Every now and then, a gun control advocate likes to portray their position as rational and reasonable. Someone like Cyndy Mullineaux (above), who penned a letter to the editor at Jersey’s courierpostonline.com headlined Honest conversation on guns needed. Here’s her “I support the Second Amendment but -” statement:
I have lived and worked most of my life in the more rural parts of South Jersey. I get the hunting culture and real safety concerns of citizens who are policed by state police from barracks miles away from their 911 call.
Years ago, in a town where I lived, I giggled when I saw this sign at the end of a very long driveway: ‘We don’t call 911, we call Smith & Wesson.’
I am not the boogeyman liberal who thinks the Second Amendment needs to be overturned. I just want safety for myself and my family, like all other citizens.
All I want is safety — from guns! Ms. Mullineaux sees no conflict between her [faux] support for the Second Amendment and The Garden State’s prohibition against lawful carriers from other states carrying in New Jersey. In fact . . .
Shaneen Allen’s story and the telling of it misses critical points that do not foster an honest conversation. Congressman Tom MacArthur, a co-sponsor of the bill, says Ms. Allen “did nothing wrong.” She broke New Jersey state law, Congressman.
New Jersey does have strict gun safety laws. It is the right of the state to make its laws. Concealed carry reciprocity is a states’ rights issue. The Republican Party has turned its back on both law and order and states’ rights when it comes to guns.
Yada yada yada. What the heck is an “honest conversation about guns” and do gun control supporters actually want one?
An honest conversation starts with the recognition that constitutional amendments apply to each and every state… Unless you want to apply the same rationale to the 13th amendment. It’s state choice, amirite? Let’s legislate degrees of slavery like we legislate degrees of firearms ownership, kk?
And voting…free speech…4th amendment searches…
ALL should be on the table…
She has a right to say whatever she wants. I have a right to IGNORE her and educate others on the 2A. New Jersey needs a 2A evangelization program to help spread the Gospel of self-defense and personal responsibility.
“but muh government”
It’s a State’s right to ban guns, and the Feds should stay out of it. Unless, of course, DiFi can get her way and ban them at the Federal level. Got it.
No, states cannot ban guns. In spite of recent actions, states cannot abrogate the 2nd Amendment.
He who says,”I’ll meet you halfway”, usually thinks he’s standing on the line. When that happens, there IS no room for ANY conversation. Honest or otherwise.
States don’t have rights, they have powers granted by the people and defined in the constitutions of the USA and the individual states.
Otherwise, if states had rights and those rights included nullifying the 2nd Amendment then they would also have the right to nullify the 13th Amendment.
The tenth was rendered nearly useless by the 22nd. As soon as states lost the ability to appoint senators the Fed no longer had to worry about state legislatures or governor’s. They became nothing more than local administrators of whatever DC came up with.
Why there is an effort (long overdue) to repeal that bit of progtard BS.
If the10th was nullified by the 22nd, that is the way it was supposed to work, by a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!! Not by a chickenshit state legislature or city council.
You are ignoring the fact that an amendment can itself be amended out of existence. (Take prohibition, for example. Please.)
Just because a majority says it’s right doesn’t make it so.
The States created the federal government as a government of limited powers. There is nothing in there that delimits State’s sovereign rights except as it pertains to the election of representatives to Congress. The Reconstruction Amendments were the first explicit limitations of state sovereign rights, at least as to slavery and to the application of the BOR to the states to protect the rights of all citizens. And look how long it took after the 14th Amendment to pass before the Second was explicitly applied to the states. California, for example, was one of the states whose highest court decreed years ago that the Second is not applicable as a limitation on state power over firearms. And California wasn’t the only one.
Again, states don’t have rights, they have powers. Saying ‘states’ rights’ is akin to saying ‘corporate rights’. It’s not the organizations that have rights it’s the individuals that have rights.
“It is the right of the state to make its laws.” Unless it is a law having to do with definition of marriage, abortion, etc. Got it.
This
and who you have to bake cakes for, take pictures of, or make flower arrangements for.
