A Question to Ponder on Miscreant Control

[HayesGreener]

I don't want to start a spitting contest here so please don't go there. But there is a serious question that we must be concerned with as responsible gun owners and advocates for the 2A.

In all my years in law enforcement there are very few things that worry me more than that small percentage of the population who are predators, sociopathic killers, murderous zealots, and just plain violent nut jobs.

If we view the 2nd Amendment in it's most literal sense, there would be no restrictions whatever on possession of weapons. The U.S. Supreme Court has however upheld some restrictions in view of the public safety.

Reasonable people will agree that there are some humans who should not even be at large in society, and we can all agree that some should never be allowed to get their hands on a weapon. The crux of the conflict between 2A advocates and the gun control crowd seems to be a lack of clarity, and a lack of agreement, as to who should and who should not have access to weapons.

The extreme left view that all guns are bad and should be banned, and the extreme right view that everyone should be able to get a gun no matter what, are so far apart that no common ground for dialogue exists. Neither of those conditions will ever exist in an organized society. Attempts to reason with either end of the spectrum from the center will fall on deaf ears and devolve into finger pointing, labeling, and name calling. Nothing good can come from that.

So, how do we come to some common understanding on these issues?

 

[Sld1959]

I would add to your list of people to fear. Those who operate in the sphere of the group such as the mob, the gang. Anywhere that the collective emotion, and knowledge over takes the common sense of the individual. Singly, they might be intelligent and reasonable, collectively they all to often become violent and mindless. There is anonymity, they feed off one another, they are emboldened, they push each other until things they may never think, are done.

Add firearms to such mindless gatherings can be a recipe for disaster. Of course there is the obverse argument where firearms can be the only protection from such mindlessness.

Common ground, will always be hard to find...

 

[Bassbob]

I don't want to start a spitting contest here so please don't go there. But there is a serious question that we must be concerned with as responsible gun owners and advocates for the 2A.

In all my years in law enforcement there are very few things that worry me more than that small percentage of the population who are predators, sociopathic killers, murderous zealots, and just plain violent nut jobs.

If we view the 2nd Amendment in it's most literal sense, there would be no restrictions whatever on possession of weapons. The U.S. Supreme Court has however upheld some restrictions in view of the public safety.

Reasonable people will agree that there are some humans who should not even be at large in society, and we can all agree that some should never be allowed to get their hands on a weapon. The crux of the conflict between 2A advocates and the gun control crowd seems to be a lack of clarity, and a lack of agreement, as to who should and who should not have access to weapons.

The extreme left view that all guns are bad and should be banned, and the extreme right view that everyone should be able to get a gun no matter what, are so far apart that no common ground for dialogue exists. Neither of those conditions will ever exist in an organized society. Attempts to reason with either end of the spectrum from the center will fall on deaf ears and devolve into finger pointing, labeling, and name calling. Nothing good can come from that.

So, how do we come to some common understanding on these issues?

I think the primary discord is that those on the left are under some delusional impression that those murderous and violent nut jobs you speak of will somehow magically be unable to get their hands on a gun if we pass a law. Murder is illegal, yet they still murder. What sane person would believe that a gun law would prevent a gun from getting in the hands of someone like that ? Some of them ( the ones who are actually possibly well intentioned, yet extremely naive, as opposed to the politicians and well funded anti 2A advocates who are also extremely naive, just not as well intentioned) actually believe that restricting law abiding citizens access to guns will result in criminals not having access to guns. This isn't even remotely true in places like England or Australia which can be more easily controlled by the government. There's no way in hell ANY law is going to prevent criminals in the US from getting their hands on guns. Frankly only an idiot would think so.

That leaves us with reality. And the reality is that restricting law abiding citizens from owning a gun would result in massive, MASSIVE increases in violent crime in the US. Especially considering prosecutors, politicians and activists are busy defunding the police and advocating for leniency for criminals.

So in the real world as opposed to the fantasy that many ( including some here) seem to believe is possible, you are left with 2 choices. Either everyone can have guns or no one can have guns. If you prefer the latter, let me refer you to the last two sentences in the first paragraph I wrote.

 

[Sld1959]

I think the primary discord is that those on the left are under some delusional impression that those murderous and violent nut jobs you speak of will somehow magically be unable to get their hands on a gun if we pass a law. Murder is illegal, yet they still murder. What sane person would believe that a gun law would prevent a gun from getting in the hands of someone like that ? Some of them ( the ones who are actually possibly well intentioned, yet extremely naive, as opposed to the politicians and well funded anti 2A advocates who are also extremely naive, just not as well intentioned) actually believe that restricting law abiding citizens access to guns will result in criminals not having access to guns. This isn't even remotely true in places like England or Australia which can be more easily controlled by the government. There's no way in hell ANY law is going to prevent criminals in the US from getting their hands on guns. Frankly only an idiot would think so.

