Olympic shooting competition and societal questions

[yokel]

You can talk about 2A all you please, there are some people just not listening.

It shows that a significant percentage of Americans need to take a civics refresher course. For a nation with so many smart people in it, it’s amazing how little some of us know.

 

[Baron_Null]

It shows that a significant percentage of Americans need to take a civics refresher course. For a nation with so many smart people in it, it’s amazing how little some of us know.

And? What's the plan for that, exactly?

What you seem to be missing here is that nobody here is questioning the intent and importance of the second amendment, but are instead talking about how to introduce those who are anti-gun to the idea of the second amendment without turning them off from it.

You have to remember that a large percentage of people have been more or less trained to associate arguments concerning freedom and defense against tyranny with stereotyped "nut jobs" and the like. What we're trying to emphasize here is the avenues through which people can be reached via that initial point of contact so that way they will be more likely to listen to other arguments in the future.

Yes, you have to be careful not to over emphasize the sporting aspects of firearms ownership lest it be misunderstood as the only important aspect, but similarly impassioned speeches about the role of government and the importance of the Constitution aren't going to do much to help our cause.

 

[ACP]

hso, as much as I agree with you, Donald Trump set back gun owners 100 years today.

We have a mountain's worth of facts and wonderful examples like the Olympic gold medal.

But all it takes is one statement like that to destroy it all.

Not trying to be political, just putting it in another context.

Mods, please edit as you see fit.

 

[Fireforger]

I've changed my mind about supporting the right to keep and bear arms. That phrase has been floated so much that it has lost it's real meaning. So I don't use that phrase. I DO use the correct, constitutional language: The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Yeah, I know what we gun owners mean when we say "right to keep and bear arms" in our circles but maybe we need to emphasize the rest of the language, "of the people."

Speaking of which, I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I have read all the pertinent stuff about how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted, but I've often wondered about that comma (between State and the people). Perhaps the first part of the sentence was meant to imply that because a well-regulated militia is necessary to secure our free State, the people have a right to be armed in the event the well-regulated powers that be decide to rule oppressively and without restraint. That way, we the people can do something about it and would not be under-gunned.

In this case (with which I agree), the 2A has nothing whatsoever to do with anything except stating the obvious: that the people should, without infringement, be armed in order to restrain (by fear and intimidation, if necessary) those who wish to rule outside the margins of the Constitution. Do not those who wish to rub out the 2A fear and tremble because of a polite, armed society? Just think what things would be like if there was no such thing as the 2A. As an American, I can't even go there, nor do I want to (thank you Founding Fathers).

It's a fresh debate but I personally hold to the premise that the Second Amendment empowers the people to be able to themselves suppress wayward militaries (i.e. coups) and thwart runaway governments (i.e. those who want to selfishly rule rather than selflessly lead). Sports, home defense, hunting, etc. are just the beneficiary of the power of the Second Amendment; and gun crimes and shooting victims are the unfortunate results of fallible people trying to secure freedom for all.

 

[yokel]

And? What's the plan for that, exactly?

What you seem to be missing here is that nobody here is questioning the intent and importance of the second amendment, but are instead talking about how to introduce those who are anti-gun to the idea of the second amendment without turning them off from it.

You have to remember that a large percentage of people have been more or less trained to associate arguments concerning freedom and defense against tyranny with stereotyped "nut jobs" and the like. What we're trying to emphasize here is the avenues through which people can be reached via that initial point of contact so that way they will be more likely to listen to other arguments in the future.

Yes, you have to be careful not to over emphasize the sporting aspects of firearms ownership lest it be misunderstood as the only important aspect, but similarly impassioned speeches about the role of government and the importance of the Constitution aren't going to do much to help our cause.

If we fight the ensuing battle as if the war the leftists are waging against us is about guns, we will lose the battle and the war with it. But if we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war. To do so we must promote the simple truth: The alternative to gun control is self-control; the key to self-control is moral understanding and self-discipline; and the key to both is citizen education. That course of education must be implemented at the level of self-government closest to home, and it must have first among its stated objectives the formation of a citizen body armed, educated and morally capable of being the “well-regulated militia” the Second Amendment prudently proclaims to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

 

[OldMac]

The most positive impact of olympic and publicized competition shooting is exposure of the public and the competitors in a non-violent context. It fosters tolerance and normalcy instead of the shock and fear. Don Trump was right to drop the reference to the last resort for America to resist tyranny. Let folks stew and maybe even research. I am happy to hear that he now understands the true purpose of the 2a. Ben Carson also shocked the media when he explained his epiphany on live tv. I do not fault politicians for learning late in life. We should support folks like Don and Ben because they have the publics attention longer than the olympics have the focus now. Every opportunity to show shooting is normal, good, safe, and necessary is a win for the 2a. The gold medalist made a point in her interview to explain how mental the sport really was in competition. "Anyone can shoot a 10". But it takes great concentration to shoot 10 consistently.