The states may enact any law they want as long as those laws do not conflict with the US Constitution, rights guaranteed thereunder, or federal law. Otherwise we would still have Jim Crow, and racial segregation, etc. in the south. Those cake bakers and flower arrangers violated the same anti-discrimination laws that ended Jim Crow, and, at least in several cases, were violations of state anti-discrimination laws as well.
Funny how laws intended to end discrimination by individuals are turned around and used, not by individuals but by the governments to discriminate against others. There’s probably a lesson to be learned in that somewhere.
“Those cake bakers and flower arrangers violated the same anti-discrimination laws that ended Jim Crow, and, at least in several cases, were violations of state anti-discrimination laws as well.”
And the judgements violated the first amendment rights of those cake bakers and flower arrangers.
If these businesses had monopolies on their products, I would agree with you, but they didn’t. The customers were not deprived, they weren’t harmed. They could get their wanted services and products elsewhere. Where’s the tort?
Oh, they were insulted? Gee, that almost never happens. Not!
What do you think would happen if I went into a Halal restaurant and asked for a BLT? Would I be able to sue when I was told they didn’t have it? Of course not.
These cases have nothing to do with “discrimination,” and everything to do with appeasement.
Agreed. And the baker did not refuse service, he refused to bake a custom cake. He did not refuse to sell them any “regular” non-custom cake for the wedding. Now do note the baker said doing the custom cake would be against his beliefs on marriage being between a man and a woman. That was weak too since he was willing to bake another person a custom cake for a doggie wedding. It will be interesting to see how the court decides.
OK, she claims she wants an “honest conversation” about guns and “state’s rights.” Let’s see . . .
I’ll believe her when she expresses support a repeal of the ’34 Act and the ’68 Act as they would apply wholly intrastate transactions. In other words, if “states make gun laws,” then shouldn’t states have the right to allow their citizens to do whatever, as long as it doesn’t involve interstate commerce? E.g., if Texas wants to allow its residents to own locally-manufactured suppressors, SBR’s, and full-auto stuff, why shouldn’t “states’ rights” allow that? If Idaho wants to allow 18 year olds to buy handguns and 16 year olds to buy long guns and ammo, surely she’d be in favor of allowing them to do so, right?
The reality is that libbies like this no more believe in states’ rights than the man in the moon. It’s just a hobbyhorse they are now on because Congress might just pass something they don’t like.
You make a good point, any anti-gun hypocrite who blather on about states rights needs to be asked if they would then support the repeal of NFA, GCA, and Brady, so that the states could control guns themselves. Then watch them twist to avoid admitting their hypocrisy.
Or ask if states rights apply to abortion. They go nuts if you bring that up.
There are no federal age limits on firearms, just age limits on firearms purchased from Federal Firearms License holder who wants to keep their licence. As for NFA items, I don’t know of any State were they are not banned at the STATE level without a tax stamp. Would be interesting to see a court case from a state without the ban.
TX is not the be all state when it comes to gun rights, so don’t use them as an example.
NFA items are banned for us pleebs at the state level. Oddly enough we have more registered NFA items in the state than any other state. Hollywood much?
“As for NFA items, I don’t know of any State were they are not banned at the STATE level without a tax stamp.”
Arizona. There, now you do.
All one needs do in AZ to buy a NFA item is follow federal rules. No extra stamps at the state level.
Utah actually has a law that allows the manufacture of firearms and suppressors for intrastate use without any federal interference. It basically says “the feds don’t have any say over intrastate commerce, so we explicitly acknowledge a citizen’s right to manufacture these outside of federal regulations.” It prohibits the manufacture of machine guns, and prohibits the transfer of the devices across state lines, but it’s interesting nevertheless.
https://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillint/sb0011.htm
As far as they’re concerned, an honest conversation is, “We get to say what we want, you have to admit you’re wrong, and then we take your guns.”
Part of the reason why I fell on the pro-gun side of the debate was because their arguments depend mostly on lies and obfuscations. If you have to lie to make your point, you’re wrong. Their debate is inherently dishonest, so they’re wrong. Period.
