antigun talk on a gun site?? can anyone explain it to me ??

M

mike in co

Guest
we all know i have firm narrow opinions on some subjects.

i understand differnces of opinions on what makes an accurate rifle and what does not...

what i do not understand..it is beyond me...

how can a gun owner, competition shooter, preach anti gun steps on a gun forum ??

the 2nd ammendment makes no reference to hunting nor competing...it just says you can keep and bear....
the supreme court has made two recent decisions..one says , yep it says you can own guns..just like it says in black and white; two, say the wording means ownership of mil like small arms are encluded......

someone explain it to me...please....

please

mike in co
 
antigun talk on a gun site?? can anyone explain it to me ??
mike in co said:
we all know i have firm narrow opinions on some subjects. someone explain it to me...please....mike in co
Click to expand...

You just did! Your narrow mindedness coupled with inordinate emotion has eroded your ability to think compartmentally ... to divide a broad subject into parts to be discussed as separate and distinct issues. Until you can do that, you're doomed or locked into your own prejudices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However since the 2nd Amendment is defined in similar firm narrow terms. I tend to agree with Mike on this one. Moreover the term "arms" is not limited to firearms and includes bladed tools as well. The US V. Miller decision was in error when it was decided on a "lack of evidence" basis, and without Miller, much of the other elements of "gun control" could not have been built. Without the progression of "gun control", then "gun free zones" would not have come into existence and the current situation could not then have happened. People have to be responsible for their own safety, as well as the children in their charge. This is an impossible task if the proper tools for that job are denied them. The most important tool to carry out that responsibility is the proper mindset and training. Which has been the element most devastated by the "let the government handle it" attitude of "gun control".
 
Last edited:
It's because no matter how much such talk displeases you, if you don't talk to people who disagree with you then either things don't get done or the things that get done are much worse than would have happened if you had involved yourself.

I recently struck from my list of starting tabs in Firefox a web site that I dearly loved, a news aggregator with a funky worldview that I found challenging, fun, and smart. The reason? The moderators are strongly anti-gun. In the aftermath of the recent shootings, several discussions about gun control popped up on that forum, a place that prides itself on its tolerance of all views on controversial subjects. Yet, I found my posts deleted as soon as they went up. People who saw my posts before they were deleted, took a quote from my post, and then agreed and amplified on my comments were summarily deleted, too. Finally, in exasperation, I responded to one other person who wanted some personal perspective on why I held my views. I talked about how I shoot because it's what I did with my father, because collecting guns is a fine way to stay in touch with history, because I enjoy the competition, etc. Rabid anti-gunner that he was, the guy responded by quoting me extensively and starting a real discussion.

The moderators then locked the entire thread and went through it deleting all my pro-2nd comments - even the ones that the anti-2nd folks had lauded as understandable and the start of potentially productive conversation.

My point: Rational discourse cannot exist where issues are considered black and white; they never are.

The 1st protects the right of free speech but not to libel, not to incite a riot, not to yell "Fire!" unless the theatre is actually on fire.

The 4th protects me from unjustified searches, but I'm still searched every time I drive from Houston to California. I-10 is permanently closed in multiple places in both directions and all vehicles are pulled over for a search.

The 10th has been ignored for far too long but the nation still stands.

We can either talk to the people with whom we disagree and try to come to some workable solution (notice I did not say "compromise") or we can sit this one out, assuring ourselves that the wisdom of The Founders and a recent Supreme Court decision will protect us. If we choose the latter course, we're quite likely to find ourselves with a 2nd amendment that exists in name only, gutted by procedures and processes at every level of government that simply drive firearms ownership out of existence within a few generations.

The reason such discussions should be allowed on a gun forum is that we don't want to be the unreasonable, censorious jerks who currently have the political momentum. We need to take some of that back by joining the fray, not by trying to float above it. You'd be surprised what, in retrospect, we could have accomplished if we had worked with people who don't seem to be our natural allies. Examples? Here's one - Do you know why Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the law that banned open carry in California? It was because the Black Panthers were openly carrying, observing arrests, and making sure that the folks arrested understood their rights (i.e., they'd calmly tell people being arrested not to talk to the police, which is basic good advice for anyone).

Gee, if only the NRA and the Black Panthers had been able to talk to each other.

I could come up with a thousand other examples. If you believe in the Bill of Rights, how much did you support Paul Little when he was railroaded on fabricated obscenity charges? If you're like most NRA members, you probably think you don't have anything in common with pornographers but let me make this clear - the same sorts of people who want to tell you what kind of guns you can own and what sort of life you should lead are the same sorts who will gladly toss you in jail for making movies they don't like or daring to stand up for your civil rights.