 

[ATLDave]

We've already lost it all if the plan is to deliberately distort the true historical record. The leftist historical negationism that you espouse is a form of historical revisionism that presents a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.

Do you not understand the concept that there can be more than one argument in support of a position?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

What Trump said verbatim:

“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the 2nd Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the 2nd Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know. But — but I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now we're tied. You see what's going on. We're tied ’cause Scalia — this was not supposed to happen.”*

How Democrats spun it:*

Chris Murphy: "Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis."

Elizabeth Warren: "Donald Trump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl."

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook: “This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way,”*

How NRA spun it:*

NRA : Donald Trump is right. If Hillary Clinton gets to pick her anti-2A SCOTUS judges, there’s nothing we can do. Never Hillary
But there IS something we will do on Election Day: Show up and vote for the 2A! Defend the Second - Never Hillary


I think riffing off the Democrat spin that Trump was calling for a "2A Solution -- watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" -- this is like the old Brady Campaign claim that Leroy Pyle threatened to kill the Bradys. It's just not there in the original quote in context. I really hate having to talk about Trump -- my son hates him -- but fair is fair. This is campaign rhetoric. Stuff that could be bagged and sold at Farm Supply as manure.
______________________________________________
* Jill Ornitz, "His exact words: A closer look at Donald Trump's 2nd Amendment comments", Los Angeles Times, 9 Aug 2016.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...ry-clinton-rally-20160809-snap-htmlstory.html

 

[natman]

It shows that a significant percentage of Americans need to take a civics refresher course. For a nation with so many smart people in it, it’s amazing how little some of us know.

Again, you're absolutely right, but that doesn't mean it's not a reality that has to be dealt with.

The constitutional basis is crucial, but this battle has to be fought on other fronts as well and acknowledging that fact doesn't compromise the constitutional issue.

 

[yokel]

Do you not understand the concept that there can be more than one argument in support of a position?

Don't you comprehend that the most important purpose and effect of the Second Amendment’s recognition of the people’s right to keep and bear arms is its contribution to the morale of those inclined to defend their liberty? It allows people unmistakably to recognize the unlawful nature of edicts that purport to disarm the people. It encourages and justifies them as they point out this lawlessness, and as they resist it. It highlights the connection between the people’s arms and the security of their state or condition of freedom. It invites them to discern and articulate the arguments, based on rational principles and actual experience, which prove the essential truth of this connection. In this way it encourages people to arm themselves with logic, reason and sensible proof against lawless efforts to eviscerate their capacity to defend themselves and their freedom, individuadlly or in association with one another.

 

[ATLDave]

Don't you comprehend that the most important purpose and effect of the Second Amendment’s recognition of the people’s right to keep and bear arms is its contribution to the morale of those inclined to defend their God-endowed liberty?

Yes. But since we're not talking about arguments to a court about the meaning of that amendment, and are talking about societal attitudes towards guns in general, that's hardly the only relevant argument. Nor is it the argument that is likely to sway many fence sitters.

If you're trying to rile up people who already share your views, banging on about what you think is the most important point is fine. If you're trying to persuade as many people as possible, you need to make as many different solid, non-inconsistent arguments as possible. "Guns are used for fun, and are used that often WAY more often than they are used to rob liquor stores or shoot people in schools" is true, relevant, and often-overlooked by people.

In contrast, nobody is UNaware of your argument. Those who aren't persuaded by it aren't going to be persuaded just because you holler louder, and certainly not because you shout down other pro-gun facts and arguments.

 

[yokel]

Yes. But since we're not talking about arguments to a court about the meaning of that amendment, and are talking about societal attitudes towards guns in general, that's hardly the only relevant argument. Nor is it the argument that is likely to sway many fence sitters.

If you're trying to rile up people who already share your views, banging on about what you think is the most important point is fine. If you're trying to persuade as many people as possible, you need to make as many different solid, non-inconsistent arguments as possible. "Guns are used for fun, and are used that often WAY more often than they are used to rob liquor stores or shoot people in schools" is true, relevant, and often-overlooked by people.

In contrast, nobody is UNaware of your argument. Those who aren't persuaded by it aren't going to be persuaded just because you holler louder, and certainly not because you shout down other pro-gun facts and arguments.

Please don't attempt to lecture me or pretend to be a spokesperson for "fence sitters".

It seems evident that you've been bullied and intimidated by the torrents of leftist propaganda, slander, deceit, vitriol and sometimes outright cruelty directed towards Second Amendment advocates.

Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the Second Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be candid and sincere about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. The issue is further complicated by the fact that a significant proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they perhaps see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the Second Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an anachronism.

The Second Amendment is always susceptible to tyrants and is particularly vulnerable if too many of us are ignorant of its core purpose.

 

[ATLDave]

I'm NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT the meaning of the second amendment. You're having an argument about something we don't even disagree about. I know exactly what the core purposes of the 2nd amendment were.