Most likely, an “honest conversation about guns” will take place only between two gun owners, or those seeking to start their gun owner journey. You can’t have an “honest conversation” with liars, cheats and those who want you dead.
Amen
An honest conversation is sitting silently while a gun controller berates and belittles you then you apologize for being a racist and a child killer.
And compromise is white out on the 2nd and flagellation in the streets.
An honest conversation about guns wouldn’t involve them at all. Guns are not the problem. People are. Guns are just mere objects. Culture and demographics are the problem.
If guns were the problem you would hear of places like Switzerland and the Czech Republic filled with stories of “machine gun violence” since it is much easier and cheaper to acquire them in those places than here yet it doesn’t happen. Why? Culture and demographics…..
It’s people, stupid!!
In the case of America, our stats are inflated because of inner-city ghetto violence and the fact we are the only First World country to border a Third World craphole with an appetite for drugs. Elimination of those two factors would make the U.S. the safest country in the world.
I honestly don’t give a damn about any conversation with anyone wanting to take away my 2nd Amendment rights. How’s that for honesty? I don’t care what they say because it’s the same old rhetoric. If they really want to save lives ban cars, doctor’s, armies, governments, countries, etc.
Another libtard who got her 30 seconds of fame.
yeh….
stoopid effin’ TWAT should EFF OFF to ARSEstralia ….. where they got lotsa “common sense” gun laws….
see how TF she like living in fear 24/7….
ARSEstralia….land of the freak…home of the knave!
EFF off ! 😠
Here’s the deal: You’re never, ever going to convince anyone with an extreme political position of anything. Facts don’t matter. Science doesn’t matter. (“Of course, we’ll cherry pick what studies we can to prove our point.”) You have to remember when you debate an extremist, you are not going to convince them of anything. Nor should you even be trying. Who you are REALLY addressing is the large percentage who are silent but could be swayed with reason, fact, and logic. The bystanders. The lurker reading or listening to your debate. THOSE are the people who you need to convince. Be logical. Be polite. Provide references. The bystanders CAN be convinced. They will remember who seemed like a nut–and who calmly and rationally proved their point. Their votes and ours combined are why we still have freedom in this country.
^This is so true.
The key to winning the war of ideas is to be truthful and propagate one’s message relentlessly. Sadly, we are not winning this war of ideas. I don’t know how to make it happen, but we need to help produce a pro-2a argument that is heard widely and can compete against the combined relentless MSM/Bloomberg’s agitprop, to which the American public are presently subjected.
The NRA can help us in courts and lobbying, but another group really needs to be created to help mainstream pro-2a ideas forcefully on the national stage. Otherwise we are speaking in an insular vacuum, and our truth will not be heard but by those who already agree with our thinking…
That was well said, and is absolutely true, doubly so with the internet. I regularly “debate” with liberals on social media (I’m 22; I probably use social media more than is healthy). And when I do so, I NEVER approach it with the idea that I’m trying to change their minds. No, instead, I’m trying to change the minds of anyone who reads the exchange minutes, hours, days, weeks, or even months after the fact. When once side is hammering out misspelled insults in all caps while the other is calmly and rationally stating a position, backed up with valid citations, well… without a doubt, a segment of population, possibly even a large segment, is immune to such facts. But if you can create even the slightest crack in an ideology, while it may take years to fully manifest, minds CAN be changed.
I’ll use my own mother as an example. A strong woman whom I have much respect for, she was born and raised in Southern California. Her parents never presented her with a position one way or another on guns, but simply as a result of her environment and the lack of any explicitly positive gun-related influence to counter the negative stories she saw on the news, well… she was TERRIFIED of guns. For a long time. She met my father (who had been born in Northern Idaho and was practically born with a gun in his hands) while she was in college. Now, at some point during their dating, she mentioned to him that she had been having a hard time studying because of a massive construction site right next door to her apartment.