It's not just the 2nd that's under attack. The whole American concept of freedom is in severe danger. Everybody needs to be talking to everybody if a free America is to endure. The 2nd is a major battleground but it's only one in a much larger war. No one can appreciate that unless they're willing to talk to people they disagree with, people who are fighting for freedom in ways we don't understand. In the war for freedom, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly "KEEP AND BEAR; 2ND AMENDMENT" over and over is the tactical equivalent of jamming your own command and control network.

It's a testament to the intellectual honesty and integrity of the folks who run this place that such conversations are allowed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sorry but editing my comments does not fly..
i asked for a reason...
action in reaction the the mass shooting maybe inevitable...but the destruction of my constitutional rights should not be considered "reasonable".
my question remains...
how can any GUN OWNER propose that violation of my constitutional rights is a 'REASONABLE' action ??
with all the options available why is it that violation of my constitutional righs is considered REASONABLE.....

mike in co

abintx said:
antigun talk on a gun site?? can anyone explain it to me ??

You just did! Your narrow mindedness coupled with inordinate emotion has eroded your ability to think compartmentally ... to divide a broad subject into parts to be discussed as separate and distinct issues. Until you can do that, you're doomed or locked into your own prejudices.
Click to expand...
 
mike in co said:
how can any GUN OWNER propose that violation of my constitutional rights is a 'REASONABLE' action ??
Click to expand...

Because that gun owner might recognize that such is the way the world works?

When I am forced to divert into a giant vehicle search processing center 3 times each trip from Houston to California and back by car, that is, in my view, a violation of my constitutional rights and unreasonable.

However, the people that thought this stuff up, the politicians who voted money for it, the courts that have reviewed it, and most of the citizens who submit to it have come to a different conclusion than me.

Similarly, there's a big push to gut the 2nd right now and being in the right is no guarantee of success. Success may (MAY, for some folks, not necessarily you) entail talking to the antis, finding out what they want, and giving them something to make them go away.

I wouldn't like that result but the only way to avoid a worse result involves talking to the antis, finding out what they want (or, rather, what'll shut 'em up till this blows over), and then making an informed decision whether to fight to the death or make a (temporary, I hope) tactical retreat. To that end, accepting the notion that it won't be the end of the world if, just for example, high-cap magazines extending below the firearm and situated ahead of the pistol grip are banned. If that happens, I'll be pissed but we'll adapt. We'll start building Lewis guns, American 180s, PS90-style mag rifles, and M-100 Calicos again. SKSs will become really popular again. Someone will design and sell something like an SKS with a blind 20-round magazine that, in practice, reloads about as quickly as a detachable magazine. Heck, when the Czech Republic (and they love their guns over there) outlawed all ammo except full metal jacket, what happened? Federal (iirc) designed an expanding FMJ load! No matter what happens, we WILL adapt.

However, hinting that since this is a gun forum nothing that diverges from your idea of the proper party line should be allowed to be posted is just sticking your head in the sand.

There's a possibility that bad changes are coming. Telling your fellow gun owners, in so many words, that they should shut up is not a useful tactic in the coming fight.

It's nearly midnite, so I'm off to bed. Merry Christmas to all.
 
Suggesting that it may be inevitable is not the same as PROPOSING that it's reasonable. Those are two very different animals.
 
mike in co .... I agree with your basic premise. If you shoot for a hobby it is beyond me how someone can start siding with the anti-gun folks on anything. Ever anti-gun person I have ever talked to wants to eliminate ALL guns in the hands of the public and while they want an overall ban they will grudgingly start with any piece of the gun "world" that they can.

I am devastated by what happened in Newtown (my last residence prior to VA) but it was the act of a deranged person who STOLE something from someone else to create his mayhem. I sincerely wish his mother would have been more responsible and kept the guns in a safe (and hopefully she would not have given the combination to her son who she was worried about anyway - in fact it is hard for me to accept that she had the guns available in the home given her concerns).

I am afraid that those gun folks that don't enjoy a particular form of a gun sport (3 gun, long range tactical) too often don't care about those that do enjoy those venues. I imagine it would upset most of the members of this forum to meet one of my neighbors. He is an avid handgunner and doesn't believe that anyone needs a long gun of any type other than for hunting for food. He thinks that my trying to punch tight little holes in paper at 100 and 200 yards is stupid.

It is too easy for us in the benchrest community to dismiss the idea of needing / wanting / enjoying shooting anything that doesn't need reloading after one pull of the trigger especially in the light of the recent carnage of young children. If the anti-gunners were going after the licensing of ammunition and the elimination of the ability to load your own (and thus not be marked in some way) then the folks on this forum would go ballistic (pun sorta intended) and some of the folks that shoot in 3 gun would be ok with that approach since they have to use factory ammo anyway.

I do not believe there is a law that can be created that will let "normal folks" use the tools that we have been granted to have by the constitution and stop any nut-job from ever using those same tools for evil.

