Aren't gun owners people too?

[CoyoteSix]

I was walking around on campus today when something caught my eye. It was a poster with a winged, rainbow colored pony advertising that the local "Gay Pride" club was having a meeting at 6:00pm tonight. I shrugged and walked on, little down the way I saw another poster, this one advertising the "College of Southern Idaho diversity council". Again I walked on thinking nothing of it. Than I came across the "CSI Democratic Interest group". Of course this one got me thinking: "Pfft, Democrats. Probably just a bunch of gun hating, latte sipping, hybrid car driving, Marx/Lenin worshiping...." And so forth until the light bulb came on in my head and told me to stop being so judgmental.

Than I thought: America is always so afraid to step on a minority/political interest group. The Racial Minorities, Gay Rights Groups, Pot Promoters, and yes, even the anti-gunners. I'm totally okay with equal representation of all parties, yes even the Anti-Gunners. As much as I hate them we wouldn't be the Home of The Free if we didn't allow everyone to complain.

But why aren't Pro Second Amendment groups treated the same way? Not even groups but gun owners as individuals are mistreated in some cases as well. I don't personally experience it in my own free state of Idaho but I've read stories here on The High Road as well as internet news outlets.

It seems like wherever you turn in current national events it's the gun owners getting the shaft.

Aren't we just like the Racial Minorities? The Gay Rights groups? Dare I say, the Anti-Gunners? Shouldn't we be represented as well and taken seriously like everyone else? I know the NRA is fighting hard right now, but where's our Dr. Martin Luther King? Our Malcolm X?

Hell, much like during the Civil Rights movement, are constitutional rights are under fire. And we're not one group of people, 2A people come from all parts of America, I'd be willing to bet that gun culture is the best melting pot in the United States.

When our Children's Children read their History books will the "Second Amendment Movement" Even be a blip on the radar?

What do you think THR? I'm just a student on a rant.

 

[TheDaywalkersDad]

We are not one of the "Approved" minority groups.
I doubt that we're even a minority in the free states.

 

[KCFirepower]

start a club. Get involved, and spread the word.

 

[JustinJ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "mistreated" but providing special protections to people for their views on issues isn't reasonable.

 

[Shadow 7D]

NO
we are to be tarred and feathers,
beaten to death, shot or otherwise killed in a horrific method (in public)

The left hates gun, but EMBRACES violence

 

[jamesbeat]

To advocate the Second Amendment is considered to be in bad taste by liberals, it's practically the same thing as advocating murder.

 

[Billy Shears]

The short answer is, no, we're not, to certain people.

For a fuller understanding of why, I highly recommend picking up Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions.

To summarize, there are two basic visions of the world and human nature -- this is a simplification, of course, like most ideas, and nobody is ever entirely in one camp or another, and it's better to think of these two visions as the ends of a spectrum, with everyone falling somewhere in between the two extremes.

On the one extreme, you have what Sowell calls "the unconstrained vision." Others have called it "the utopian vision." As Wikipedia sums it up:

Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.

By contrast, there is "the constrained vision," which some call "the tragic vision." Again from Wikipedia:

Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.

Now you should understand two things. First, the vast majority of ardent gun control advocates are political liberals/leftists; and second, that the vast majority of liberals/leftists are ardent believers in the unconstrained vision.

This leads to another point you should be aware of: it is far, far more common for those with the unconstrained/utopian vision to demonize their opponents, than it is for those of the constrained/tragic vision. The latter are not immune to or incapable of such demonization, of course, but it is very noticeably more common among the former, and this goes back centuries.

The reason for this is that those holding either vision inevitably will regard each other as mistaken, but if you hold the constrained/tragic vision where the individual’s capacity for direct social decision making is limited, where people cannot see all outcomes, where forces at work are simply too large, complex and varied ever to be amenable to accurate fine tuning by direct intervention, where actions taken always have unforseen consequences, and where there are no ultimate solutions, only trade-offs—in short, where human reason is recognized as having very severe limits—then you are not surprised that your opponents are mistaken, and so it’s not necessary to regard your opponents as having less morality or less intelligence than others.

On the other hand, if you hold the unconstrained/utopian vision, where man is believed able to master social complexities and complex forces sufficiently to apply logic and morality directly, and where ultimate solutions are possible if only we can implement the right policies, then the existence of people—sometimes highly educated and very intelligent people—directly opposed to those policies that you believe are aimed at the common good can only be seen as an intellectual conundrum or a moral outrage, or both. Therefore people who hold to the unconstrained vision routinely throw out accusations of bad faith, venality, vested interest, or other moral and intellectual deficiencies, and have been doing so at least since Godwin and Condorcet in the 18th century.