What’s one place that can be guaranteed to have PLENTY of options for hearing protection? Yep, he took her to a gun store. Even in a totally separate portion of the store, and even with all the rifles on racks and with trigger locks, apparently she felt physically ill being around all those firearms. A pathetic reaction? Perhaps, and it’s even more incredible when you consider the fact that she never had any negative personal exposure to guns. Never had a relative or close friend murdered, was never the victim of a violent crime, etc. Just her environment and the lack of positive firearm-related experience. She now lives in Southwest Colorado with my father, almost literally surrounded by responsible people who are very open about owning firearms. Recently, she even decided to get her own handgun, choosing a Ruger SP101 with a 2″ barrel, she even allowed me to give her a shooting lesson just last weekend.
While she’s still not 100% comfortable with firearms (it’s gonna take some time before she’s ready to shoot my AR-15, for example), she is now 100% legally in favor of them. Hers is an extreme example, and even she has come around. Minds can be changed. Not all of them, but we don’t need to change all of them. We just need to change enough. Nobody is going to relinquish a deeply held position, even if it’s not well thought out, overnight. But plenty of people have enough intellectual integrity to at least be willing to start seeing things differently as long as we give them a reason to do so. Keep fighting the good fight, and know that, in any public forum, in any medium, your presentation MATTERS, and it does NOT go unnoticed.
Another idiot who has no idea how the government is organized or even what the supreme law is.
I’d love to have an “honest conversation” about guns; you start.
Still waiting.
Anti-gun activists like her are trying to whip up enough hate for people to come and do her, and people like her, and their families and property, harm.
I hope it’s working. I want to do what I can to help her see that specific thing through.
Don’t just comment here. This is mostly an echo chamber of common beliefs. Go to these articles and make cogent arguments there. Your comments will do more good there.
Caliber warz, for the most part, seem pretty honest…
The go to “it’s for safety ploy”. Never has been, never will be. At least be honest lady. You know damn well your BS is about control.
If she wants to have an honest conversation, we can start with the fact that New Englanders have a reputation for being corrupt statists who have a total disregard for the law and Constitution…
From section 1 of the 14th amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” What I read is all states that have laws regulating arms, are unconstitutional laws, and should be stricken.
“It is the right of the state to make its laws.” …Unless those laws are in violation of the Constitution or Federal statutes.
I thought Keanu Reeves was pro-gun.
Oops sorry Cyndi….
It should start with: My second amendment rights, like all other rights, are God given and non negotiable.
An “honest conversation about guns” with a true believer lib/prog can only occur if you agree with everything they ever thought, said or did in their whole lives. Otherwise, you are a dishonest reactionary who probably deserves to be in a re-education camp somewhere. There is no reasoning with these people. Stuff like Ms. Mullineaux wrote is just to reassure the anti-gunners of their alleged superiority.
Gun control fascists routinely pick and choose which laws they take absolutist positions on. A citizen in lawful possession of a firearm with no intent to do any harm to anyone gets locked up. A non-citizen rapist, sex trafficker or murderer? The obedient little fascist wants to give THEM amnesty. Free speech only for people with like beliefs, others are subject to fascist leftist violence. Fundementally, their ignorance of guns and a Hollywood-inspired understanding of guns and gun owners drives them to obsess.
Scary hound faced woman with unacceptable
Opinions, choose to ignore her
I only have “honest” conversations about guns.
What, you’ve been lying up til now? Well, that’s distressing. Or maybe it’s all those other anti-gunners who’ve been lying?
At any rate, feel free to start being honest. Whenever you’re ready.
Honest gun conversation in two incomplete sentences and 1 Bible verse:
1) MOLON LABE
2)From my cold dead hands.
3)Luke Chapter 22-36
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
Check out this perspective in the comment section of that article, this is just a small clip :
“However, it’s the other things that happen that become the problem.
You see, when you pass a law that restricts my ability to own a particular firearm, you’re impacting my ability to defend myself from those who ignore the laws. While the laws will create additional charges my attacker may face if/when he’s arrested, it’s of little solace. After all, I seriously doubt the dead really give a damn.
That gun law is tantamount to combating burglary by outlawing door locks, something that no one in their right might would actually do.”
I *like* the way that guy thinks!
