Hypocritical Gun Owners?

[eventer289]

I was having a conversation with my friend about Students for Concealed Carry on campus, as we were coming back from class today. He himself is a hunter and supporter of CC, but he adamantly defended the Universities right to ban guns on campus. I substantiated my arguments with facts, while he purely made statements on emotion. He ended the argument after I had debunked his statements about CC on college campuses by saying "I'm all for concealed carry, just not on college campuses." I had to get out of the car by that time, but I didn't have time to talk with him about how statements like that are a slippery slope, and that with that mentality, CC could be prohibited everywhere, and that is the first step in outlawing concealed carry. I thought to myself that this is very hypocritical for a gun owner, but he has a history of thinking only traditional hunting rifles are worth having (he got into a big discussion one time about how dumb AR-15's are for hunting).

I also told him I am participating in the April empty holster protest and he couldn't understand why I was doing this since I don't own a handgun yet (I'm only 19). He didn't understand why I would stand up for a right I do not have yet. This reminded me of the saying:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.
Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little.
Then they came for the Catholics, but I was not a Catholic, so I did nothing.
Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

Has anyone else run into this kind of adversity by gun owners? My friend seems to have this attitude that since he does not use guns for defense, there is no need in standing up for the rights of those who do."

 

[easy]

Look up what Jim Zumbo said about ARs. Then see what happened to him and how he reacted.

 

[gunman42782]

Yep, I have had gun owners make statements such as those. Almost everyone I have heard has to do with "assualt weapons". They have been brainwashed by the media and their own ignorance.

 

[crashresidue]

Guess I'm "one of them"!!! I am a full supporter of the 2nd and will do anything to ensure it's survival - BUT - I "limit" the 2nd about "full auto" and "sawed-off shotguns".

Shortly after I got back from Nam, I was approached in down-town DC, while wearing my jungle jacket on the street - by a "brother" who had an M-79, with 150 rounds of HE for sale - for $1,500.

I went home, took out my soul, looked at it REAL hard - and called the FBI and informed them about the availability of this weapon - ON THE STREET!
Told them how to dress and what to look like - it worked - he got busted.

Did I "subvert" the 2nd - I don't think so! I don't see any way that an M-79 falls under the catagory of ANY concept that the planners could have considered - likewise, even though they knew about sustained, cyclic fire from a rank formation of troops - that they could have imagined a full auto weapon.

I know some of you disagree - hey, that's fine with me! Nobody made me GOD - so I can be "wrong" but this is my gut feeling.

Genlte winds,
cr

 

[mike101]

I wouldn't say you subverted the 2nd Amendment. The guy was comitting a federal firearms violation. That's not always immoral (just illegal), but it was this time

The antis are always going on about all of the guns on the street. We counter by pointing out that these guns are not legally owned. You did the right thing IMO.

I have a problem, though, when people talk about the Founders not being able to imagine certain types of firearms, especially when it comes to people like Franklin and Jefferson.

Hell, DaVinci imagined the "machine gun". He even designed a Renaissance version of one.

http://inventors.about.com/od/dstar...nardo-DaVinci/Eight-Barrelled-Machine-Gun.htm

 

[Ian]

Considering individual ownership of cannons at the time, I think a grenade launcher falls pretty easily under the theoretical protection of the 2A.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

Eventer289, I used to be like your friend.

Just keep working with him. He's closer to agreement with SCCC than he is with the Bradies.

Shortly after I got back from Nam, I was approached in down-town DC, while wearing my jungle jacket on the street - by a "brother" who had an M-79, with 150 rounds of HE for sale - for $1,500.

Is this "brother" still in jail?

 

[Army]

If he was Joe Schmo wanting to have a little fun in the hills with HE........why not? What harm would there be? How many Chevy's have been outlawed because they are used in bank robberies and transporting the bodies in the trunk?

It's NOT the machine, but the user. A blooper is less dangerous than a can of gasoline, which can ignite from any high heat or flame source and no external assistance. The blooper MUST have its trigger deliberately pulled to operate.

Of course, known bad guys should already be locked up, not in posession of any firearms. Your "brother" KNEW he was breaking the law, yet did anyway. But the S&W didn't make him do it. It has no conscience nor mind bending abilities.

