ownership, let alone a majority of the public. They aren’t yet ready. That day will come, but it’s not here yet, and it would be a mistake to give the grabbers an opportunity to create the false impression that we want a return to the wild west, or something equally preposterous.
Vince Lombardi said the way to win football is four yards and a cloud of dust. Then he proved it was true.
Bragging about how few NFA firearms are used in crimes only makes the case ALL firearms should be under NFA control.
OP is correct. Those arguments legitimize gun control laws.
Never condemn someone for breaking a gun control law. And by extension, stop this “good guys obey the law” crap, it’s a dumb argument for dumb people.
We are making the case that people who abide by laws tend to abide by all of the laws.
The problem is that gun control activists believe there are no laws and that they need to come up with ingenious new ones to control criminals. That crime persists is a reason to make up a new law rather than for them to review why more legislation on good people doesn’t address the bad ones.
If we don’t point out that an excessive number of laws exists, we can’t break them from that thought cycle.
CGSV – CrazyGoonsSpewingVomit
Working at a gun shop for a few years and dealing with the average customer almost makes you anti-gun.
I don’t understand the question? Are you asking if blacks made the case for slavery? Are homosexuals making the case for anti-sodomy laws?
I don’t understand why you are assigning causation where no correlation exists.
As someone who loves guns, I want as few nut jobs out shooting up schools and movie theaters as possible. Why give them a reason to even debate limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners? Kind of a twist on the question above, but one would think that gun owners would work the hardest to keep guns out of the hands of those who will only hurt their cause.
Certainly, they are treading on shaky ground. Linking the individual RKBA to crime statistics is another mistake. Even if crime rates go through the roof, I’m not giving up my arms; will you?
It’s an inalienable natural right of the individual, irrespective of background checks, taxes paid, forms filled out, training, location, or crime rates. This is self-evident for some of us. Likewise, “from my cold dead hands” is more than just a catchy phrase.
We have one generation to restore the notion AND practice of real individual Liberty. If we fail then the next will accept even more privilege in leu of rights. It’s been happening since the founding of our nation. Stop kicking the can down the road. It never works in the long term. The evidence of that is all around you if you will only open your eyes.
Every time some fool goes out with a rifle in tacticool gear to try and shove open-carry down the throats of everyone else or (even worse) the fools that go out there looking to get in arguments with others and/or “test” police for the sake of feeling righteous about themselves; they might as well just carry a sign that says “MEDIA LOOK HERE: easily exploited ‘gun nuts'”.
Additionally, when talking to anti-gun/anti-Constitution people (or people on the fence) they don’t understand the “…and to protect against a tyrannical government” argument as they don’t see any possible threat from the US government. Continuing to harp on this only makes gun owners look like tin-foil hat wearing loons who think the government is out to get them specifically. The better argument is over crimes that the anti-gun person might actually be subject to: violence, rape, murder, etc.
As to the “the NFA must be repealed now!” people: gun owners understand why the NFA is unConstitutional, but most people do not. Not focusing on how “suppressors” (stop calling them “silencers” as they are hardly “silent”) only make it so you can shoot without damaging your hearing but they guns are still louder than a car horn (or similar); don’t talk about machine guns (it is a losing argument).
Generally: pay attention to how your appearance will play for the enemies. If your image could be used by the media to scare others through manipulative language… you might reconsider how you look.
tl;dr: too many gun owners don’t understand “optics”.
No, it is pointing out that we *are* the ones willing to give compromise a chance, and that it’s the anti-gunners who are unreasonably wanting to impose their vision upon everyone else.
i think this posts sets up a strawman and an a circular logical fallacy
The issue is political and cultural — not a binary of no gun control or gun ban.
the issue is: Should there be more gun control.
\In the case of concealed carry WTF is TTAG talking about? Does everyone here live in shall issued jurisdictions? because close to half the country does not.
Can you even name a gun control group that has not supported may issue? Either with official position, amicus in court cases, or talking points.
The position of ALL the gun control groups, whether they be “research” based, AstroTurf/fake grass roots based, or big money Bloomberg-based, is: with a fingerprint based 50 state background check, with 50 state a mental health check, with a check against 50 state restraining orders, with a check against military discharge — and in my jurisdiction with a disclosure waiver of ALL mental health records, with $600 three day course (including live fire training), with ten round mag limits, I am subject to a politically appointed civil servant’s judgement as to whether I “need” a carry permit, That need threshold is a proven and police documented threat, within the last 36 months and no longer, to myself or a family member.