Gun grabbers “honest conversations” always begins with “Let’s first establish the ground rules…. heads I win, tails you lose.”
I support the 2nd Amendment but……….
Then you don’t actually support it.
Anything someone starts by just wanting an “honest conversation” is not that, *and* they’ve started by insulting and discrediting you. No need to engage as if it’s an honest conversation; they’re not. Call them on it. Or play with them if there’s an audience.
Oh, game on. O K then…
“I just want safety for myself and my family, like all other citizens.”
“Awesome. So, how does disarming Shaneen help that? She makes you feel unsafe? (It’s O K. You can be honest.)”
Really, any one of these screeds is target rich.
“So, you get rural people wanting guns for their own protection, and you want to disarm them anyway? You honestly don’t seem to care much for their safety.”
Expose the contradictions – pick any one – to put them back on their heels rhetorically. Imply it. Then stick with it when they try to Squirrel! away.
“So, “safety” just like everyone. Yet other people cboose differently. So, they’re confused? Lying? Don’t honestly care about safety? Right about their own safety, but expendable in aid of yours? Or expendible just so you can (dishonestly) feel better?”
If it started with an “honest conversation” riff, intended to imply that we folk aren’t being honest already, it wasn’t an “honest conversation” from the start. Ding them with being dishonest, every chance you get. Use tbeir snotty language back, too. “Just” wanna be safe. So, use “just” back at them. People – the convincable audience – don’t like when you escalate, so it’s a two-fer. Disses them, and points out tbeir stealth escalation. Infuriates them, too – reqlly a three-fer.
“Honest conversation” also gives you an out whenever you want. You can bail on “just” one too many dishonest confusions: “I’m sorry. I thought you wanted an honest conversation. I’ll be here when you want to do that. Til then, I’m out.”
That article is just sloppy. Seems like some amateurs are sneaking past Bloomie’s astro-turf message crafters.
I think I will defer to Trey on this one.
If we could interview St. Peter, how many women do you think would have said to him “I wish I had a gun when I needed it?”
An honest conversation about guns starts with why the all-American .45 ACP is superior to the Eurotrash 9mm.
As far as an “honest conversation” with a New Jersey nitwit is concerned: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
It is not possible to have a productive conversation with an anti-civil rights person. It is a waste of valuable time.
An honest conversation about guns. What
An “honest conversation about guns” in 2018 looks remarkably like the sort of “sincerity” the Japanese demanded in 1938 regarding their campaign to conquer and enslave China.
The technical term is “abject, fawning submission”.
The answer in 1938 was “NO, I REFUSE.”
The answer in 2018 is “NO, I REFUSE.”
Or an honest conversation about race with David Duke.
250,000,000 million guns in private hands. over a billion bullets in the same hands. yet 250,000,000 people hurt no one yesterday. 5%
of the counties in this country are responsible for 75% plus of ALL violent and gun crime WE EXPERIENCE. (fbi.gov for source.) Chicago alone is responsible for 30 maybe 35% of those statistics on its own. THEY ALREADY HAVE DRACONIAN GUN LAWS IN PLACE. AND THE CRIME ONLY GOT WORSE. we dont have a gun control problem we have a problem that goes far deeper. it’s a HUMAN NATURE problem. glorify the criminal lifestyle. praise all the street kid rappers making it big…flashing that gat and fat stacks…”bitches ain’t nothing but ho’s and tricks.” wonder why they all think this behaviour is OK?
Step one! Learn to Read!
Step Two! Read the Second Amendment!
Step Three! Learn what “Shall Not Be Infringed” Means!
Step Four! SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Honest conversation begins with the nature of violence in America is…”Not related to the law abiding citizen. Correct?”
If the other party cannot get past this there will be no honest conversation. From this point ‘we’ can prove that almost every regulation does nothing but, treat the law abiding, except perhaps background check (blind). Therefore any gun control argument is moot (except for the hidden agenda of full confiscation / elimination).