Been to, or heard of, the Knob Creek shoots? Lots of full-auto, lots of dynamite, lots of tracer, lots of fire, from legally owned and NEVER abused machine guns.

LAW ABIDING means just that, no intent to break the law. The 2ndA assures the right to own and bear arms, be they pitchforks and swords in the heat of an American Revolution battle, or grenade launchers while having fun blowing up old cars in a field.

Before the gun was invented, the English Longbow was considered the worlds most dangerous weapon. France outlawed them, and any enemy archer with one was summarily killed upon capture. Ghengis Kahn ravaged eastern Europe with his precision cavalry and the short but powerful recurve bow, unknown in the western world. David used his quite deadly sling...which superseded the hand thrown rock...to great effect.

Who's to say our Founding Fathers could not foresee the future of arms? Perhaps they fully understood the concept of modernization and moving forward, and wanted to assure future Americans the right to keep and bear these new and wonderful inventions.

But to poo-poo anothers choice in personal arms, and tell us there is NO NEED for such contraptions because what YOU have is good enough.......


...is just plain silly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I was having a conversation with my friend about Students for Concealed Carry on campus, as we were coming back from class today. He himself is a hunter and supporter of CC, but he adamantly defended the Universities right to ban guns on campus.

If I read you right, you think he is a hypocrit because he is a gun owner and yet supports the rights of others as well. He is a hypocrit because he doesn't have the same view on guns rights as you do. That does not make him a hypocrit.

I substantiated my arguments with facts, while he purely made statements on emotion.

I doubt this is completely true, or even if you did just use "facts" in your arguments, you didn't necessarily use relevant facts. What facts do you have to substantiate that a university should not have to regulate what goes on within the boundaries of campus?

 

[buzz_knox]

Did I "subvert" the 2nd - I don't think so! I don't see any way that an M-79 falls under the catagory of ANY concept that the planners could have considered - likewise, even though they knew about sustained, cyclic fire from a rank formation of troops - that they could have imagined a full auto weapon.

As stated above, personally owned cannons were common place when the 2nd Amendment was established. Benjamin Franklin even equipped a vessel with cannons he'd purchased in order to fight the British.

As for fully automatic weapons, the automatic weapon (an early revolver cannon) was invented prior to the American Revolution.

So, legally technically and factually, you are wrong.

The founders had less concept of the Internet or television than they did of automatic weapons or personally owned artillery. So, if you supported banning the Internet/television or regulating discussions on either based on the founder's intent, do you think you would be subverting the 1st Amendment? I would submit that if you say yes to this, then you have to deal with the contradiction inherent in your opposition to the actual scope of the 2nd Amendment.

I almost forgot the comment about "sawed off shotguns." You do understand that rifles having barrel lengths less than 16 inches and shotguns with lengths less than 18 inches were very common in the founders' era? So again, what you believe the founders never intended to be covered were likely the exact weapons they were thinking of.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Did I "subvert" the 2nd - I don't think so! I don't see any way that an M-79 falls under the catagory of ANY concept that the planners could have considered

Except you DO understand that for the moment M79s are still legal if you follow the right procedure, so are the rounds for it.

If the founders didn't plan on it why are the legal today?

That argument doesn't sell. Yes the NFA is too restrictive certainly, but the argument that grenade launchers are too dangerous for civilians to own is silly, since there are lots of them out there.

Once again, it's criminals that are the problem

Only 2 crimes committed with legally owned NFA items, one by a cop.

Keep that in mind when the machinegun, rocket launcher, grenade launcher stuff comes up. They are already legal, and there are lots out there, and they never hurt anyone.

 

[Bubbles]

I fully support the right of a privately-funded university to have its own policies with respect to firearms on campus. This is no different from any other private property owner making such a choice.

Once that university accepts public funding then IMO it's no longer private property.

 

[eventer289]

If I read you right, you think he is a hypocrit because he is a gun owner and yet supports the rights of others as well. He is a hypocrit because he doesn't have the same view on guns rights as you do. That does not make him a hypocrit.

I said he was a hypocrite because he says he is all for concealed carry, yet he thinks that concealed carry should be should be banned in many different areas. How can you be "all for concealed carry" yet not stand up for the right to carry on campuses.

