Think we could reverse the anti gun trend?

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Peeps, we have increasingly more left-of-center gun owners emerging, and most are as rapidly pro-gun as we are. Class III stuff, the whole works.

They are trying to change things from within through education. Frankly, we can't do this as Conservatives. We'd be rejected.

We need these liberal gun owners as allies in this if we're going to come out on top.

Be careful what you wish for. The Right/ Fascists/ White-ethnocetrists/ The Man/Capitalism/Trump/Elon Musk are the perceived threat they are arming against.
There is currently an uneasy detente as the Left recognizes they would soundly lose in an open conflict- for now. But if that calculation changes, they would have no problem taking away all private arms once they feel the Right is no longer a threat. You may regret encouraging them someday.

Which is better, the entire populace disarmed at the mercy of criminals, foreign invaders, and a totalitarian regime or a divided society with all factions armed to the teeth and pointing their muzzles at each other? That didn't turn out great for the Yugoslavs (literally United Slavs).
Hamas loves their guns- doesn't mean its a good thing for anyone, themselves included. Not working out so well for them right now.

An armed citizenry only benefits a society if those arms are kept by those who defend the pillars and tenents of that society and wield them in just cause.

Otherwise, they are just thugs with guns.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

Be careful what you wish for. The Right/ Fascists/ White-ethnocetrists/ The Man/Capitalism/Trump/Elon Musk are the perceived threat they are arming against.
There is currently an uneasy detente as the Left recognizes they would soundly lose in an open conflict- for now. But if that calculation changes, they would have no problem taking away all private arms once they feel the Right is no longer a threat. You may regret encouraging them someday.

Which is better, the entire populace disarmed at the mercy of criminals, foreign invaders, and a totalitarian regime or a divided society with all factions armed to the teeth and pointing their muzzles at each other? That didn't turn out great for the Yugoslavs (literally United Slavs).
Hamas loves their guns- doesn't mean its a good thing for anyone, themselves included. Not working out so well for them right now, is it?

An armed citizenry only benefits a society if those arms are kept by those who defend the pillars and tenents of that society and wield them in just cause.

Otherwise, they are just thugs with guns.

Most of those I've been talking with have more in common with us than anyone would like to admit. The same (correct) distrust of government prevails.

I dunno, man. I started talking with them out of curiosity. Come to find out that, while there are some as you describe, it's not, by far, the majority of them. Most just want firearms to protect themselves and their families, and some to hunt. The primary reason for almost all, though, is the fun behind them.

Most are Libertarian. They have no interest in telling you how to live your life, and only want to be left alone. (Interestingly, they ask me how I can be both a Conservative and a Libertarian. I tell them that they likely have mistaken beliefs as to what being a Conservative means.)

They're an interesting bunch.

 

[The Glockodile]

Otherwise, they are just thugs with guns.

Thinking about it…

…that really might have just been us, all along…

 

[shafter]

That presents a problem. Basically, you're claiming that crime, violence and mass shootings are the things that can drive growth in gun ownership and increase the stakeholders in gun rights. Are you claiming that if crime, violence and episodes of suicidal mass homicide increase, it's better for the gun culture? Would that mean that more violence serves the cause of gun rights? Or would it mean that declining crime, reduction in violence, and effective prevention of massacres would harm the interest of gun rights? Would an expansion of gun rights itself serve as a deterrent to violent crime and ultimately damage the cause of gun rights?

Are second amendment rights tied to either violent crime or hunting? Is the principle behind the second amendment the right cause for limiting government infringement on civil firearms liberties, or do we need hunting or violent crime to be popular?

If you take out self defense and hunting that leaves an incredibly small number of people who are interested in the remaining uses of firearms.

 

[AlexanderA]

If you take out self defense and hunting that leaves an incredibly small number of people who are interested in the remaining uses of firearms.

And you can factor out hunting from that equation. That's because (a) the number of hunters is diminishing and aging out, (b) the kinds of guns that hunters typically use are not the ones directly under threat, and (c) hunting is generally a rural pastime. We need electoral strength in the cities, to offset the antigunners.