The thought that we should ban high capacity magazines or assault style rifles because someone used that tool for something bad makes no more sense to me that banning automobiles or alcohol because people combine them and cause accidents --- probably killing more people across the US than these mass killings.
 
All gun owners need to stick together to defend all gun rights. The anti's methods are to pick at our gun rights one type of gun at a time. Next on the list will be "highley accurate scoped rifles", they will call them "Sniper rifles". Thats all the benchrest guns. "Stick together or hang seperatly"
 
mike in co said:
we all know i have firm narrow opinions on some subjects.

i understand differnces of opinions on what makes an accurate rifle and what does not...

what i do not understand..it is beyond me...

how can a gun owner, competition shooter, preach anti gun steps on a gun forum ??

the 2nd ammendment makes no reference to hunting nor competing...it just says you can keep and bear....
the supreme court has made two recent decisions..one says , yep it says you can own guns..just like it says in black and white; two, say the wording means ownership of mil like small arms are encluded......

someone explain it to me...please....

please

mike in co
Click to expand...

We'll do this again, with no editing.

You just did! Your narrow mindedness coupled with inordinate emotion has eroded your ability to think compartmentally ... to divide a broad subject into parts to be discussed as separate and distinct issues. Until you can do that, you're doomed or locked into your own prejudices.
 
abintx said:
We'll do this again, with no editing.

You just did! Your narrow mindedness coupled with inordinate emotion has eroded your ability to think compartmentally ... to divide a broad subject into parts to be discussed as separate and distinct issues. Until you can do that, you're doomed or locked into your own prejudices.
Click to expand...
You are not alone, Abintx, many of us gun owners agree with your thoughts. The smart people will stay quite here thinking their concil would be waisted when they consider the source.
 
sorry your preaching seems to have no tangable data.....
the broad subject is what to do about mass killings, one of the seperate and disticnt issues is not giving up any of my constitutional rights in resolving the big issue.
my narrowmindedness is typically on subject/areas in which i have experience and data to support my position...
are you saying that because I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION , i cannot will never understand people who do not ??
mike in co
[ i cannot understand these people

QUOTE=abintx;695853]We'll do this again, with no editing.

You just did! Your narrow mindedness coupled with inordinate emotion has eroded your ability to think compartmentally ... to divide a broad subject into parts to be discussed as separate and distinct issues. Until you can do that, you're doomed or locked into your own prejudices.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The very compartmentalization that some hold in such high regard here is what is being used to erode the 2nd Amendment right that our Constitution RECOGNIZES - it did not and does not GRANT that right - IT simply recognizes that it is a pre-existing and required element to a free state of being. It also recognizes (in the discussions leading up to it's adoption) that for it to be effective, the "arms" to be protected needed to be "of service to the militia" - IE of the same capability of military arms. Otherwise of what use would they really be to fend off our own government - as THAT was the real fear that the Founders were addressing.
 
I can only speak from personal experience. I have encountered shooters who love guns but still argue the anti gun talking points. Example....why does anyone need 20 round magazines. The reason
in my personal experience is these people are hard core Democrats and/or union members. So while they love guns, they love the union and Democratic party more. Don't want to cause a big
fight, but I know in my experience and the shooter I have come across, this is the truth.

They refuse to understand that the anti's are't just after high capacity magazines, Saturday night specials, etc. they want them all. Don't understand the slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
To be balanced ,I don't believe the 2nd Amendment says What Type, Magazine Cap., Caliber you ARE guarenteed to BEAR. I do Own a enjoy the AR style rifles BTW.
 
Roger T said:
To be balanced ,I don't believe the 2nd Amendment says What Type, Magazine Cap., Caliber you ARE guarenteed to BEAR. I do Own a enjoy the AR style rifles BTW.
Click to expand...
You have the right to keep and bear those arms "of use to the militia" "in common use" (civilian use or military use is not differentiated) - You do not however have a right to discharge said arms whenever or where ever the fancy might strike you. Some later Colonial era legislation required it to be of a size and caliber such that military logistics would be able to resupply ammunition. And since military logistics supplies ammo in large capacity magazines - the 2nd amendment protected arms would be expected to be able to use the same.
 
Last edited:
I think we should resist "compartmentalization" because, to me, that suggests that if we divide the whole issue up into little compartments, then we are willing to trade off a few of the compartments. As some early posts emphasize, the 2nd Amendment covers all forms of firearms. We should not go into the coming debates with a preconceived notion that we are willing to give up any segment of our world.
 
roger..
you are absolutely correct....
but the supreme court has supported the malitia portion of the 2nd to mean current arms.....what the mil uses we have access to...small arms...
mike in co

Roger T said:
To be balanced ,I don't believe the 2nd Amendment says What Type, Magazine Cap., Caliber you ARE guarenteed to BEAR. I do Own a enjoy the AR style rifles BTW.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top