Everytown for Gun Safety has taken-up the cri de coeur of Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the former Principal of Sandy Hook School. “The Be Nice t-shirt honors the small acts of kindness and courage define our movement to reduce gun violence,” Everytown’s email blast declares. While I’m for the first part of the advice – “be nice to each other” – the last bit – “it’s all that matters” – leaves me cold. When you’re facing a lethal threat, such as the spree killer that stole the lives of innocents at Sandy Hook, being nice is not the best strategy. Courage in that situation requires the exact opposite: unrestrained aggression. What’s a better fence-straddler-friendly T-shirt slogan for the pro-gun side?
What’s a better fence-straddler-friendly T-shirt slogan for the pro-gun side?
Easy, it’s only piece of scripture I will ever follow – Be excellent to each other – Bill and Ted
Speak nicely and carry a big gun? I mean gun owners esp when seemed should be and usually are very nice and polite. The gun people are some of the nicest people on the planet ask almost anybody. The antis are usually rude and use bully tactics and name calling. Of course as reason and public opinion are against them that’s really all they have so I dunno how being nice will work. They could start by not trying to take away any bodies human rights.
Someone’s probably posted this below:
Be kind, be courteous, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Or what the line from “The Shootist”-
“I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
I like this. Mutual respect is all we need. But some need strong persuasion.
@TravisP: Maybe a little long but:
In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill.
“The consequences for your actions will be less lethal”
This is what came to mind for me as well. As the years go by and the fighting finesse wanes I keep in mind Wade Garret (Sam Elliot) quote “Damn that hurts, don’t it.” A low kick to the knee gains distance and time. Both important in self defense situations…
Be nice — until it’s time to not be nice.
Be nice…OR ELSE. 😉
I got nuthin’, lol
“The Be Nice t-shirt honors the small acts of kindness and courage define our movement to reduce gun violence…”
So sterotyping gun owners, lying, misrepresenting facts, and standing idly by while your followers spew vitriol and death threats online is a “small act of kindness and courage”, Dawn? Then you can take your ideas of kindness and courage and cram them.
Kindness is wanting to keep others – especially innocents you’re responsible for – safe. Courage is the willingness to do so even at a cost to yourself. Neither are inconsistent with gun ownership, but both are inconsistent with a crusade to prevent people from choosing how best to defend themselves and their loved ones, as well as your organization’s typical pattern of vilifying those who do. Kindness and Courage do not go hand in hand with labeling anyone who disagrees with you an “extremist”, and I’d love to hear what’s so courageous about censoring any comments on your social media pages that might disagree with your position.
So…kindly go to hell with your hoplophobia. And take Mike Bloomberg with you.
Feeling lucky punk?
Nice is what people ask you for so they can close enough to cut you.
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
+1 You beat me to it…
My bad, I’ll hold off a little longer next time.
Don’t be a dolt, shoot from open bolt.
the picture is the perfect illustration of the neutered post-masculinity male image in this soft, fluffy, rounded-edge, sanitized, flavorless 21st century crap fest reality we live in.
i think I’m fuming at something else. no way I’m this mad at that guy.
I was thinking the same thing – that guy doesn’t look like he could fix a fence, field dress a deer or be even slightly useful in a fistfight. But I bet he could watch a romantic comedy like a champ.
Really? Every fistfight could benefit from fodder and someone to distract your opponent. Otherwise, how are you going to get behind them?
this isn’t the image of -manhood- that i want my sons to grow up striving for.
even being born in ’84, i still grew up with a certain view of manhood.
Clint Eastwood was what a cowboy and cops looked like.
Aaaah-nold (circa-Predator 1) was how guys in the service looked.
My dad knew how to treat a lady and kick ass (mutually exclusive).
you want soft? Try Mr. Rogers. and i hear he could still perforate you from 800m.
Nonsense, I could pick him up and use him as a weapon
I largely agree, with only a small caveat. The way a person looks can be quite deceptive. One of my early mentors was the most unassuming, mild mannered person imaginable. I never knew him to even raise his voice, even around me which is saying something. One day he showed me a wartime photo of a bunch of guys standing around a P-40. One of them was him. Turned out he was a fighter pilot who flew P-40s, P-38’s, P47s, and P-51s in both theaters of WWII. This was a guy who’d spent 3 years at the pointed end of the stick, flying against the best the Germans, Japanese (and Italians) had and survived against some pretty stiff odds. That said, I don’t think he’d ever pose for that kind of photo. Just sayin’.
I heard he makes a killer quiche.
I like people like you who underestimate based solely off of one image.
it is what it is.
books have covers for a reason. it’s not to keep the words inside.
there’s nothing wrong with forming an opinion based on what is visually presented.
thus we have eyes.
don’t confuse niceness with non- lethal.
“No better friend, no worse enemy”
Nice guys usually finish last!
Be nice to each other; ‘cuz that’s how we beat back the Third Reich.
Side note about that picture: nothing gets a woman’s juices flowing quite like having to carrying her man across a muddy steam. We can all learn from that “man.”
Hey maybe she likes that he’s all about equal rights and empowering her…… Can’t keep it up the flamboyant gesture is to much
Sorry, Everytown… you’re a hate group whose purpose is to attack human rights. That’s fundamentally incompatible with “nice”. This is why you don’t hear about the KKK offering kinder, gentler lynchings.
So, betraying a child’s trust by choose to be just as helpless as they are, is being nice? It’s nice to abandon your adult/parental duty to protect children?
I would never assist a parent who chose to be helpless and fail to protect their children. All children deserve someone who is willing to do the job. Not just me and mine, but theirs, too.
Just not them… Such defective people deserve to be left to their fate, and their children raised by a real man. I don’t pretend to be the ultimate manly man, but I’m a far cry better than any parent who refuses to defend their own children.
Acts of courage sometimes requires us to meet violence with violence in order to stop it.
Actions have consequences.
Being nice helps.
“Be nice to everyone. Rabid ammosexuals excluded.”
I don’t know any Gun Owner who is an Advocate of Being Nice. Because Being Nice is stupid. It’s not good enough.
Gun Owners advocate Being Excellent. Something far better than Nice.
Those promoting “nice” would stand idly by and watch their friends, family, and offspring be slaughtered.
I prefer to be excellent instead. I would not stand idly by. I would not hope to be passed over and tell the media “It was so awful, there was nothing I could do!” Because there is something I can do. There’s something the anti’s could do, too, but they refuse to do it.
I want the bad thing to happen to me. Not because I’m itchin’ to shot someone. It sucks. But because I am one of the few human being left that understands and has the stomach for handling a no-win situation. Most are too cowardly to take action and do the slightly less horrible thing. They freeze up and fail, then the more horrible thing is allowed to happen.
These cowards lash out from their weakness and inadequacy. They mock the willing and able. They are the anti-gun trash.
I like it.
So….. Be Excellent!
Their cowardice, inadequacy and mockery I can take. It’s when they then claim a halo for it all, while summoning rough men to do violence on their behalf, that irks the hell out of me.
I am guessing that that is a brother and sister in that picture.