Just as I know that political speech was the core motivation for the free speech component of the 1st amendment... and yet people widely (and correctly) believe that free NON-political speech is also important and worth protecting. When someone points out that artistic free speech is worthwhile and good, that doesn't mean they're denigrating political speech or have been "bullied" or whatever you're talking about.

 

[yokel]

There are many people who are uncomfortable with guns and aren't going to be swayed by the "sometimes some people need shooting" argument.

You decided to caricature and misrepresent my argument in manner similar to what leftists routinely do which portrays Second Amendment advocates as violent and dangerous extremists.

 

[ATLDave]

Oh, goodness.

 

[yokel]

If your plan to win the POLITICAL battle over gun control begins and ends with tri-cornered hats and calls to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, you're going to lose a lot.

Pooh-pooh it all you want, however, snide remarks like "tri-cornered hats" and "water the tree of liberty..." are reminiscent of the deliberate often malicious belittling one would expect from the leftists.

 

[ACP]

I do like MIke ODTP's idea of using the Olympic gold in air rifle as an "icebreaker." Everyone wants to be patriotic and support America -- you can't deny an athlete's talent and success just because it involved a projectile.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My views on what RKBA means are colored by what I grew up with: it began with my dad teaching me safe gun handling in 1954 and me going hunting with Uncle Ed and his dog Henry, and included respect for Rob Williams for standing against the KKK in Monroe County NC.

The Tennessee Constitution, Article I Rights of the Citizen, Section 26 Right to Keep and Bear Arms, states the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and the legislature has the power to regulate arms use in public with a view to prevent crime. By court rulings, attorney general opinions, and statements of legislative intent, regulation must affect criminal use without unduly restricting lawful, traditional ownership and use of arms (including hunting, self-defense against attack by human or animal, protecting livestock from predators, civilian marksmanship training prepatory to military service, collection as curio or ornament). Apparently lawful use included the rebellion by the GI NonPartisan League at Athens, Aug 1946. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Either we support all lawful traditional uses of arms, or we lose those rights one by one, people. No picking where RKBA begins or ends and no limiting to one or the other. Our opposition sees the Heller and McDonald decisions ((a) the right of the people is an individual right and (b) prohibition is not reasonable regulation) as wrongly decided and want to overturn them ((a) no right to bear arms for you and (b) bans are OK with us). They want either to repeal the Second Amendment (Rep. Major Owns, Alan Dershowitz, et al.) or to admend it to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed" (Justice John Paul Stevens).

Ultimately, the choice is between the constitution of Jefferson and Madison, government of the people by the people for the people protected by volunteers raised from the people, or the living constitution evolving into Hobbes and Webber, absolute state justified by monopoly on force, government of the people by the government for the government protected by forces loyal to the government against the people.

The soap box is working.
The ballot box will work if you bother to vote.
The bullet box is for the gravest extreme and we're not there, so please no more. But as I recall it was liberal skeptics who researched and discovered that the founders intended RKBA as a guard against tyranny.

 

[jamesjames]

Ah.... speaking of the Olympics and popularizing shooting sports...

Have you noticed the firearms, bows (for archery) and the uniforms. They are colorful if not gaudy. Shooting shirts don't look like shooting shirts of yesteryear. They look like bowling shirts. Does everything have to look like NASCAR, covered in racing stripes, bright/contrasting colors, and advertising?

Maybe this is one way to appeal to the masses--- don't make it look like the military. Make it look like your local bowling league instead. Break up the tradition contours, colors and textures of rifles and bows. Make them candy-colored so they look nothing like the marines or the gang-bangers on the evening news.

 

[Snyper]

Maybe this is one way to appeal to the masses--- don't make it look like the military.

Most of the shooting sports will never "appeal to the masses" because they are mostly too boring to watch.

Put a young girl in tights, let her do a triple back flip, and then put 5 quick shots in the 10 ring, and people will watch

 

[ATLDave]

Go to a USPSA or even 3-gun match, and you'll see all kind of crazy color schemes on shirts and guns alike. Not to mention holsters, mag pouches, etc.

 

[mp510]

Originally Posted by P5 Guy View Post
Didn't an Olympian pistol shooter have to leave California because the pistol had the magazine before the trigger instead of the grip frame?

Possibly, but probably not. The CA Department of Justice has a list of exempted target pistols.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/op.pdf

The exemption for certain target pistols used in international shooting was a response to the situation P5guy was referring to, wherein California's then new assault weapon feature ban effectively forced an Olympic shooter out of state. It was well publicized when it happened.

 

[JTHunter]

Carl N. Brown said: (snip)

What Trump said verbatim:

“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the 2nd Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the 2nd Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know. But — but I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now we're tied. You see what's going on. We're tied ’cause Scalia — this was not supposed to happen.”*

How Democrats spun it:*

And Hitlery made reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in California in June, 1968, when other dems were trying to convince her to back out before the CA primary. This is when she was running against Dumbo in 2008 and she referred to Bill not clinching the nomination in 1992 until the CA primary. She couldn't see any reason to back out as "anything could happen" like it did to RFK.