Self defense is what's driving 95% of this argument. (And also the vast majority of the sales of new guns. Of the rest, a significant number are bought simply because of the fear they might be banned. Ironically, every push for gun control results in more guns in private hands.)

 

[westernrover]

I agree that the guns hunters use are not the ones directly under threat, at least not at first. If self-defense is driving the case for gun rights, then 10-round Glock 43s and pocket revolvers might be justified, for a while. Can so-called "assault weapons" be justified by the "self-defense" against criminal violence argument? You don't have to convince me. Can you make an argument that appeals to popular sentiment? For 30 round magazines? Doesn't this criminal-defense argument just hold a little ground that is short of what we possess now? How would it justify overturning 1968 and 1934? M-60 machine guns, Uzies, and Tommy guns, short-barreled, select-fire M27's for concealed carry and home defense?

 

[nettlle]

Which of the "gun orgs" aren't dependent on FIREARMS company advertising?
We've thought "gun orgs" would suffice for 60 some years now and we still can't own the guns or accessories that we want.

If the firearms companies would switch their ...advertising.... to BRIBES, (politicians, actors, etc.) there's a possiblity that THOSE kind could influence the public more than all the "orgs" that are collecting dues and getting too little of the results WE need.

Tough nut? Yep!
Probably too late too.

The gun orgs have sufficed for 60 some years. I can still own and buy the guns I want. You need to move to Ohio.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

I agree that the guns hunters use are not the ones directly under threat, at least not at first. If self-defense is driving the case for gun rights, then 10-round Glock 43s and pocket revolvers might be justified, for a while. Can so-called "assault weapons" be justified by the "self-defense" against criminal violence argument? You don't have to convince me. Can you make an argument that appeals to popular sentiment? For 30 round magazines? Doesn't this criminal-defense argument just hold a little ground that is short of what we possess now? How would it justify overturning 1968 and 1934? M-60 machine guns, Uzies, and Tommy guns, short-barreled, select-fire M27's for concealed carry and home defense?

When the issue of capacity is brought up, I demonstrate both a 1911 mag change and loading a Mosin-Nagant from a stripper clip.

Mag capacity is generally just a convenience in civilian scenarios, not a necessity. Plenty of fights have been won with J-frames and speedloaders.

 

[Hasaf]

I really do feel that going "All In" with one political party is going to eventually put us at a disadvantage (. . . put us at a disadvantage; that's polite speak for "a bad idea"). We have to be able to accept that people may have different views on how to create a vibrant and sustainable economy; or have had life experiences that lead them to see certain things differently, yet still be on the same side on second amendment issues. Shutting people out, and purposely making the tent smaller, is not a long-term winning strategy.

Going all in for one party neuters us. Because our vote is guaranteed to one party, they need to do nothing for us. Because our vote is guaranteed to one party, the other needs to do nothing for us. I know a local union rep who has been asked many times to run for a public position by the regional Democratic party. Frankly, he is well-spoken, good-looking, a veteran and an overall good candidate. He is also a great guy to go shooting with.

As he has commented to me, he knows he is entirely unelectable. He is Pro-Public Education D+/R-, Pro-single Payer public health D+/R-, and strongly pro 2nd amendment D-/R-.

Why R-? Because Republicans don't care that he is pro-gun owner's rights. Gun owners don't care that he is pro-gun owner's rights. All it can do is cost a few Democrat votes and the gun owners won't fill the gap. Gun owners would rather see an indifferent toward gun-owners rights Republican than a passionately pro-gun owner's rights Democrat.

Both parties know this, thus we have no leverage with either one. This is not a long-term wining strategy.

 

[AlexanderA]

I agree that the guns hunters use are not the ones directly under threat, at least not at first. If self-defense is driving the case for gun rights, then 10-round Glock 43s and pocket revolvers might be justified, for a while. Can so-called "assault weapons" be justified by the "self-defense" against criminal violence argument? You don't have to convince me. Can you make an argument that appeals to popular sentiment? For 30 round magazines? Doesn't this criminal-defense argument just hold a little ground that is short of what we possess now? How would it justify overturning 1968 and 1934? M-60 machine guns, Uzies, and Tommy guns, short-barreled, select-fire M27's for concealed carry and home defense?