What’s “nice” about politicians and fanatics personally demonizing law-abiding POTG? They’d utterly ruin our lives if they could. Too late for nice.
I’m reminded of something I said while point a gun at someone’s face (spare me the “if it’s bad enough to point, it’s bad enough to shoot” line).
“I was well within my rights to kill you several seconds ago. You are alive for no reason other than the fact that I’m a nice guy. Leave now or I stop being nice.”
It’s amazing the things the brain can come up with when it’s spinning and soaked in adrenaline…
I’m not merely nice, I’m fucking excellent because that is what my brain did without my conscious effort. When the shit hit the fan, that was my innate response.
Be excellent to each other.
So sayeth Ted.
If they practice what they preach, they can start by being nice to Dana Loesch.
How you treat people with whom you disagree is the greatest indicator of your own character.
Well first of why in the here are we even talking about being nice to these people? It’s like a christian having a conversation with an ISIS sympathizer.
“Pardon me, Mr. Home Invader Person, while I add another orifice to your head.”
That’s nice, right?
I think they mean “nice” in the archaic sense of “ignorant”. At least that’s how the movement’s behavior towards gun owners comes across.
Ironic a bunch of bullies using “be nice” as a slogan.
It’d “be nice” if they would just leave me alone.
Condition yellow – nice and mellow
Condition red – shoot it dead
When the robber broke into my place,
I was nice, troubled youth, a hard case.
But be of good cheer, my conscious was clear
even though I got shot in the face.
If they could stop lying in order to take away my rights, that would “be nice”.
Be polite, be professional, and be prepared to kill anyone you encounter.
Just be nice
Secure the scene
“What’s a better fence-straddler-friendly T-shirt slogan for the pro-gun side?”
“Be polite to everyone you meet, and have a plan to kill them.”
– J. Cooper
“being alive is all that really matters !”
– good guy with a gun
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
“Be nice, be respectful, be cautious and be prepared”. Funny thing is most gun owners that I know do all of these. OTOH, the Gun Grabbers don’t really seem to follow any of them. Is it nice to lie to get your own way ? Is it respectful of others rights to deny them self protection ? And I doubt that many of them are cautious or prepared. Not cautious because what would be the point if you can’t defend yourself or think that the World is a nice place were self defense is not necessary. Not prepared because, well I don’t think I need to go further with that one as it is pretty obvious.
“Be Polite, Be Confident, Be Armed, Remain Safe and Free”
I’m a large, ugly man. In the right light I can pass for the hollywood stereotype of a biker gang member. I live in the bay area near San Fran and Berkely. I should have a T shirt made up that reads.
“If I decided to rape, fold, spindle, mutilate or possibly eat you right now which would you rather have. A) Rape whistle? B)Cell Phone? C) Car keys in your fingers? D) Metrosexual boyfriend? Or E) Gun? ”
Wonder how that informal poll would work out?
These folks were as nice as could be to the POS who shot up their school; seeing how they gave him plenty of space to go about his mayhem unabated. Are they so blind as to miss the lesson which should have been learned? The only thing that stops a bad guy….
Smile but, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
My take – It would be nice to be able to shoot back, or first.
It’s a loser phrase. Cupcakes and unicorns. Maybe -Understand Conflict Resolution- or -Be Self-Aware- or -Think Friendly, Live Reality. Their shirt sadly promotes the mistakes of Sandy Hook whereas people huddled tight together in fear rather than scatter in an effort to survive. No one wants to talk about it, but many died because of a basic instinctive screw-up for survival. Never sit like a fish in a rain barrel. Had the teachers been gun-smart they’d understand a moving target is far harder to hit.
Soooo…does the reverse of the T-shirt say “mean people suck?” And JWM-I don’t think wearing that shirt is a good idea. Some scaredy gal might shoot you…I have also been accused of being large and intimidating(believe it or not my wife told me to get as big,muscular and intimidating as possible). I love that woman…
“I’ll stop shooting when you stop attacking.”
Actually, being nice in an inappropriate situation can provoke violence. Perhaps perceived “weakness” escalates some predatory instincts in those predisposed to commit unwarranted acts of violence. On another note, how about: “Be nice…and dream of large women”
Wow. These people must never leave their suburban neighborhood or something. Real criminals are predators. I know this first hand. Do these Progressives really think that a bad guy is going to look at that shirt and suddenly capitulate. Instead, bad guys are going to see easy prey when they see that shirt. They are not going to bow down to the Progressive self-proclaimed superior intellect, hold hands with their Dear Leader, and sing Kumbaya.
Be respectful … unless the other person attacks you.
don’t you people understand good intentions?
if we all advertise ourselves as meaning only niceness in whatever circumstance, and enough of us wear the shirts, and people with not nice intent see so many people announcing they have chosen the path of not being mean, then the overwhelming message to mean people will be, “you should be like us; you will be happy and find a whole new way of life that is full of niceness.” and if we tell the story/message often enough, everyone will be nice.
quit being such a bunch of negative nerts !!
time and time again, these people prove that we have already won. they are so desperate they are just grasping at straws. if we just let them, they will sink their own ship with their fanaticism, lies, lack of integrity, and delusional woo woo talk. this an obvious attempt to try to pull in people that don’t know anything about them with the ruse of “oh we are all just friendly folks for friendly laws” of course the mask of insanity will slip and everyone will see them for what they are, insanely naive.
Best part of this thread is all the judgement passed on an individual based off of one photo that looks like they’re having fun. Of course, if you make a fun photo of your girl holding you, you’re automatically not manly enough. Good lord what a bunch of self-righteous you-know-whats. I wonder how often they fear looking “unmanly”?
loosen your skinny jeans for a few. i think they knew what they were going for when they shot the photo.
As if I could fit into skinny jeans. I hate trying on clothes in department stores under the “Mens” section that fit like they were meant for a 12 year old. Half the shirts are unwearable if you have any sort of bicep.
Maybe the girl should just throw the loser guy in the river. Maybe they should both just jump in the river. Any mutated Sea Bass in there with lasers?
I sort of thought it would be cute to state ” Have a nice day”, whilst stuffing a 12 gauge shotgun muzzle in some perps face.
“Be nice — my trigger finger is twitchy.”
Wait a second. Didn’t we try the “random acts of kindness” thing back in the 90s? And didn’t the author of the book on that subject, Gavin Whitsett, end up being beaten and in need of stitches upon being mugged by three teens in a random actvif violence? Well.
I want to be cool with the people I encounter throughout the day. By and large people are cool with me and my days are drama-free. Still, some day, some may not be, so prudence dictates having a Plan B.
In other words, as others have posted, be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
until attacked with lethal force.
Then respond in-kind!
Does that convey the sentiment?
T-shirt. Speak softly and carry.
Speak softly and carry in large caliber.
Is being nice all that really matters? No, but it usually helps.
If I could stop a nasty person from doing something terrible to me or my family or some other innocent person, but decided not to, that wouldn’t be nice, would it. Nice people help. If it protects a helpless or innocent person, then kicking someone’s ass or even shooting would be the nice thing to do.