IMHO
There can be no real open discussion on guns and gun rights because there is no middle ground. Either you allow them or you do not. I think many firearms owners have (wrongly) been trying to find a middle ground with the gun control people through CCW permits and NICS background checks and firearm registration and limits on ammo and all this has done is embolden the gun controllers. Honestly, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to making concessions and getting new rules on us.
I would offer that we quit screaming that there can be no restrictions on firearms because their are. Convince one anti-gunner that we are reasonable people and get them to vote for our positions. Thats all it would take.
I had a short back & forth conversation on FB with a 2A-but person recently. It went like this…
*Warning, not short*
Them: I’m a gun owner in favor of reasonable, fact-based gun controls.
Me:. Such as?
Them: To name a few:
No-fly list = no-buy list. Possible terrorists on a watchlist should not be able to buy guns.
Mental illness = no buy.
Domestic violence = no buy.
Universal background checks. Buying an AR-15 should not be easier than getting a driver’s license.
Repeal the Dickey Amendment. Any person believing in the scientific ethic should be offended by that law. Literally not wanting to know facts because they might point out inconvenient truths != science.
Full-auto mail-order kits and bump-stocks to skirt laws should be banned.
Me: Without due process, constitutional rights should never be able to be restricted.
The no-fly list has no due process. There’s no judge or jury. It’s an arbitrary and non-transparent process.
What mental illness? Any? That’s quite vast. What’s the limiter? There’s already provisions in law to handle someone that’s been found dangerous, but again, you have to follow a non-arbitrary process that gives the accused a chance to defend themselves.
Someone just accused of domestic violence? Or convicted? False accusations happen, especially in child custody cases. Also initially often done in secret & the accused loses their guns without a chance to defend themselves & then has to prove their innocence. That’s not the way it justice system should work.
Universal background checks are pointless. They won’t effectively work without a master gun DB, which is not allowed. It’s also already illegal to sell to someone privately that’s not allowed. Where such things have been done at the state level, they’ve sometimes been written in such a way that it’s illegal for any transfer of a gun without a background check. This includes letting someone borrow one for hunting or taking a friend shooting at the range.
If it’s easier to get an AR, IF, that’s more because the DMV sucks. Getting a driver’s license is not a constitutional right either. There’s nothing special about an AR from a gun functioning perspective, so anything that applies to it would apply to any other semi-auto gun.
The Dickey Amendment is a protection against the government actively advocating against a constitutional right. It doesn’t prevent research. If they wont do the science because they then can’t use it to advocate against a constitutional right, then they’re not the type of scientists we should have anyways.
Full auto is already against the law unless grandfathered in or thru very specific methods. Making a gun full auto is against the law unless approved by the government.
Bump stocks. I’m not a rights absolutist. I could live with them being regulated.
Them:. You’re being absolutist again, save for the bump stocks I guess. Polling proves there is plenty of middle ground on the items I listed. You are choosing to argue the extremes instead. Unfortunate most people who want to talk about guns choose the extremes (true on the liberal side too).
Me: Upholding all constitutional rights is not extreme. Due process is extremely important. Government should not be able to act arbitrarily. This is actually a basic constitutional principal.
Innocent until proven guilty still means something… Or at least should. Eroding that principal is what I consider extreme.
I guess this is to be expected when the ACLU defending the KKK’s 1A rights, even tho they are abhorrent, is now extreme too. That at one point was considered the epitome of respecting our rights. Defending the rights of those you disagree with.
It’s sad when relating facts of how things really are, not how the anti-gun media portrays things is considered extreme.
Experience has also shown that government institutions that are against 2A rights, will abuse their discretion just to limit all 2A rights, regardless of whether it will actually do anything. In fact, this is true outside of 2A as well. Even if the government is found to be in the wrong, the process is the punishment.
*End LONG example*
Anecdotal, but not sure how to have an honest conversation if my positions are considered extreme.
I know what a “bump stock” is, but not so sure about what a “skirt law is”
Can you refresh my old tired memory?
If she does not like firearms then she does not have to own any.
When the boogie man kicks in her back door and attempts to cause her
harm physical and mental, assaulting her, she will wish she had the gun.