If the "bad guys" have "assault weapons" (certainly true in the case of mass shooters), then there's the justification for the "good guys" to have them as well. Besides that, the horse is already out of the barn and "assault weapons" are in common use. There's simply no way they can be gotten rid of at this stage.

Fully automatic guns are a red herring. I have a bunch of them (as a collector), and I don't see a scenario where they would be more effective than their semiautomatic cousins. Actually they are less effective, when you consider the waste of ammunition. Even in the army they have limited tactical applicability. A civilian with a semiautomatic AR-15 is as well armed, practically speaking, as a person with a full auto M16.

So it would make sense to simply repeal the NFA '34. Or else expand it to include semis, while at the same time reforming it so that it's no more onerous than the current "instant checks."

 

[AlexanderA]

I really do feel that going "All In" with one political party is going to eventually put us at a disadvantage (. . . put us at a disadvantage; that's polite speak for "a bad idea"). We have to be able to accept that people may have different views on how to create a vibrant and sustainable economy; or have had life experiences that lead them to see certain things differently, yet still be on the same side on second amendment issues. Shutting people out, and purposely making the tent smaller, is not a long-term winning strategy.

I agree that it would be good if gun owners had clout with both political parties, and were able to play them off against each other. That was certainly the case back in the 1960's, when the longtime liberal Democratic congressman from Michigan, John Dingell, was on the NRA Board of Directors. That was a different NRA, and a different Democratic Party.

Unfortunately the Democrats, on a national level, have made the choice to go all-in on gun control. So it's not a matter of gun owners shunning the Democrats, but rather of Democrats shunning gun owners. I believe that this is a serious error on the part of the Democrats, but that's a discussion for another place and time.

 

[hso]

we still can't own the guns or accessories that we want.

Interesting statement, but what are you referring to other than new machine guns?
There are regulations on how to own for most of us for some things, except in the few states that flat out ban. "We" in most states can own anything with some simple steps (SBR with Suppressor being a common example). If you live in a state that bans those things, then the state, not the country as a whole is that problem and those of us that live in states that don't outright prohibit are sympathetic.

 

[westernrover]

This is not correct. Joe Biden has said we need F-15's and nukes. I'm not agreeing with him, but a few NFA-permitted toys does not fulfill the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[goon]

This is not correct. Joe Biden has said we need F-15's and nukes. I'm not agreeing with him, but a few NFA-permitted toys does not fulfill the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is about national defense and a check on tyranny, but also about the role one might be expected to uphold as a citizen. It was originally about participating in the nation just as much as voting was. This got lost over time. IMO, really restoring the 2A would require a lot of changes to our national defense and changing some commitments overseas. We’d also probably have to register at least a couple guns each: how could my training be subsidized if the government couldn’t justify the expense? How could I draw ammunition from public stores if no one can verify that I own a 5.56 or 7.62 rifle? How could I be activated for service if my local and regional commanders know nothing about me or my equipment/capabilities? I think there would be some really good things if we started acting in accordance with the 2A, but also some discomfort. I’d hope it would instill some trust and cooperation between the people and the government. I think that would be a bigger win than just being able to have a M240B in my home.

 

[AlexanderA]

The 2nd Amendment is about national defense and a check on tyranny, but also about the role one might be expected to uphold as a citizen. It was originally about participating in the nation just as much as voting was. This got lost over time. IMO, really restoring the 2A would require a lot of changes to our national defense and changing some commitments overseas. We’d also probably have to register at least a couple guns each: how could my training be subsidized if the government couldn’t justify the expense? How could I draw ammunition from public stores if no one can verify that I own a 5.56 or 7.62 rifle? How could I be activated for service if my local and regional commanders know nothing about me or my equipment/capabilities? I think there would be some really good things if we started acting in accordance with the 2A, but also some discomfort. I’d hope it would instill some trust and cooperation between the people and the government. I think that would be a bigger win than just being able to have a M240B in my home.

The "2nd Amendment militia" is a legal fiction: useful in making arcane arguments before originalist judges, but not really practical in real life. Heck, it wasn't really practical even in 1791, and events, such as the War of 1812, proved that soon enough. The United States was never the kind of society (like Switzerland) that could base its entire national defense on a citizen militia. The Founders were hopeless idealists in this regard.