There is a time for everything under the sun:
a time to be nice, a time for a gun.
WE HAVE A WINNER !!
It matters. It’s not all that matters, but it matters.
Dying to some scumbag isn’t an inherently moral position. And forcing someone else to die for your morals is probably never moral.
Sometimes when I go to the range I try to emulate the scene from Lethal Weapon 1 where Mel Gibson’s character shoots holes in the target in the shape of a smile face. One day I will be good enough to show my nice, happy side. 🙂
If the principal had a gun that day there would be more people alive. No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
I think one of the Conan books said it (paraphrasing) best: a barbarian has to be polite, if he isn’t than another one may bury an axe in his head. A civilized person can be a scumbag because nothing bad will happen to them.
Perhaps a t-shirt that says: Warning, I hold myself to a higher standard than you. Try not to disappoint me.
“meet my leetle friend !”
How about a pair of sketches, before and after.
In one, a thug takes the purse of a little-old-lady, young mother, co-ed;
In the other, the thug has his hands up and the victim is assertively aiming a gun at him.
Caption is “Meet my little friend”
like it !
It would be nice of them if they bothered to understand our position instead of labeling us as baby eating monsters.
They understand our position perfectly: we think guns are good, and a God-given right. They think guns are bad, period, full stop. Thinking an evil device is good makes such people bad, and without possibility of redemption; they must be made to pay.
They weren’t very nice to Dana Loesch. Shocking, they are only accepting of free speech when it is coming from their side.
Freedom of speech, the First Amendment, only applies to “legitimate” spech. The Dimwitcrats and leftists, socialists and communists (all inherently evil people) declared that they alone determine what/which speech is “legitimate”. You can determine for yourself what is not “legitimate” speech….anyword(s) that offends anyone, anywhere, anytime.
(“anyone” means everyone except those emitting illegitimate speech.)
I think that the vitriol of the hoplophobes actually tends to work in our favor. Piers Morgan turned OFF more voters than he created.
The more sympathetic our advocate (e.g., Dana) and the more harshly she’s treated the more a witness of good will is apt to develop hostility toward the hoplophobes and openness to the arguments of the gun-rights advocate.
Just recently saw a video produced by the NRA. An elderly black woman tells how he marched in the 1960s with King. Now, she is old and vulnerable. She can’t afford to live in a “nice neighborhood”. She can only live in an inner-city apartment where she is vulnerable. Her public housing landlord prohibits her from having a gun.
OK, Shannon, attack this elderly black woman for the temerity of presuming to defend herself. Go ahead, Make my day!
Shannon would be first to tell you the woman you noted is the perfect example of why people should not have guns. The woman is old, frail, and unlikely to be able to actually defend herself. That woman is a situation where an attacker would probably know the lady has a gun. And the attacker will just take away the gun and kill the woman (BTW, the woman invites an attack because if she did not have a gun to be stolen, she would not be attacked). And another criminal has an illegal gun. Being unarmed is the elderly woman’s protection against attack.
I acknowledge the counter-argument; weak as it is. It will be accepted by those who WANT to believe it.
I think the best argument to push is that Right-to-Carry compels no one to carry. Banning carry undermines the safety of both:
– those who WOULD have carried if the Right were respected; AND
– those who wouldn’t carry, such as the slow and the frail.
For example, I’m an OFWG with a respectable list of credentials. Haven’t shot anyone since I first carried at age 13. Unlikely to shoot anyone (unnecessarily) before I die. However, I DO carry in PA without jeopardizing anyone. In so doing my carrying operates to protect my wife – who won’t carry – and other whom I might decide to defend.
When I travel across the river to NJ, that State’s law disarms me. To what effect. I expect no sympathy for my defenselessness. How about my wife? How about the frail and equally defenseless NJ citizen who might be attacked by a criminal preying on her vulnerability.
By disarming ME NJ deprives that other vulnerable person the possibility that I could defend her. I would certainly defend my wife. I would probably defend another I perceived to be probably innocent.
The criminal busy attacking another person will not have an opportunity to take my gun before I have ample opportunity to stop him. Furthermore, I’m trained in gun-retention techniques.
We need to be agile in preparing answers to all the Antis’ counter-arguments. It’s not hard to do (after all, we have the weight of the arguments on our side.)
Afraid you are not quite getting it. As an armed individual, you present the unjustifiable risk that:
– you will drop your gun, and it will go off and kill someone
– you will end up somehow letting your gun be seen, leading to hysterical fear and panic
– you will lose your gun to an attacker, and bystanders will be injured/killed
– you will “fool around” with your gun, and discharge it into a crowd or home, killing someone
– you will rage at being cut-off in traffic and shoot someone (and even one such incident is one too many)
– you will have your gun stolen from your car/home, thereby arming another criminal
– you will just generally be a bully because you can threaten someone with your gun
– you will snap at any moment and go on a killing spree
– you are highly unlikely to ever stop a bad guy with a gun, and if you do you will likely kill innocents in the effort
Anti-gun people operate their entire lives solely on emotion (and mostly childish emotion at that). The only way to stop anti-gunners is to turn-out their political leaders, or prove to the political class that anti-gun people are a threat to re-election.
“Afraid you are not quite getting it. ” Well, sometimes I’m a little slow on the up-take. Thank you for your patience.
I’m in the position (many others are not) of answering these questions.
There was a gun in my home every day of my life, from the day I came home from the hospital. Never played with it (until I was big enough to be able to fire it.)
I started playing with unloaded guns – real guns, not toys – at the age of 7 or 8. No one paid any attention to my observed play.
I began carrying my own gun – unsupervised from the outset – at the age of 13.
I’ve never experienced any rage, road or otherwise.
I’ve never had a negligent discharge or accidental hit on an unintended target.
I don’t fiddle with my guns in public.
I carry completely concealed; but, if and when I open-carry I will do so fully openly.
I don’t have a gun that isn’t drop-safe.
While I certainly wouldn’t want my gun stolen from me or taken from me in a fight, I don’t think my armory would contribute much to the inventory already in criminal hands. If you haven’t noticed, there is no shortage of guns in America; and, certainly not in the inner-city.
I’ve never physically bullied anyone nor snapped and behaved in a physically violent way. I’m exactly one-in-the-same person when carrying as I am when not carrying.
I’m less likely to stop a bad guy than a cop; most of whom never fire a gun in anger throughout their careers. What’s the point of comparing a very-low-probability event to one which is low-probability?
In my stress-fire class I shot 294/300. How many cops qualify with a score approaching mine?
(We really do need to improve firearms training for our police forces you know. Their hits/misses scores are not very good you know.)
So, there are counter-arguments to all the points you (validly) raise. Those of us in the Older-Fat-White-Guy category are able to speak to them with greater authority than others. In any case, the experience of the 40 Right-to-Carry States is accumulating. Where is the blood in their streets?
If the hoplophobes’ intuitions were correct we ought to have ample evidence of the problem they presume. It’s simply not there.