I doubt this is completely true, or even if you did just use "facts" in your arguments, you didn't necessarily use relevant facts. What facts do you have to substantiate that a university should not have to regulate what goes on within the boundaries of campus?

I fail to see how you can presuppose that I did not use relevant facts.

He said more guns on campus would escalate violence. I said there is no proof of this is on the campuses that do allow CC and in CC across the country in general.

He said CC would make people uncomfortable. I said that there are people CC'ing everywhere else in the state and does that make him uncomfortable going everywhere else (movie theaters, stores, etc)?

Basically he ran down the typical list that anti-CC on campus people use, and I tried to refute to the best of my abilities his preconceived notions with the large amount of reading I have done on the subject and on CC in general.

I said he is hypocritical because he states he is "all for concealed carry," yet he criticizes me for standing up for that right, even though I myself do not have that right yet. I also said he is hypocritical because he says he supports the rights of hunters, yet criticizes people's weapon selection based on an appearance.

 

[Conqueror]

You should tell him "I'm all for hunting, but not near bodies of water" and see how he reacts.

 

[esq_stu]

IMO, The desire to control or be controlled is emotional and not rational. You just can't shake certain ideas.

Some would say the desire to NOT be controlled is also emotional.

But see Mamet's article, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full, Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'.

"These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the #$%^&* up. "?" she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place."

. . .

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

. . .

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

People need to have more faith that people will solve generally their problems and government will cause more problems than they solve. Yet, clearly even gun owners can lapse into forgetting this. And oh, how the media makes this worse.

I have had the gun control debate with my brother-in-law for years. "Brain-dead" is the appropriate term. A classic example - I cannot convince my Holocaust survivor brother-in-law why Obama should not be willing sit down and negotiate with A'm a Dinner Jacket (say it fast) over in Iran when the man wants to nuke 6 million Jews in Israel. If people can think this way, how one ever convince them people should be free to be armed?

 

[bnkrazy]

I fully support the right of a privately-funded university to have its own policies with respect to firearms on campus. This is no different from any other private property owner making such a choice.

Once that university accepts public funding then IMO it's no longer private property.

This is the key. Public funding in my view removes the private property status. Once an entity receives public funding, they are or should be subject to the same rules that other public spaces are subject to.

In VA, there is only one University that prohibits CCW via state law (VCU). All other bans are school policy only and carry a maximum punishment of a misdemeanor trespass charge if you don't leave when asked (if they catch you carrying). Of course, you'll be expelled, but I think there are quite a few people nowadays that are willing to take that risk.

Regarding the original topic, I think that gun owners do ourselves a great disservice by not banding together to support all legal gun ownership activities, regardless of whether they are personally interested in the activity.

United we stand, divided...

 

[JerryM]

I come down on the side of regulation of full autos, grenade or rocket launchers, and sawed off shotguns. If that makes me a hypocrite then color me one.

I support CCW on college campuses.
Jerry

 

[TexasRifleman]

I come down on the side of regulation of full autos, grenade or rocket launchers, and sawed off shotguns. If that makes me a hypocrite then color me one.

Maybe just uneducated on the subject.

It would take what, 5 minutes and a hacksaw for a criminal to make a sawed off shotgun?

Gonna regulate that? Outlaw hacksaws?
I want to see a law against criminals, they should have to register, that would fix it.

Criminals are pretty much going to break the law, surprisingly enough.

 

[Niner]

Crashresidue

Shortly after I got back from Nam, I was approached in down-town DC, while wearing my jungle jacket on the street - by a "brother" who had an M-79, with 150 rounds of HE for sale - for $1,500.

I'd have turned him in too. It wasn't just that the M79 was illegal to own, it was no doubt stolen from the military. Now AK47's...... I knew some guys in Vietnam who came by them in combat and attempted to send them home some way, although they weren't legal as war trophies. If they made it home, I'd be the last one to turn the "owners" in if I was aware of their success.

As to the original question, I don't see a school restricting the otherwise legal carry of weapons any more wrong than I would a hospital that would say, "Ok, Mr. Jones, if you want us to remove your galbladder you have to take off your clothes and get into this gown ....and....by the way, remove the pistol too."

 

[jackstinson]

I don't see any way that an M-79 falls under the catagory of ANY concept that the planners could have considered - likewise, even though they knew about sustained, cyclic fire from a rank formation of troops - that they could have imagined a full auto weapon.

