Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

[gatlingun6]

I agree with you about the black market, but there has to be an appropriate balance between barriers to access and it being too cumbersome for ordinary citizens. I find the current background check acceptable.
If someone asks me for my permit, I will gladly and proudly provide it for inspection. It is a part of making carry an accepted norm in public. It reassures them.

I am glad to see you admit that additional laws will have no effect on criminals. Where we disagree is imposing additional requirements for background checks, permits, etc. that you find to be "reasonable".

You seem to propose that we, as gun owners, should be willing to sacrifice some of our liberties for security.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Let me see, there isn't a single law, or regulation on the books that's not violated, so we should repeal all laws and regulations by that theory. They should apparently be replaced with laws and regulations that are obeyed by everyone. I guess the test is, if people obey it, it's good, if not it's bad.

Second we use the terms "criminal" and "law abiding gun owner" as if they are fixed in time and mutually exclusive. It seems that what some want is a totally deregulated gun market. It seems we want regulations lifted so these "law abiding gun owners" can engage in what some of them already do, and that's assisting in putting guns in the hands of those who will likely use them for ill ends. Further, a"law abiding gun owner" is one trigger pull away from being charged and convicted. At which time he or she becomes a criminal.

We don't make laws because of what criminals may or may not do. Here's the problem, from tracking gun records we know that virtually all guns purchased from FLL holders are sold to individuals who overwhelmingly are law abiding citizens. If that's so, then how do people who commit crimes get guns? In 3 ways, one they get them from otherwise law abiding citizens by theft, or by legal purchase from law abiding citizens, or law abiding citizens commit a criminal act. Rather than make a couple of obvious improvements to the system, gun owners, and manufacturers fight fiercely to limit the effectiveness of the law, so they can then say the system is not effective.

In the end so-called law abiding gun owners seem to want to decrease the expense of buying a gun and while increasing the ease in buying a gun for all citizens, including those with criminal backgrounds, or demonstrated mental problems.

Gat6

[Chasbo00]

Question – What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

[gatlingun6]

"Why do you keep repeating a line that does not mean the right is unfettered. You do not have a God given, or natural right to carry an arm, any arm of your choice where ever you choose."

Soooo What you're saying is you trust the government to determine what is "Reasonable", because you cannot trust yourself, or other people.

Okay.

We believe completely different. I will not try to change your mind, stop writing books about how you're right, because in the logics of other's who disagree, you're wrong.

At some point, you're beating a dead horse, Let it go.

**************************************************************************************************************************
Do you remember what President Reagan said? Trust but verify. Since our government did not descend from outer space, it was elected by us. It was not imposed on us by some foreign country either. It is OUR government. If we muster the effort we can change it, that's the way it was designed. Do you have another way? Would you prefer that there was no government, and it's every person for themself? Of course, the fact is since the voting age was lowered to 18, we have never had more than 50% of all eligible to vote, vote. So if there's a problem, it's with us.

You see the elite would rather we argue over social issues and other red herrings while most of the wealth trickle up to the top quintile and within that group to the top 1% mostly. Michele Bachmann even used the term "trickle down" to state how the other 4 quintiles can share in the wealth. In essence the workers are chumps, serfs, ones with no rights, who should be quiet and be happy that the elite allow some crumbs to fall off the table that we can fight over.

There's no right or wrong here, I'm saying it is what it is, and no amount of rhetoric can change that. We live in a Constitutional Liberal Democratic Republic, that has plenty of features that are anti-democratic. That's the reality of it. Like it or not we are all subject to it until such time as we PEACEABLY change it, if that's what we want. That has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the Constitution as it stands.

I guess you missed my apology, in an earlier post I pointed out that SCOTUS opined in Heller and MacDonald that we have a natural right, which does not automatically mean from a Christian God, to self defense but they went on to stipulate that it is not an UNFETTERED right. So I was wrong in saying that you don't have a natural right in this regard.

In the end I'm saying it doesn't matter if you or I trust the government in the short run, of course the next time gun rights are argued before SCOTUS, you could file a brief to support the plaintiff through a lawyer. Or you can bring suit now, and argue that you have a right, which cannot be regulated to own and carry a gun. You would have a high legal bar to overcome, because that has already been argued in lower courts and failed.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

Question – What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

******************************************************************************************************************************
I'm sure you reversed that on purpose since it's pessimists who whine, not Optimists. I'm not the one who wants to return to the Articles of Confederation, or to the good ole days that never existed. I'm the one who accepts the Constitution as is, warts and all. I accept it because the history of our imperfect Republic is that in the end, no matter how slowly and how painful, there are always Americans who push us towards that ideal, that more perfect union.