The posting was somewhat sarcastic, trying to reproduce the mindset of anti-gun people. Your responses are all reasonable (in any sane world), but irrelevant to the antis. You are positing that since you are experience, slow-to-anger, practice safe gun-handling all the time, your life is a persuasive response to anti-gunners. They have only your word for it.
Anti-gunners cannot be convinced you are not a lethal threat. By definition, you are not “a reasonable person”, thus your opinion, stories, experience are not credible. To the fanatic, no other thought process is legitimate, rational, or to be considered/respected. Where we see 300 million guns that don’t kill people, the anit-guns see 300 million killings a mere heartbeat away. We are not engaged in Lincoln/Douglas debates. We are square in the middle of Hatfields/McCoys.
My audience is not a committed Anti. I couldn’t care less what she thinks and don’t particularly care to engage her. I might have no choice if confronted by a committed Anti in the presence of a sympathizer. My audience is the sympathizer to the exclusion of the Anti.
My intention is to score debating points with my audience, the sympathizer. If I am successful in selling MYSELF to the audience then I plant the seeds of skepticism in her mind. She doesn’t have to be overwhelmed by my rhetorical flourish. She simply has to be prepared to believe that I haven’t shot anyone – yet. (I’m not in prison and I openly claim to keep and bear arms so I’m not a prohibited-person.) If I exist, perhaps there are others.
Indeed, the paucity of news reports of heretofore law-abiding citizens shooting guns at people without sufficient cause ought to be recognized; if only one of us would bother to mention it.
You are focused on convincing our enemy; I am not.
I am focused on undermining our enemy’s rhetoric; I encourage you to focus on this tactic.
Focusing on persuading the non-committed (of which I fear there are precious few) is a good target. But attempting a logical approach is fruitless. Even the non-committed are still emotion-driven nannies, leftists and big government lovers. As with Hillary’s campaign, to the mindless, it doesn’t matter how twisted the candidate is/might be, so long as they promise the whole array of benefits. Logic and objectivity (this, therefore that) are lost on these people. While they are all about showing the ignorant and primitive peoples of third-world nations who to live (teaching through example, not confrontation), they refuse, utterly refuse to recognize teaching by example those things to which they are emotionally invested in opposing. Focusing is good, but the key is to win the emotional argument. Something I think POTG have a most difficult time reaching. What is the compelling, emotionally satisfying argument for allowing people to possess tools/weapons that randomly kill innocents?
“. . . (of which I fear there are precious few) . . . I think there are more than a few but no where near enough who are really open minded and eager to learn.
“But attempting a logical approach is fruitless.” Not entirely, but I acknowledge your point. Leading off with a logical argument is inferior . . .
” Focusing is good, but the key is to win the emotional argument. Something I think POTG have a most difficult time reaching. What is the compelling, emotionally satisfying argument for allowing people to possess tools/weapons that randomly kill innocents?”
Here is where I agree with you whole-heartedly. Gerry Spence is a famous and incredibly successful defense lawyer. (He got Imelda Marcos off in a NY case.) He advises to tell a story to get your audience (his jury) wrapped-up in the emotional content of the story. This is a technique we ought to cultivate.
There are so many DGUs that each of us ought to be able to accumulate the key points of dozens of stories. So, when a suitable person who is our audience raises an example of an Anti talking point we should be able to respond ‘Let me tell you the story of a similar case. . . . ” Then ask a thought-provoking question about the right of the heroine in our story to defend herself. In that case alone – without regard to anyone else’s case or any statistics – did this girl/woman have a right to shoot her attacker?
Well, then, if the audience agrees that our heroine had a right; but but but what about ALL the other cases – we ought to be ready with the estimates of DGUs as high as 2.5 million per year – and the lowest at 55,000 per year. What about all these victims. Do none of them have a right of self-defense?
I don’t think it’s effective to try to move the listener all the way to full throated endorsement of the 2A. Not to deal with all of the details of what gun-controls might be “common sense” or “reasonable”. Just get them to start to wonder whether there isn’t emotional-legitimacy to the notion of the right of self-defense. Until we get to this point – i.e., an acknowledgement that there is an emotionally-appealing argument for the right of self-defense – then nothing else is going to move the ball forward.
And then there is today in Oregon. Pretty much wipes-out all our caterwauling about “rights” and “constitution” and “natural and civil right”. We are left in the lame position of declaring that students and teachers should be armed, while a dozen or more families are suffering the most unimaginable loss. What is our defense? Abstract objective reasoning fails enormously. Do we really intend to stand here and say, “This is the price we pay for living in a country that protects the right of individuals to possess weapons that can do this type of damage? It builds up, UVA, Aurora theater, Oregon, etc. It is almost as if some warped person on the left is acting as agent provocateur, inciting crazies to create ever more outrageous horrors using a gun.
We need to ask:
How many more students have to die before you – as a voter – will decide whether our founding generation was correct? Each individual has a right to self-defense and the means to effect a defense?
Carry on. More security theater. More TSA gropers at schools, malls, stores. Make put half of the population on the payroll as police or private security guards. Bigger GFZ signs. The rest of us are waiting for you to figure it out.
Reflect you your question, “How many more….”
The counter question/demand is very predictable, “How many more innocent lives must be sacrificed on the alter of letting any warm body possess a weapon of mass destruction ?”
I grew up in a time when life was expected to be tough, when death of youths to disease were not uncommon in your neighborhood, when struggle was normal. Today, the majority of the populace believes life should be risk-free, and no principle is worth dying/being killed for.
These mass killings will wear-down the good will of the country. Rights (including the first ten) are subject to political favor. How many more of these events will it take before there is a political will to amend the constitution to make firearm ownership a crime? Do not believe for a moment there is no amount of adverse publicity that will overcome the objections of the POTG. Civil war over guns ? Doubtful. And it would be a loser.
I don’t want anyone to remove the right to carry/own firearms. I just see we will eventually lose the argument that a firearm is the only self-defense tool that can protect our persons should we be attacked. We like to declare that having a gun equals self-defense, and the only effective tool of self-defense. But self-defense is an open-ended concept wherein a gun is only one tool. If handguns and long guns were all magically confiscated tomorrow morning, would there still be means and methods available that can serve as effective aids to self-defense? Yes ? Case closed.
“Civil war over guns ? Doubtful. And it would be a loser.”
Yes, it would be a looser. Many millions of deaths on both sides.
Political power emirates from the muzzle of a gun.
Your move; and may God forgive you and your like.
“I just see we will eventually lose the argument that a firearm is the only self-defense tool that can protect our persons should we be attacked. We like to declare that having a gun equals self-defense, and the only effective tool of self-defense. But self-defense is an open-ended concept wherein a gun is only one tool.”
Yes, self-defense or the right to keep and bear arms is an open-ended concept. We have that right and it is not limited to muskets, rifles or firearms. It applies to any type of arm whether less-than-lethal or more-than-lethal.
At this point, we part company. A gun – or firearm – is only one tool that is protected. As far as I can foresee, this type will remain protected notwithstanding that other types become commonly available at competitive prices. Perhaps some arm that would be less-than-lethal, less expensive and more sure to use. If so, it may – as a practical matter – render the firearm type obsolete; just as the revolver rendered the pepper-box obsolete. Nevertheless, the firearm type will remain protected.