 

[Homerboy]

Honestly, I think this is the beginning of the end. The rabid anti-gunners will say and do anything to meet their goal. They know they’re misleading people. They don’t care. The people in the middle are swayed by the unrelenting anti-gun bias the media and the politicians spew. The pro-gun politicians and people like us are portrayed as blood thirsty child killers. None of it is seriously challenged. Ammo prices and reloading components are going through the roof. Supreme Court decisions are flagrantly ignored. New laws are written to circumvent them. Nobody does anything. Even if the next administration is pro-gun the states will just what they want in violation of federal law. In NYS, 14 counties set the tone and the other 48 counties have no say. And that’s only one state out of many. The residents of Illinois have a FOID card because of the crime in Chicago. The people in NYS have to do a background check to buy a brick of Remington Thunderbolts.

 

[AK Hunter]

The easy way to change the mind of an anti-gunner is to take them shooting & prove everything that the left has told them about guns is false or way over exaggerated.
Like a 9mm won't blow your lungs out or the 5.56x45 is not the super killer bullet, the one I like is all you need for home defence is a shotgun. I know a woman that bought a shotgun & the first time she pulled the trigger on it was the last time she shot it. I showed her how much recoil the AR has & that's what she wanted after that.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

up, competition shooting sports, hunting, and gun safety used to be grade-school activities

This still has the library card in it from when it sat on the book shelf of an elementary school. Just need to figure out how to get it to the kids these day. May a mr. Roger's type show on you tube?

 

[Old Dog]

Honestly, I think this is the beginning of the end.

Sometimes, it almost feels like that. Our culture has become so dumbed down that most citizens actually believe what they see on the TV news and read on the internet.

Look at the situation with the President of Harvard. 50 years ago would this have been tolerated? How about the southern border crisis?

Few people these days are possessed of any critical thinking skills, and the education system ensures our children don't develop them.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

The easy way to change the mind of an anti-gunner is to take them shooting & prove everything that the left has told them about guns is false or way over exaggerated.

That's what I do any time I discuss the topic with an anti-gun person. Then when we've finished up on the range I kindly let them know that even if they didnt change their stance at least they are some what educated.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

Few people these days are possessed of any critical thinking skills, and the education system ensures our children don't develop them.

That's our faults as parents. We allow the school to dictate what's right and wrong and heaven forbid you question it. Since when did that become ok. I know I was raised to be respectful and use tact when questioning something that doesnt seem right.

As far as believing media same thing. There was certain movies I wasnt allowed to watch even with my parents. Not because of gratuitous nudity or gore, but because subject matter above my ability to understand.

I'm not attacking anyone person but all of us. We got complacent or something. I don't know that we're doomed yet but another couple generations and we'll be too far behind to do anything to fix it.

 

[Old Dog]

We got complacent or something.

As a boomer, I suspect that our parents understood we still had role models outside the home -- and our teachers were still trusted. We then gave our children the same leeway, not recognizing until too late that the societal influences - government, educational system, media, had all changed so drastically. My generation grew up trusting each other, trusting in the culture, but endowed with, and encouraged to use, ethics and critical thinking skills. If we made any mistakes, it was in not understanding soon enough that our educational systems, government and media had been co-opted, and were being manipulated by special interest and minority groups with a distinct liberal, anti-gun, anti-liberty, anti-individual, anti-capitalism, anti-law and order, pro-socialist agenda.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

@ old dog. I dont want to derail the thread. However would like to PM to continue the discussion if that's be alright.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

I'm not technologically savvy but anyone intrested checkout the Wilson combat channel on YouTube specifically "Massad Ayoob short answers against gun control and how to defend the second amendment Ep47" and episode 69. I would have linked them but don't know how.

The points Mr. Ayoob makes are spot on. And pertain to this very topic.

 

[hso]

Nobody does anything.

I understand feeling defeated, but FPC and SAF are WINNING in the courts against those working against you and me and the 2A. Support the effective 2A orgs that help the struggle against the Antis. Organizations like, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and groups like Pink Pistols are all doing good work and succeeding in small and large ways.