So, in summary, ardent gun control advocates are much more inclined to regard you as a bad person, a moral defective, when you disagree with them about an issue like this, on which they feel very strongly, because they simply cannot conceive how an intelligent, educated, honest, moral person could possibly disagree with them. So, you're not a human being, or a minority, or someone they can or will feel sympathy for; you're a moral defective trying to pollute society with your immoral behavior and attitudes, and they will hate you for it.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

You are aware there are active groups like the Students for Concealed Carry, right? Most universities have a chapter. My brother was the president of one such chapter. Some students didn't like it but he'd say tough nuts, free speech. Campus cops didn't like and he said tough nuts, being responsible for more than one internal training bulletin when campus police tried to make up laws on the spot to chase them away.

Any popularity is good popularity. Some folks complained and the newspaper came down. His group talked and educated the reporter, and they did a reasonably balanced article in the papers. Like KCFirepower said, start a club and spread the word.

 

[Shadow 7D]

So, frankly they dehumanize EVERYBODY who disagrees with them...
YOU ARE NOT A PERSON to them
Makes it easier when the Midnight knocks start happening
just 'the good guys' doing away with 'bad people'

Lots of 'bad people' dies in Soviet Gulags....

This is also why their arguments are halfassed, they are NOT arguing with you, they are showing off their intellect to their friends.
That you DON'T groupthink with them is just proof that you are too stupid to understand.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok...so lots of theorizing about what we think the "left" thinks and/or what the anti-gun crowd thinks about us. But that's pretty broad speculation and rather pointless.

I think KDD's most useful idea here is this one:

Shouldn't we be represented as well and taken seriously like everyone else? I know the NRA is fighting hard right now, but where's our Dr. Martin Luther King? Our Malcolm X?

Ignoring for the moment that just one of our lobbying organizations is one of the largest and most powerful representative/lobbying organizations in the world (significantly larger than the ACLU, NAACP, any LGBT organization, dwarfed only by the AARP, I believe)...

How would we find and promote charismatic leaders of the MLK, Ghandi, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, etc. mold?

 

[Billy Shears]

Ignoring for the moment that just one of our lobbying organizations is one of the largest and most powerful representative/lobbying organizations in the world (significantly larger than the ACLU, NAACP, any LGBT organization, dwarfed only by the AARP, I believe)...

How would we find and promote charismatic leaders of the MLK, Ghandi, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, etc. mold?

We had one. Charlton Heston. And he still never became that.

Think about it, he was a handsome, charismatic, intelligent man, an articulate speaker with a commanding presence, and an impressive, resonant voice. He had a moral authority lent him by the fact that he marched with the Civil Rights marchers in the Civil Rights era.

And he is reviled by the left today. George Clooney said he was glad Heston got Alzheimer's and he deserved it. Tim Roth said he almost didn't take the part of General Thade in the (bad) remake of "Planet of the Apes," because Heston was in it and he loathed the man's politics. Etc. Etc.

Civil Rights was a cause embraced by the left and by the unconstrained visionaries. Gun rights won't ever be. Not in general. There will be pro-second amendment liberals, but the left as a whole will remain antithetical, no matter how charismatic and impressive the spokesman/leader is.

It will take some big event, and I am not sure how big would be enough, to change people's perception on this issue. The problem is the milieu. On the American Frontier, where people lived far from any authority, and had to take responsibility for their own safety, the attitude toward firearms was an entirely practical one. But the safer and more settled society gets, the more people can spend their whole lives separate from any real threats, the more they can indulge in wishful thinking about the issue, and entertain impractical, fanciful illusions about guns and the people who use them. And many can live their whole lives that way because their society keeps them safe enough from ever having their nose rubbed in the harsh reality that their safety is largely an illusion that can be dispelled at any instant if they have the bad luck to encounter even a single human predator when there's nobody else around to protect them.

 

[oneounceload]

The Left only tolerates diversity and free speech when it is THEIR choice of diversity and free speech - been happening on US college campuses since the LBJ 60's

 

[Grassman]

So, frankly they dehumanize EVERYBODY who disagrees with them...
YOU ARE NOT A PERSON to them
Makes it easier when the Midnight knocks start happening
just 'the good guys' doing away with 'bad people'

Lots of 'bad people' dies in Soviet Gulags....

This is also why their arguments are halfassed, they are NOT arguing with you, they are showing off their intellect to their friends.
That you DON'T groupthink with them is just proof that you are too stupid to understand.

Hit the nail on the head. Well done sir.

 

[JRH6856]

How would we find and promote charismatic leaders of the MLK, Ghandi, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, etc. mold?

We had one. Charlton Heston. And he still never became that.

Maybe we need to clearly define the role and hire another actor to play the part. (Seriously, the ability to act like a President is one thing that made Reagan effective...and a Great Communicator)

 

[rondog]

Well, there's the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners group fighting for us here in CO. Every state should have one.