In any case, there is nothing on the development horizon that seems to threaten the cost-effectiveness of the firearm for self-defense. We live in the current age and we must deal with current technology as we find it. It is really quite pointless to imagine how future developments in technology might inform how we recognize unconstitutional “infringements” today.
In any case, SCOTUS has ruled that a “handgun”, as we understand that term clearly today, IS protected by the 2A. And, SCOTUS has ruled that the “right” to “keep” such an arm in the home can not be effectively denied.
Everyone with any ability to reason at all – excepting judges – is able to read the dicta in Heller and McDonald and conclude that Won’t-Issue is unconstitutional. THAT is – in my opinion – the most important gun-control infringement that we all ought to be concentrating on.
To bring this string down to a single point, the constitution can be amended. In the not too distant future, there will be a move to repeal the second amendment either directly or by amending 2A such that only a select group will be allowed to possess firearms. Wording can be as simple as declaring that private citizens may not use a firearm in defense of persons or property. Firearms would remain in the hands of residents/persons, but their use for home or self defense neutered. It would be virtually impossible to reverse such a change. The goal of dis-arming the populace would be effectively complete, rendering small concerns such as shall/must/maybe/might/might not issue moot.
Be my guest. I firmly believe that there ought to be no social taboo about any proposal whatsoever to amend the Constitution. Compose any amendment text you like. Make any argument you like. Then, roll up your sleeves and get 38 State legislatures to ratify it. It’s the American Way!
Please, spend all your resources on this effort. It would be the only honest way of accomplishing your goal. Show us, please, that you are a forthright supporter of our system of government under a written Constitution.
If you will be good enough to do as you propose than I will be there to defend your 1A rights to speak, publish, assemble and petition Congress. I will defend your right not to be convicted of treason except on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court. I will defend your right to be secure in your papers and person against unreasonable search and seizure. And your right to remain silent. And your right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.
Conversely, to what ever extent you and other Antis undertake to circumvent the amendment process to deny any Constitutional right, you can’t very well expect that those who suffer at your hand will generously uphold your rights when you need to be defended.
Looks like there was a fork in the road (my bad) and one led you astray. The intent was to point out that 2A is not scripture, not bullet-proof, not immutable. We like to throw 2A out there as if it were a talisman, a shield, Kryptonite to the gun-grabbers. 2A is fragile, and subject to alteration (so much for “natural, civil, human, God-given right”). For whatever reason, the mentally challenged (Democrat – not democratic – Party) field more voters than do the conservatives (2010 and 2014 did not change the dynamic; look at how enfeebled the grassroots were made in reality). Doubling-down on losing propositions is how the left wins. Conservatives want to believe that when you defeat the left, that is the end of it (we have real lives to live). The left merely comes back again and again, and again, until the populace gets tired of it and gives the left their way (to shut them up so the non-left can get on with their lives). No series of conservative political “wins” or SC decisions will shut down the left (but just the opposite happens with conservatives).
We must get beyond shouting “2A, 2A”, and find a way to bolster the defense of the amendment by actively participating in the political process. The general theory on this blog seems to be, “I got my gun and plenty of ammunition, just let someone come and take it.” We should be rallying to all the pro-2A organizations and political candidates, with our money and door-to-door campaining. Wherever we see a yard sign for a conservative, we should ask permission to put a sign alongside that heralds 2A.
Things like that.
I agree with you entirely.
I see no chance for an amendment to the Constitution weakening the guarantee on the RKBA. (Sorry that I misconstrued that that was your proposal.)
Instead, I see (as our founders warned) that the Constitution is merely a parchment barrier. Unless a super-majority of voters are willing to support a provision it will be disregarded.
Accordingly, it is far more important for us to promote the desirability of civilian arms then to recite the 2A. I have come to see the reasoning of utility and constitutionality as circular. Because the founding generation recognized the utility of an armed citizenry they wrote the 2A into the Constitution. The 2A reminds us of the utility they recognized. The reasoning hasn’t changes; nor have the circumstances changed. Social utility survives and so the 2A’s guarantee survives.
I shy away from even thinking about “utility”. The vast majority of the populace (including illegal aliens) cannot follow or understand your use of “utility” , and the concepts you note. To the public, “utility” means either the electric/water/gas company, or “usefulness” in reaching an outcome. Thus, there is no “utility”/usefulness in private gun ownership because we no longer NEED to hunt our food, and we have no NEED to worry about a tyrannical government, and we have no NEED for weapons that can be used against our protectors (police and military). We can’t win that argument. Self-defense is something almost everyone can grasp (whether for or against). That is what it has come down to, a single contemporary use for firearms. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a positive emotional response supporting self-defense (delusion of the left is a mental disorder, and you can’t reason or implement logic with a crazy person).
I don’t share your objection to the notion of utility. Do I “need” to defend my life? No, I don’t need to do so; but I am going to do so. I have a right to do so. I have a duty to my wife and children to do so.
For the vulnerable law-abiding citizen do you [hypothetical voter] acknowledge her right of self-defense? Do you agree that her right is unalienable? Do you agree that no government (Fed, State, municipal) undertakes to defend her personally and indemnifies her and her estate if it fails to do so?
In that case, how can she be denied her right to bear arms in furtherance of her desire to defend herself? To the extend that she supports herself, her dependents, and governments through taxes, is it not useful to society that she be successful in defending herself?
What undermines this personal and social utility? The right to life of a perpetrator who would threaten her life?
Your use of the term “utility” is correct, but beyond general ken. “Utility” puts the matter in the realm of opinion, or worse, majority rule (or super majority 60%). “Utility” to the public means you must convince everyone your NEED is relevant and respectable. It removes from the gun-grabbers the obligation to acknowledge the wording of 2A describes all the utility necessary, and puts grabbers in the position of justifying changes based on something other than opinion. Discussing “utility” puts in the defense mode, fighting off all sorts of rubbish, rather than requiring the ‘hope and change’ crowd prove an enumerate right is obsolete or evil. I don’t like the defensive position. So, I prefer to not concede to the antis that “utility” (using their childhood understanding of “utility”) is even part of the discussion.
I had a similar dialogue with another poster; and, he succeeded in bringing me “around” in recognizing the continuing importance of emphasizing the 2A. However, as I mentioned, I have come to view the discussion as circular; not one-before-the-other.
From whence came the idea of guaranteeing the RKBA? If we are religious, we reason from God; if not religious, from “natural rights”. However, these explanations are abstract. How do you persuade an atheist hoplophobe that God really did endow us with the right to life; or, that the right to self-defense is a corollary?
It seems more tactical to reason that in our Western tradition, for thousands of years, our ancestors have reasoned that preservation of innocent human life was worthwhile and recognized that the right-to-arms followed logically from that societal value. Our founding generation concurred with that reasoning; and, moreover, recognized the temptation for tyranny to prevail if the sovereigns – the People – were ever to be disarmed. And so, they guaranteed this God-endowed or natural right.