Think about it,40 years ago did anyone imagine that Gays would serve openly in the Armed Forces? Did anyone even think that Gays would be able to marry? In another 40 years Americans will ask what on earth was that all about, of course Gays should have a right to marry, and serve in the Armed Forces. Here's where I actually agree with Ron Paul. While progress is never fast enough for most of us, in the long run, as terrible as it may seem, as long as the move is up and not back down we'll be a better country. You won't hear us talking about we need to take our country back, or it's all the government's fault, nor will you hear us talking about 2d Amendment remedies. We may be disappointed, and deeply frustrated at times, but we are not fueled chiefly by anger towards our fellow Americans. That's an indelible lesson that 600,000 dead Americans taught.
Gat6

[arkypete]

That'll do, pig.

It's just the way things are...

I'm on my second cup of coffee.
Can you explain this to me?

Jim

[Palladin]

It's a line from the '95 movie 'Babe', where the pig was trying to be a sheepdog.
When Babe finally got it right, Farmer Hoggett said the first quote.

The second quote is from the mice between scenes...

Dems is trying to be something he's not, but he's putting forth a capital effort. If he ever gets it right, first quote... if he doesn't, well that's just the way things are.

Oh well, guess you had to be there...

[dems4guns]

"You know, for the last hundred years there has been entirely too much Promoting of the General Welfare and Creating a More Perfect Union and way too damned little Securing of the Blessings of Liberty."
Tamara K. - view from the porch

Let me check: Yep, they all go together in the same sentence....just checking. It's not a matter of which one wins out. It is a matter of working to meet all the goals of the Constitution, including securing the blessings of liberty AND General Welfare AND creating a better Union.

Can't anyone on this board be balanced?
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

Personally I go with the T shirt wisdom:
Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Jim

Please don't dehumanize anyone. No one here is a pig, pygmy, alient or inhuman.
Dems4Guns

[dems4guns]

Question – What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Insulting. Stop it.
And, avoids real discussion of real issues and ones that we can actually agree about.

Dems4Guns

[zephyp]

Watch yerself fellers...there be a new sheriff in town.....

[gunderwood]

Let me see, there isn't a single law, or regulation on the books that's not violated, so we should repeal all laws and regulations by that theory.

You missed the point. The argument that gun laws don't reduce gun crime in any meaningful way exists and has been examined exactly because anti-gunners put forth the argument. Most of the data now backs that up. It's a counterpoint to an argument showing that the argument is false. It is not a generic argument for all laws.

Furthermore, we don't pass laws making murder illegal under the guise that it will reduce murders. Those sort of mala in se laws exist because murder is inherently unethical; it causes real harm to another human being. Punishing the harm and restoring the individual harmed (if possible) is the purpose of those laws. The actions are wrong in of themselves because they harm other human beings.

Gun laws fall under malum prohibitum, aka state prohibitions. By definition, state prohibitions are inherently anti freedom as they seek to prohibit actions or property for which there was no harm; no ethical violation. Unlike murder, which is wrong in of itself, owning a firearm is not. It may be illegal, but the simple act of owing a firearm does not harm anyone else. These sorts of prohibitions require some silly rationalization to "justify" their existence. For gun laws it has been that they will reduce crime and that has been shown to be false. It was and is a silly and false argument designed to appeal to emotion rather than logic...experiences in the real world back it up too. There are lots of things that on the face of them they appear valid, but a further analysis shows them to be absurd. Such is the case with gun laws and all such arbitrary prohibitions.

[gunderwood]

"You know, for the last hundred years there has been entirely too much Promoting of the General Welfare and Creating a More Perfect Union and way too damned little Securing of the Blessings of Liberty."
Tamara K. - view from the porch

Let me check: Yep, they all go together in the same sentence....just checking. It's not a matter of which one wins out. It is a matter of working to meet all the goals of the Constitution, including securing the blessings of liberty AND General Welfare AND creating a better Union.