 

[NY'er]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bruce Willis on our side?

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Sure, but most of us are "fly-over" "clingers" and as such don't count much except as targets for scorn and derision.

Also, the vast majority of us vote incorrectly to boot.

 

[radar1972]

The reason you see what you see is this:

You and I, honest pro-2A gun owners, are not hypocrites. We support everyone's right to have their say. After all, it is a free country.

The liberal left ARE hypocrites. The spout off about rights, rights, rights... but only when it suits THEIR agenda, not yours or mine. In their view, what's good for you and me is what they SAY it is.... even though they don't even abide by it.

 

[CoyoteSix]

It will take some big event, and I am not sure how big would be enough, to change people's perception on this issue.

^^ Wouldn't one think that all the recent shootings in Free Fir--, I mean gun free zones would make people think: "Oh hey, someone with a gun could've saved some lives."

 

[JRH6856]

Wouldn't one think that all the recent shootings in Free Fir--, I mean gun free zones would make people think: "Oh hey, someone with a gun could've saved some lives."

The anti-gunners I know all said "Someone else with a gun would have taken even more lives." Their predominant image (which apparently can't be shaken) of the armed citizen responding to a mass shooter (or an any SD situation) is one or more people rapid firing in spray and pray fashion in the general direction of the shooter and hitting everyone but the shooter.

 

[Texan Scott]

See, where I live, gun owners aren't lucky enough to be a persecuted minority. We're not really persecuted much... actually, we may be a fairly well tolerated majority. Dontcha hate that?

When the ammo crunch eases up, I'm getting a couple thousand rounds of 22lr and taking neighbors and coworkers shooting... just to add a few more to the majority. Beats the jeebers outta complaining about being misunderstood.

 

[Billy Shears]

^^ Wouldn't one think that all the recent shootings in Free Fir--, I mean gun free zones would make people think: "Oh hey, someone with a gun could've saved some lives."

No, they actually think that would make it worse. Watch the interview Piers Morgan did with Jesse Ventura. There's a point where Ventura says that had he been in the theater in Aurora Colorado, with his concealed handgun, he might have taken the guy out before he could kill so many people. And Morgan leans back, actually looks down his nose at Ventura, and says "or it would have made things even worse, with bullets flying back and forth." Ventura replies, rather effectively I thought, "Well which role of the dice would you prefer?" I do understand the anti-gunners' concern, but I think their logic stinks. Even if the armed good guy missed the bad guy with his first couple of shots and hit a bystander or two behind the suspect, and then stopped him, how would that be worse than a madman walking around unopposed for the next several minutes shooting another dozen or more helpless people like fish in a barrel?

 

[BADUNAME63]

Seems to me that most of the crazy people who go off their rocker and kill randomly are in fact registered LIBERAL Democrats!!! What a surprise right? There are more and more ignorant fools coming of age every day in this country, and they know that the more people who buy into their B.S. the more dangerous the place will be, Plus the U.N. pritty much says we have to comply or get <deleted>. And unfortunately for us, the politicians will suckle at the U.N.'s power tit all day.. The world wants us disarmed.......

 

[Sam1911]

Seems to me that most of the crazy people who go off their rocker and kill randomly are in fact registered LIBERAL Democrats!!! What a surprise right?

Ok. That would be a bit of a surprise if there's a political leaning component to violent forms of mental illness. Do you have any figures to back that up? A list perhaps of mass murderers and their political party affiliations? That would be a heck of a claim to make with no supporting evidence.

There are more and more ignorant fools coming of age every day in this country, and they know that the more people who buy into their B.S. the more dangerous the place will be

Who? People coming of age are getting others to buy into their BS? Can you clarify what you mean here? The sentence is just confusing.

Plus the U.N. pritty much says we have to comply or get <deleted>.

The UN is threatening us? And comply with what? They've not managed to produce an actual disarmament policy to even ask us to comply WITH. And, we happen to be one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, and arguably the most powerful of them, so it seems hard to see that "they" are pushing "us" around. And even if they wanted to, what credible threat does the UN pose to us? We have almost a global monopoly on military force in many ways -- certainly so in global force projection.

And unfortunately for us, the politicians will suckle at the U.N.'s power tit all day.

What power do you feel a US politician can get from the UN? I'm not clear on how you think that relationship works.

The world wants us disarmed......

Eh, a few folks do. Most of the world really doesn't seem to care whether US citizens own guns or not. Most nations have far too much trouble within their own borders to really give a crap about the status of our citizens' rights and liberties.

 

[Avenger29]

Because we're a bunch of cousin humping rednecks to the educated elite. A person with a gun cannot be controlled and they HATE that. It's all about control, make no mistake about it.

THAT is why gun owners are treated as they are.