The 1st Congress chose specific terms:”right” “of the People” “to keep and bear” “arms”. If we are to be a constitutional republic then we must grapple with these terms. We must do so just as we grapple with the meaning of “no law” “abridging” “the freedom of” “speech” “press” “assembly”. We dishonor and undermine the strength of rule-of-law if we endeavor to shirk our responsibility to respect the constraints these terms impose upon our governments.
What has changed recently – from that which preceded us in time immemorial? Is individual innocent life less valuable? Are there no criminals or crazies today? Has the constabulary overcome the laws of physics in transcending the space-time continuum? Is government by tyranny securely in its grave?
Very well, then! Let’s go through the Bill of Rights and “reform” all our Constitutional rights that have been rendered obsolete: speech; press; assembly; arms; quartering troops; search; seizure; silence; cruel and unusual punishment. And when we are through with all the Amendments, circle back and deal with the constrains on conviction for treason; and, certainly, reconsider habeas corpus. No? Why not?
Our founding generation – the march to Concord and Lexington and Revolution clear in their memories – left us these first 10 Amendments as civilization’s signposts to remember. To remember the lessons of history lest they be forgotten by generations less well studied – and drenched in blood – as they were.
I respect your objection to the word “utility”. I would welcome an alternative term. And, a better line of argument than I offer.
I’m afraid that just reciting: “Because some old fat white slave-owners said ‘. . . arms shall not be infringed’ ” BY ITSELF won’t convince the modern American mind.
Have often thought that arguing for dismantling The Bill Of Rights would be a good illustration of how unreasonable it is restrict or remove the second amendment. What stopped me going that direction is the fact that none of the other amendments permit, contemplate, encourage, allow, support or whatever, the killing of others. That alone makes the second amendment unique. One may posit that people have been killed or died because of a dispute over the other amendments, but none of the others address human conflict resulting in death. The purpose of the second amendment is to remind government and the populace that being prepared to engage a tyrannical government in mortal combat is something that must never be forgotten, or the ability limited. A person can exercise all the other amendments without a physical weapon; not so 2A. Taking a life is, for too many, too horrible to contemplate, and 2A protects the possession and use of implements whose nature is to inflict death intentionally or unintentionally. This is what frightens the mice on the left. To wield deadly force is a terrible responsibility, and the grabbers believe no private citizen can endure that responsibility (and they have rare instances to bolster their belief). They do not trust their fellow citizens to not get angry and just kill them. Or they believe all gun owners are a finger away from killing an innocent through a negligent discharge. We are dealing with fear, and fear often cannot be addressed through persuasion of facts or reason. Thus, we should grasp that all the stats and facts in the world will not remove hyper-fear (which is pure emotion). Some will be reachable, but we are expending too much effort on that small population. I remain frustrated that we lack an attractive emotional argument. It would be great to lean on the notion that what has happened in other countries is possible here because of government intrusion and insatiable need to control. Problem is, “It can’t happen here”. That statement is also emotion-driven because we do not have a live example of where the government (meaning the military) has ever rounded-up people and put them in camps. We have no example of a large police force dragging entire neighborhoods into jail. Because a thing has not happened here, ergo it cannot happen here.
While it is preposterous that individuals need to justify to the government a right that is designed to limit the government, that is where we are. We are energetic, loud and …..disorganized (and based on hundreds of blog comments, we hate each other). We remain on defense.
Thank you, LastToKnow, for your thoughtful response.
“. . . none of the other amendments permit, contemplate, encourage, allow, support or whatever, the killing of others.” I have 2 answers. First, most Constitutional provisions have extremely serious indirect consequences; e.g., election of Senators, Electoral College, right to remain silent. Admittedly, one must be able to recognize 2nd and 3rd order effects to realize this. Second, Roe v. Wade is (I respectfully offer) clearly a counter-example.
About 1/2 of the population is Pro-Life; i.e., irrespective of how the Pro-Choice people believe, Pro-Lifers believe that abortion is by definition the taking of innocent human life. The right to choose abortion is not an enumerated right; instead, it is merely one which was found by a 7 – 2 majority of 9 Supreme Court justices. It was NOT established by any democratic process nor even one that is consistent with our republican form of governments.
Tragically, our “rights” are those that are BOTH:
– written into law by our constitutions, legislators or courts; AND, importantly,
– that society is determined to protect and defend.
The Fugitive Slave Law requiring slaves to be returned to their masters was absolutely Constitutional; still the Underground Railroad ran on-schedule. Murder has always been a common law crime; yet, lynching Blacks and their white defenders was tolerated post-Reconstruction and well into the 20th Century. You can pass any law you like. Can you enforce it? (I will NOT comply!)
Today, Row v. Wade is the law notwithstanding that it is strongly held to be taking of life by half the population. To date, Pro-Lifers have refrained from violence in advancing their anti-abotion views (with but a very few isolated exceptions.)
Likewise, the 2A remains the law notwithstanding all the infringements taken against this right by municipal and State governments and also by the Federal government. To date, the PotG have refrained from violence in advancing their pro-gun views (with a very few isolated exceptions.)
In each case we must all pray that discourse over such divisive issues will remain civil. Nevertheless, we must always bear in mind that our principles of constitutional government were set to parchment in these words:
“. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty . . .–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
In other words, sovereignty is vested in the People; NOT in the institutions of government.
In the words of that political theoreatition of international renown, Mao Zedong: “Political power emanates from the muzzle of a gun.” Or, as Trench Coxe put it: “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.”
It is the solemn duty of our 3 branches of government (Federal and State) to conduct their discourse on each grave issue of public concern with transparency and equanimity. When they have fallen short, the consequences in loss-of-life were beyond the imaginations of those who failed in their duty. When George III and his Parliament failed they lost 13 colonies. As citizens, each of us must decide how to participate in this discourse – assuming, of course, that we value the lives of individuals.
You are correct. Some voters will be reachable. If not by the fear of one threat, then possibly by the fear of another. There is much on the “table” of public discourse; indeed, the whole Progressive agenda. Are the voters willing to stake their entire agenda on just one fearsome issue – one that does NOT involve the spending of the public treasure?
“It can’t happen here”. We can only know if-when-and-as it happens. It has happened in America historically; it will probably happen in the future. To those who subscribe to #BlackLivesMatter, it is happening now. The real difficulty is: Do gun owners believe it could happen here in America? We have the guns the Antis want us to give-up. The Antis – at least those who are not hypocrites – do not. “It can’t happen here”. Whose opinion will prevail under such circumstances?
“We are energetic, loud and …..disorganized (and based on hundreds of blog comments, we hate each other). We remain on defense.” Truer words . . . We need to find a way to coalesce around a strategy. And, go on the rhetorical offensive (at a higher level of discourse than is often displayed here.)
Would you be so kind as to elaborate?
“Cheers” – thank you, I agree with you, have a great day, best to you and yours, over and out.
Being nice comes naturally to some people. For others it is a conscious choice.