Can't anyone on this board be balanced?
Dems4Guns

Why would the founders create a Union unless it secured the blessings of liberty? TJ explains it in the DOI, governments are empowered and exist to secure liberty for the people who created it. The whole creating a better Union was made up much later (approx. Civil War) as a statist excuse to crush liberty and further empower the state.

Edit: Creating a more perfect Union == increasing the power of the state at the expense of the people's liberty. Yes, I realize that it's part of the preamble, but the way you intended it and the what it has meant for the reasonable past is not what was originally intended. Kind of like "shall not be infringed" now means "reasonable infringements."

[OakRidgeStars]

13 pages so far... someone bump the broken record for me, will ya...

[OleMan]

13 pages so far... someone bump the broken record for me, will ya...

Consider it bumped, and for good reason. Old men like me been lied to, ridden herd on, and robbed way to long to listen to any more broken records!!

[Palladin]

13 pages so far... someone bump the broken record for me, will ya...

Consider it bumped, and for good reason. Old men like me been lied to, ridden herd on, and robbed way to long to listen to any more broken records!!

Didn't Broken Records have a jazz label called 'Brown Note' ?

[zephyp]

Message to gubment: DONT TOUCH MY JUNK.....

Note: Junk = everything we are supposed to have IAW the BOR and the money I earn each day.....

[caps85]

Just read the thread and wanted to toss in my 2 cents about the original post. I'll be the first to admit I'm extremely uncomfortable with gays kissing in public etc, but I would gladly support their right to marry. Why? Because even if I don't like looking at it, they aren't kissing me so I don't consider it my business. I'm totally on board with the concept that everyone should live their life as they choose, unimpeded by the opinions of others. Just as gays would like their freedom to marry, I would like my freedom to own any firearm I choose without regulation. If I'm not in the process of using the gun to commit a crime, then it is MY business and not Bloomberg's.

[Taggure]

13 pages so far... someone bump the broken record for me, will ya...

Consider it bumped, and for good reason. Old men like me been lied to, ridden herd on, and robbed way to long to listen to any more broken records!!

Didn't Broken Records have a jazz label called 'Brown Note' ?

Bumped here as well

[CowboyT]

Hmm...I actually hadn't planned on coming back here. Some of you may prefer that I didn't. So why would I? Turns out Taggure and I met at the VCDL booth at the last Dale City gun show (we both had booth duty), and he mentioned to me that this thread was still going. I'm guessing he wanted me to have a look, and so I have. Interesting, the direction it's taken....

He and I talked about the subject material some, and I have done so over the last several months with other VCDL members as well. We all seem to agree that yes, there is a lot of inappropriate and counterproductive behaviour in the firearms community, just as I described in the piece. I have seen plenty of examples here on VGOF and very recently mentioned it to Rick.

I guess you've got to decide what you want. Do you want to continue proactively giving the antis ammunition against us, or will you choose a different path?

[Taggure]

Hey Cowboy T good to see you back and hope you stay around

Several discussions have gone on in this and other threads about this very topic,

On one side we have folks that believe with every fiber of their being that the Federal Government should back off and not regulate firearms; and on the other hand there are those that believe in what they call sensible regulations (and seem extreme to others). Here both points of view are talked about; (I think this is what you intended this thread to do) that is not the problem; the problem is when politics gets involved.

Both sides of the camp have their ideology and want their points considered in the discussion and this is a good thing. One of the problems that I have seen that continually seems to drive the discussions to a political nature is the perception that 99% (I am just guessing here) of the Anti-Gun regulations or the blocking of the Pro-Gun regulations come from the Left (Liberals, Democrats, or Progressive). This perception can and has made for a difficult task in maintaining a civil discussion at times. I know the Political portion of this is something that must be discussed, but it should be discussed not by just by pointing a finger and saying this is a problem but offering a solution to the problem, and then discussing the solutions that are brought forward understanding that there are those that will never budge. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and ideology and no one should be forced or be brow beaten into changing their stance. Our goal as a Pro 2A community should be to educate and support our stance with Facts that can and have been verified by independent parties.

Moving to the middle ground may seem to be the right tactic and would force both sides to give up their hard-lined stance if only there is a centralized common ground from which to start.

I know I am sticking my head on the chopping block here but the thing is that we all value our 2A right to bear arms and we all have a love of shooting be it for whatever reason, and if that is not a common place to start from then I don't know what is.

Just my .02 worth

Vern