There were several types of "machine guns" prior to our founding father's creating the 2nd Amendment. The "Ribauldequin" (or organ gun) was a typical volley gun first used in battle in 1339! There were variations on that theme which were indeed full-auto. Guns with parallel barrels fired by lighting one fuse...which had each barrel firing in succession...full-auto. My personal favorite early "machine gun" was the Puckle Gun, by James Puckle in 1718. Okay, it wasn't full-auto, but it was by comparison at the time. Imagine in 1718 a tripod-mounted, 1.25 caliber flintlock gun with a multi-shot revolving cylinder, designed for shipboard use to prevent boarding. It used pre-loaded 'cylinders' which held 11 charges and with these it could fire 63 shots in 7 minutes! Think about that; 63 shots in 7 minutes was even more astounding at that time than an M-79 is today. I wonder if anyone has brought a Puckle Gun to Knob Hill?
Jack

 

[IllHunter]

I planned one thing then saw the previous post

I fully support the right of a privately-funded university to have its own policies with respect to firearms on campus. This is no different from any other private property owner making such a choice.

Once that university accepts public funding then IMO it's no longer private property.

Would that still be your view if the item banned was the bible or your medication?

Now for the previous post.

I have had the gun control debate with my brother-in-law for years. "Brain-dead" is the appropriate term. A classic example - I cannot convince my Holocaust survivor brother-in-law why Obama should not be willing sit down and negotiate with A'm a Dinner Jacket (say it fast) over in Iran when the man wants to nuke 6 million Jews in Israel. If people can think this way, how one ever convince them people should be free to be armed?

Brain dead is correct, some don't think at all, just "feel". I cannot understand Jews who don't remember, what happened to "never forget" I gave our reform temple a breast plate and iod to honor my daughters Bat Mitzvah. We were given an alia and sat on the bema during high holiday services. The rabbi sermon included the story of a prodigal son whom the rabbi explained was cast out for "playing" with another child of the household. He explained that the translation was lacking and that "playing" with meant in a sexual way. This got the attention of the congregation, I was sitting facing them in the H. S. Auditorium (Cap 3500) and full. Then as now, I am an outspoken 2nd Am supporter, life member NRA etc. The sermon went on about how the boy was eventually forgiven and returned to the family. He then segued to how we must forgive those sexual predators in our society (This really tweaked the crowd!) and further we must "break the back of the NRA and get guns off our streets." My 10 year old son turned tome and said "He's talking about Us!" I was livid. My wife now ex, tried to assuage me and I stewedfor the balance of the sermon. As we joined Rabbi to open the ark, I told him my displeasure he offered me a chance to discuss it in his study. I told him I wanted to address the assembly. He said no and at my wifes strong urging, I gave in and fumed the remainder of the day. It did'nt help when my friends in the congregation saw me after and expressed how "We thought your head was going to explode" I contacted the rabbi to discuss his beliefs and he put me off several times. It seems he had other things to do as he was discovered in flagrante dilecto with the Board president's wife. Seems he could be considered one of those needing forgivness for sexual escapades.I left the congregation and wound uo divorcing for many instances where my ex thought I was "too" caught up with guns and politics". The moral of the story is "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."

 

[Soybomb]

He's 90% of the way there already, if you can talk some convincing arguments with him you'll probably win him over.

 

[Harve Curry]

Moonshiners didn't pay the Tax on liqour, the brother didn't pay the Tax on the M79 & ammo = a class 3 destructive device.

Sawed of or short barreled smooth bores/shotguns have been used long before our Bill of Rights.

 

[Beatnik]

He didn't understand why I would stand up for a right I do not have yet.

Stop thinking like that.
You absolutely do have the right to carry a handgun.
If you choose to exercise that right, you'll be punished. But that doesn't mean you don't have the right.
You're not magically granted new rights at the completion of your 18th or 21st trip around the sun. They just stop preventing you from or punishing you for using them.

 

[JesseL]

Did I "subvert" the 2nd - I don't think so! I don't see any way that an M-79 falls under the catagory of ANY concept that the planners could have considered

Flintlock grenade launcher, circa 1671:

An M-79 doesn't seem like all that much of a leap from what was commonly available at the time the Constitution was drafted.