It is exactly the same when it comes to being a victim. Everyone that is a member of or agrees with antis, Bloomberg, and EveryTown, has made the subconscious or conscious choice to rely 100% on the police or a good (prepared) Samaritan for their well-being in the event of an emergency.
To reiterate: being a victim is a choice. As such, it is a very selfish and myopic position to put oneself in willingly, because you are putting the responsibility of your life in someone else’s hands. It is the ultimate cop-out.
I choose to not be a victim. I choose to be responsible for my life and my actions. Why? Because I’m an adult. I’m not a child. Children put their well being in the hands of their parents.
I am not your parent, I have zero desire to be. So when I see any anti-gun, EveryTown, or Bloomberg lemming, I see a group of men and women behaving like children unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions or their lives. If only they were legally viewed like children and not allowed to drive, drink, and were required to have a legal guardian. That would certainly put them more in their place that is in alignment with their child-like outlook on life.
The NRA should just rename itself, the Babysitters of America. Taking care of the Sheeple that don’t want to take responsibility for their own lives.
Your reasoning is well-taken. However, it is NOT NECESSARY to achieve our political goal.
It would be SUFFICIENT if the hoplophobes to begin to recognize the wisdom of self-defenders carrying in public. If the hoplophobe is:
– UN-lucky enough to be attacked; while
– LUCKY enough to have an armed citizen at the scene,
THEN the hoplophobe is more likely to survive.
And, it’s not necessarily the hoplophobe himself who might be more likely to survive. Perhaps his wife or daughter; or someone’s grandmother.
He may regard himself as immune (because that delusion is personally comforting). If he has any empathy for his sister, the women in the world (and other vulnerable people) then he may begin to accept the proposition that these others might benefit of an armed citizenry.
Is his personal commitment to his hoplophobia sufficient to justify his denial of the right of others to an effective means-of-defense?
So long as the attacker was not using a gun. Then the cry from the survivor would be a demand for more gun control of non-criminals. Because criminals get their guns from law-abiding citizens who have guns.
That argument is absolutely correct. In virtually every case, a gun possessed unlawfully passed through lawful manufacture and commerce. Eventually, it came into unlawful possession.
The question we are compelled to consider is whether eliminating lawful guns could make much of a dent in unlawful gun possession. And, even if guns in unlawful possession would reduce – or increase – public safety.
The list of alternative sources of supply is long and compelling. The hoplophobes are free to discount them. It remains that when victims are not armed with effective self-defense arms then criminals remain free to substitute cutlery and clubs for expensive guns. Are we trying to improve public security for:
– criminals; or,
Actually, the anti-gun crowd has no interest in increasing their safety beyond stopping AD/ND. They discount/ignore the criminal element as being unsolvable, but confiscating guns from legal gun owners means we can save “just one child” from harm done by legal gun owners. The anti-gun crowd believe they live in safe environs, where crime is highly unlikely (that is street violence), and for the non-criminal who lives in a high-crime neighborhood, well, just too bad (it won’t happen in my neighborhood, where I have a right to be safe from any discomfort). Behind it all is a childish notion that all weapons except guns require assault from close range. Not so with guns, which can kill from distances and surprising locations. A knife, hammer, axe, etc. cannot kill large numbers over a wide radius, so these killing instruments are not as horrible as a gun. Besides, anti-gunners believe they do not come in contact with anyone who would attack them with any non-gun weapon (or that the victim would see that attack coming and safely run away).
I see your point. You MUST be correct with respect to SOME non-gun-owners. Now, we could engage in a debate/analysis as to whether the extent of your correct view is large or small. If it’s too small it wouldn’t be worth going after. Conversely, it’s probably not small, in which case, it’s worth going after as a major tactic.
Do we care whether you are correct about 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3’ds of the non-gun-owners? If just 1/3, that’s enough of an audience.
Seems to me that the first thing to do is reproduce and widely distribute a chart showing the rate of accidental deaths per year vs the rate of gun-ownership relative to population from 1900 to-date. The charts will resemble an X. Maybe straight-line extrapolate the two lines until the number of deaths line crosses the X axis at 0/100,000.
Then, ask if we can have our rights back in 2037 (or whatever date that might be).
Do the same thing with nonfatal accidents.
Do the same with automobile deaths and accidents.
The contrast between guns and cars ought to be striking. The drop in gun accidents is probably much more rapid than that for cars. We might ask: “Why rail against the NRA? Shouldn’t our anger be directed against the AAA?”
Talk about why the accident rate is going down so fast for guns. Fact is, that the NRA has been relentlessly pursuing gun safety training with thousands of instructors and tens of thousands of classes. In more recent decades people are much more inclined to seek-out formal training and to study safety from books or the internet. Talk about all the reasons that would contribute to explaining why the rate is going down.
Talk about the need for more detailed demographic data illuminating the context of current accidents. Where do they happen? Are they mostly hunting accidents by OFWG? Are they occurring in the homes of inner-city single women? Whose gun was involved? The mother’s? Or, that of a male visitor? Without trying to be judgmental prematurely, shouldn’t we be keenly interested in whatever contextual clues that might help to accelerate the reduction of accidents?
E.g., if inner-city mothers’ guns are the source of accidents it’s likely that NRA Certified instructors would contribute their time and energy to providing training to this specialized audience. It’s in our own interest to bring the accident rate down as fast as possible even when the source of the accidents occurs outside our usual community segments of hunters, marksmen and self-defense interests.
Wherever we have a hazard of accidents in our society, what is our answer? Isn’t it uniformly to begin with outreach and education? Do we demonize matches because of fire? Do we demonize cars because of crashes? Do we demonize cell-phones because of texting? Demonize cutlery because of knife wounds?
Your logic is solid, but unfortunately not applicable.
Charts like you suggest are out there, and have been published in several gun forums (NRA probably uses them in lobbying efforts). Reality is anti-gunners are all about emotion and feeling good about themselves. Their position is simple, elegant and unassailable:
– no reasonable person wants to injure another
– no reasonable person wants to injure another by use of a firearm
– outlawing privately owned firearms is a reasonable approach to ensuring no one gets hurt with a firearm (gangers and criminals are hopeless, and not part of the discussion)
– if you want to have/carry firearms, you are ipso facto not a reasonable person, and need to be controlled
No one can successfully argueagainst the idea that removing all firearms from every resident of the country will reduce death and injury by firearm impossible. Zero death and injury due to firearms use/possession may not be possible, but……fill in the blank with emotional diatribe.
POTG lack the one thing that could shut-up the anti-gun gang….an emotional appeal for firearms that overwhelms the squealing of the kiddy crowd that wants to live in fairy land.
The effort to defeat anti-gun gangs is to remove their useful idiots in public office. Win enough elections, or prove to the elected that anti-gun is a loser proposition, and the anti-gun babies will “die on the vine”, so to speak.
“Charts like you suggest are out there, and have been published in several gun forums (NRA probably uses them in lobbying efforts). Reality is anti-gunners are all about emotion and feeling good about themselves.”