That leaves us with reality. And the reality is that restricting law abiding citizens from owning a gun would result in massive, MASSIVE increases in violent crime in the US. Especially considering prosecutors, politicians and activists are busy defunding the police and advocating for leniency for criminals.

So in the real world as opposed to the fantasy that many ( including some here) seem to believe is possible, you are left with 2 choices. Either everyone can have guns or no one can have guns. If you prefer the latter, let me refer you to the last two sentences in the paragraph above this one.

They think they can regulate morality, and thought with a law.

 

[Bassbob]

They think they can regulate morality, and thought with a law.

Really I think it's all about appearances. It's the same reason why we didn't just overwhelm Iraq and Afghanistan with massive air strikes. Or drop a nuke. People want other people to think they are humane and compassionate. Likewise, people ( including many here) want other people to think/know that they oppose felons or mentally ill or domestic abusers from being able to have a gun. Even though they know ( unless they are stupid AF) that those people can and will and do get guns regardless of federal laws that restrict them from ownership.

 

[KillerFord1977]

I think certain members of society want guns banned so as to not overthrow their vision.

Communism and ban of weapons is an example I think some have as a model to remain in control.

Crime, murder, and gangs never disappear. Look at society's that have banned firearms. Those 3 things persist. What does disappear is society's ability to not be subjugated.

 

[Bassbob]

I think certain members of society want guns banned so as to not overthrow their vision.

Communism and ban of weapons is an example I think some have as a model to remain in control.

Crime, murder, and gangs never disappear. Look at society's that have banned firearms. Those 3 things persist. What does disappear is society's ability to not be subjugated.

Precisely.

 

[benstt]

I don't think you'll reach the people on the far extreme who want to ban everything. The thing to do, in my opinion, is reach the rest. I think the best way to do that is present ourselves a reasonable and not scary. Don't open-carry an AR to lunch at Subway, take the skulls and Punisher stickers off trucks, and generally look and act like we're not preparing for war. Make firearms less scary by not acting like we're planning to use them at the drop of a hat and talk about them in a "it's fun to shoot" way, not a "gotta be ready to shoot somebody" way. Finally, invite people who are scared of guns out to try a .22 or something. My two cents.

 

[Bassbob]

I don't think you'll reach the people on the far extreme who want to ban everything. The thing to do, in my opinion, is reach the rest. I think the best way to do that is present ourselves a reasonable and not scary. Don't open-carry an AR to lunch at Subway, take the skulls and Punisher stickers off trucks, and generally look and act like we're not preparing for war. Make firearms less scary by not acting like we're planning to use them at the drop of a hat and talk about them in a "it's fun to shoot" way, not a "gotta be ready to shoot somebody" way. Finally, invite people who are scared of guns out to try a .22 or something. My two cents.

I can't find anything to disagree with here.

I don't generally tell anyone other than those I am close to ( in real life) what I think about anything. In the context of a forum full of " Gun guys" though I see no reason not too. Barring that the approach you suggest is the approach I generally take.

 

[benstt]

I can't find anything to disagree with here.

I don't generally tell anyone other than those I am close to ( in real life) what I think about anything. In the context of a forum full of " Gun guys" though I see no reason not too. Barring that the approach you suggest is the approach I generally take.

Wow, we arent disagreeing? This is a strange day indeed

 

[Bassbob]

Wow, we arent disagreeing? This is a strange day indeed

I liked this post, but I shouldn't have. Because we have agreed on very many things around here. And I do point them out when it happens.

 

[C. Sumpin]

The more decent/responsible citizens that pack heat (open or concealed) allows me to worry less about the sliver of population who are predators, sociopathic killers, murderous zealots and just plain violent nut jobs.

What worries me more than the above group is Politicians and their (sometimes far) Leftist base that have a fear of firearms and the mistaken notion that they will be more secure it they deny criminals (along with the rest of us) the means of the 2nd A.

Perhaps the best way to desensitize the general public of their fear of firearms is by law abiding neighbors and Patriots making them visible in a polite manner. Hiding or refusing to open carry for fear of startling a Leftie or other ignorant/uninformed person is counterproductive to Law & Order and hinders the 2A enthusiast.

And Mr. Bobs view "I don't generally tell anyone other than those I am close to ( in real life) what I think about anything. In the context of a forum full of " Gun guys" though I see no reason not too." is sage advice in some cases; in other cases we need to speak bullhorn volume when rights are being trampled or denied; as the 1st A and the 2nd A are forever married and if you lose either the other dies with it.

The 1st, 2nd, and all the Amendments are common (and Righteous) ground. Stick with it.

 

[Grifter]

I don't think you'll reach the people on the far extreme who want to ban everything. The thing to do, in my opinion, is reach the rest. I think the best way to do that is present ourselves a reasonable and not scary. Don't open-carry an AR to lunch at Subway, take the skulls and Punisher stickers off trucks, and generally look and act like we're not preparing for war. Make firearms less scary by not acting like we're planning to use them at the drop of a hat and talk about them in a "it's fun to shoot" way, not a "gotta be ready to shoot somebody" way. Finally, invite people who are scared of guns out to try a .22 or something. My two cents.

Well spoken sir.

 

[Bassbob]

The more decent/responsible citizens that pack heat (open or concealed) allows me to worry less about the sliver of population who are predators, sociopathic killers, murderous zealots and just plain violent nut jobs.

What worries me more than the above group is Politicians and their (sometimes far) Leftist base that have a fear of firearms and the mistaken notion that they will be more secure it they deny criminals (along with the rest of us) the means of the 2nd A.

Perhaps the best way to desensitize the general public of their fear of firearms is by law abiding neighbors and Patriots making them visible in a polite manner. Hiding or refusing to open carry for fear of startling a Leftie or other ignorant/uninformed person is counterproductive to Law & Order and hinders the 2A enthusiast.

And Mr. Bobs view "I don't generally tell anyone other than those I am close to ( in real life) what I think about anything. In the context of a forum full of " Gun guys" though I see no reason not too." is sage advice in some cases; in other cases we need to speak bullhorn volume when rights are being trampled or denied; as the 1st A and the 2nd A are forever married and if you lose either the other dies with it.

The 1st, 2nd, and all the Amendments are common (and Righteous) ground. Stick with it.

True enough, but there is no reason for me to tell my neighbor, boss or co-worker that I think all free men should be allowed to have a rocket launcher or a tank if they want and can afford one.

 

[benstt]

I liked this post, but I shouldn't have. Because we have agreed on very many things around here. And I do point them out when it happens.

I was just being a wiseass. We've had a some spirited debates on here and they've always been respectful and in good faith.

 

[David N.]

I don't want to start a spitting contest here so please don't go there. But there is a serious question that we must be concerned with as responsible gun owners and advocates for the 2A.

In all my years in law enforcement there are very few things that worry me more than that small percentage of the population who are predators, sociopathic killers, murderous zealots, and just plain violent nut jobs.

If we view the 2nd Amendment in it's most literal sense, there would be no restrictions whatever on possession of weapons. The U.S. Supreme Court has however upheld some restrictions in view of the public safety.

Reasonable people will agree that there are some humans who should not even be at large in society, and we can all agree that some should never be allowed to get their hands on a weapon. The crux of the conflict between 2A advocates and the gun control crowd seems to be a lack of clarity, and a lack of agreement, as to who should and who should not have access to weapons.

The extreme left view that all guns are bad and should be banned, and the extreme right view that everyone should be able to get a gun no matter what, are so far apart that no common ground for dialogue exists. Neither of those conditions will ever exist in an organized society. Attempts to reason with either end of the spectrum from the center will fall on deaf ears and devolve into finger pointing, labeling, and name calling. Nothing good can come from that.

So, how do we come to some common understanding on these issues?

Hayes, I enjoy your posts. To answer your question, I believe we must be the "Truth Squad" as Tom Gresham of GunTalk puts it. We must dispel the misinformation out there about the 2A and gun ownership. In my experience, if you approach folks with respect they are more willing to hear your side and understand your viewpoint. I have family members on both side of the political spectrum and each side was unaware somewhat of the truths behind their arguments.

 

[TEXASforLIFE]

I'm only so good with a pencil! Very short range protection device!

 

[Pitdogg2]

Take a look at England that has very strict firearm regulations. Now they have strict knife regulations, next they'll need a background check on baseball and cricket bats. Even with the death penalty humans murder one another..... daily!

 

[HayesGreener]

A follow up question. There are state and federal laws that pretty much universally prohibit convicted violent felons (in some states they can regain their civil rights if not a violent felon) from possession of firearms and ammunition. Are those laws in our best interest, or not?

 

[benstt]

A follow up question. There are state and federal laws that pretty much universally prohibit convicted violent felons (in some states they can regain their civil rights if not a violent felon) from possession of firearms and ammunition. Are those laws in our best interest, or not?

I say yes, but I don't agree with the broad definition of "violent felony." If a person decides to commit robbery, burglary, rapez serious assault, or attempted murder we should do all we can to prevent them from having weapons and make the penalties harsh if then do get a weapon.