Yes, they are out-there; but we need to carry them in our pockets and whip them out in the context of a discussion. “Look at this chart. Where are we headed here? In what year can we project that the rate of accidental deaths by gun would reach zero? Explain how this chart is consistent with an epidemic of AD/ND?”
“Their position is simple, elegant and unassailable:
– no reasonable person wants to injure another”
I do. Threaten my wife, son, daughter, son-in-law, granddaughter and I will stop you. Any injury you incur is on you, not me.
“– no reasonable person wants to injure another by use of a firearm”
There is no other instrument I would prefer to use to injure someone threatening me or mind compared to a firearm. No one has ever challenged my ability to reason, not even my wife. I could, of course, be mistaken. But, in any reasoned debate about choice-of-weapon, I will prevail about the reasonableness of the firearm.
“– outlawing privately owned firearms is a reasonable approach to ensuring no one gets hurt with a firearm (gangers and criminals are hopeless, and not part of the discussion)”
Go ahead in your attempt to outlaw them. I will never surrender my guns. Nor will most gun owners I know. We will not comply. Guns will never go away. Should you succeed in taking away my guns I will make them, smuggle them, or buy them in the black market. The closer you get in your quest to eliminate legal guns the closer you will bring our peaceful nation to civil war. In that unfortunate event, the blood of innocents will be on your hands.
“– if you want to have/carry firearms, you are ipso facto not a reasonable person, and need to be controlled”
The proposition is argumentative. The simple facts of the matter is that American’s natural right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed constitutionally. And, the raw facts of life were simply expressed by Chairman Mao: Political power emanates from the muzzle of a gun.
“No one can successfully argueagainst the idea that removing all firearms from every resident of the country will reduce death and injury by firearm impossible. Zero death and injury due to firearms use/possession may not be possible, but……fill in the blank with emotional diatribe.”
It is not possible to reduce the gun inventory appreciably without provoking a civil war. Whatever the outcome of that war, death and injury by firearm will make the War Between the States trivial by comparison. Can you bear the moral burden of bringing upon such an outcome?
“POTG lack the one thing that could shut-up the anti-gun gang….an emotional appeal for firearms that overwhelms the squealing of the kiddy crowd that wants to live in fairy land.”
The answer is, I think, to personalize the argument. Recall DGU incidents readily retrievable from the internet and ask whether the self-defender or defender-of-others was morally justified.
“The effort to defeat anti-gun gangs is to remove their useful idiots in public office. Win enough elections, or prove to the elected that anti-gun is a loser proposition, and the anti-gun babies will “die on the vine”, so to speak.”
Here, you are entirely correct. Until the hoplophobes push us beyond the Rubicon of civil war our battle is at the ballot box. It is sufficient (NOT NECESSARY) to convince the political class that gun-control is a 3’rd rail. Yet, to do that, we need to defuse the emotions of gun-control-sympathizers and persuade the gun-control-advocates of the futility of their mission.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. I am thoroughly unconvinced you can reason with demented fools. When a person or organization refuses to even acknowledge there are other, valid, ideas, concepts or opinions. We are facing a mass of mush brains who essentially clap their hands over their ears and run in circles shouting, “Nana, nana, nana. I can’t hear you.” But politicians do listen to the sound of receding donations and voters.
Even if we could assure ourselves of a permanent, truly permanent political victory (politicians promise to forever keep their hands off 2A), the anti-gunners make-up too much of the jury pool of “reasonable people” (which is not a jury of peers, other than to say a jury of humans). Which means we battle once more the demented.
I do not applaud every “victory” of gun rights because the victory is largely ephemeral, subject to the next left-wing reprobate appointed to the Supreme Court. I enjoy the victories for the moment, but do not imagine the victory is long-lasting, much less permanent. The number of children raising their children to remain children is a force like the birth rate of Middle East fanatics who intend to birth so many of their kind that the Western culture will be swamped into insignificance. Same with the increasing pool of children begotten by children.
Much like the Confederacy, POTG of the gun can win terrific battles, but the other side continues to put more people in the field than we can match.
It’s really quite depressing. And to a great extent, your description of the battlefield is correct. Nevertheless, my own perception is that the committed Antis are a modest minority. Much of the Anti-strength comes from gun-control-sympathetic voters. People who sincerely believe in gun-control but haven’t given it a whole lot of thought.
These sympathizers have lots of competing affinities. Some are pro-abortion; some are pro-life. Some are pro-welfare; others are pro socialism; pro-anything else on the Progressive agenda. These sympathizers have only so many causes that they can support at one time.
There is an effective strategy to counter these sympathizers. We carefully explain to them the myth of the NRA-member-One-Issue-Voter. We tell them it is no myth. (Meanwhile, we encourage our friends to display their NRA stickers, join if they are not members. Hold their noses if necessary while writing the check, but join.) The NRA will have OUR (not its) WAY. We will rise-up and oppose any Anti-2A candidate.
Even though Anti-polititions may pass gun-control laws, We will NOT Comply! We will undermine respect for gun-control laws by openly proclaiming that we are not complying. We will keep our guns. We will carry our guns. We will relentlessly oppose our enemies in every legislature and governor’s office. Every Congressman and every President. A consequence of our opposition to Anti-2A politicians will be jeopardizing every OTHER Progressive agenda goal.
So, go ahead. Expend your energy fighting the 2A. You will not ultimately win; unless you can win the civil war that you provoke. You can only trigger massive bloodshed; or, alternatively, suffer relentless setbacks on all your other Progressive objectives.
If we PotG can coalesce and get out to the polling place once every two years then we can easily defend the 2A. That’s a big IF. We PotG are individualists who don’t have a deep commitment to expressing ourselves at the ballot box. It’s our war to lose.
The anti-gun population is a majority position on the left. None of them will abandon the leftist agenda to champion the constitution, because they would be social outcasts. Not being part of the pretty people is more devastating than anything else. Going against their family based on the principle of constitutional rights is hardly sufficient compense for being a pariah, cut-off from all the fun. Supporting gun rights would be the same as being anti-abortion; can’t do it.
I don’t have a delusion about Progressives being supporters of the 2A. Instead, I imagine that Progressives have a finite amount of money, energy and time to spread across the countless items on their agenda. Their sisters won’t expect them to send a check to an organization advocating EACH agenda item. Nor to appear at EACH demonstration.
So, dissuade them from choosing gun-control as a primary cause. Persuade them to be sympathetic to gun-control but to concentrate on defending the remainder of the Progressive agenda items. Persuade them that overcoming the One-Issue-Voter block is futile.
The left never runs out of money or sympathizers. Eventually, they have the backing of the government, and limitless funds.
What offends me is the PR hacks and fakers of Moms Demand Action and Everytown would try to co-opt the memory of that brave woman, and in so doing, perpetuate the naive myth that being nice will work on a mentally deranged person armed with a gun, who came to kill. That meme is going to get another brave but foolish teacher or staff person killed.
How much do you want to bet Shannon Watts would run screaming, hiding behind another student, in that moment of decision. I can’t imagine anything but that, given her craven corrupt cowardly and deliberate twisting of the truth, for Bloomturd bucks.