Question: How many anti-gunners have ever seen a real firearm?

[texasdem99]

I'm really posting this without being snarky, and I'll explain.

Many of the rabid anti-gunners I've ever talked with, when I get around to asking them, have admitted that they've never even seen a real firearm, let alone held one or fired one. In fact, they seem repulsed by the very idea.

There is nothing wrong with that, I respect it.

However, I believe we are a product of our environment. My father taught me how to target shoot and I continued learning how to use various weapons in the military. So I am comfortable around them. I imagine that if I hadn't had so much experience with guns that I might be more skittish.

Perhaps this is why we have such differing opinions; we are somewhat influenced by our environment when it comes to this issue, IMO.

I feel strongly that this issue is divisive for us dems, and can possibly cost us states in the next election.

Please do not think for a minute that I am insinuating that never firing a weapon makes you unqualified to discuss the subject--it is by no means a prerequisite to being able to logically debate gun control.

[yardwork]

1. I know what you mean.

It is annoying when people pass judgement on something without checking out the facts. It's especially annoying when they get all moralistic about something they don't know anything about. I'm with you on that.

I am pro-gun control, and yes, I have seen and fired guns. I grew up in the country. My father owned three rifles. My friends owned and used rifles and shotguns.

I've never seen a gun control law that would limit anyone's right to own a rifle. The way I see it, gun control is needed to slow down the huge industry that makes millions off selling little cheap handguns. They don't serve any purpose except to kill another human being, and they're not even reliable enough to be effective for self-defense.

At the same time, this seems to be so divisive an issue I am willing to drop it on the national level and just give it back to the states to work out for each jurisdiction.

I just wish that there would be a little less emotion on both sides.

[Stoker]

7. Hi Yardwork!

Hi Yardwork!

A couple of things:

I've never seen a gun control law that would limit anyone's right to own a rifle.

The Assault Weapon Ban, which thankfully is about to sunset-expire this coming September, affected a large number of rifles - rifles that are no different than many other rifles except the way they look.

The way I see it, gun control is needed to slow down the huge industry that makes millions off selling little cheap handguns.

I tell ya what, and I don't mean this in a snide way at all - every time I hear about those "cheap guns" I want to know where the heck people are getting them, so I can get some! :) Seriously! When I bought my first handgun, I wanted a good, quality pistol that would work for self defense but something I could also use for competitive shooting. I have always had good experiences with Ruger rifles (I own 2 Ruger 10/22 rifles) so I settled on the Ruger P90 .45 pistol. It cost about $350 some 5 years ago. Based on my experience shopping around, the Ruger, while not the cheapest .45 you can buy, is one of the cheapest quality pistols you can buy. Glocks, Colts, and others start around $600 and go up from there. Now I'm sure if you want to buy some beat-up piece of junk you might find a pistol for less than $200 somewhere. But I don't think you are going to find a reliable gun that you would want for less than $250.

And really, this is a shame. Because, in my opinion, a pistol should be affordable so that everyone can afford to purchase a self-defense tool if they want.


They don't serve any purpose except to kill another human being, and they're not even reliable enough to be effective for self-defense.

Heh, I see that as somewhat contradictory - if their purpose is to kill another human being, then that would make it pretty effective for self-defense, in my book, unless you don't think they kill very effectively! :)

A pistol is no panacea for self defense, that is for certain. But if you don't mind people keeping rifles for self defense, then you should have no problem with people keeping pistols for self defense. Rifles generally fire ammuntion at higher velocities and with better accuracy than pistols. Their only drawback in self-defense scenarios is they are far more unwieldy to bring to bear on a target.

Stoker

[FeebMaster]

8. Pretty much all of the gun control laws

affect rifles in one way or another the 1934 NFA regulates all guns, including rifles and shotguns, that are select-fire and fully-automatic. It also regulates dimensions of long guns: 26" minimum length. 18" minimum barrel length for shotguns. 16" minimum barrel length for rifles. The 1968 GCA is full of sporting tests and regulations on importation that affect rifles. Reagan's ban on civilian machine gun production in '86 affects fully-automatic and select fire rifles. Bush's '89 Import Ban banned the import of a bunch of rifles. The Assault Weapons ban in '94 took bayonet lugs and flash suppressors off of rifles. It also bans new high capacity magazines (for civilians) making some of them incredibly expensive. And of course to buy a rifle you have to pass a background check, same as any gun.

As far as little, cheap handguns g, not everyone can afford a $600 or more handgun for self defense. I'm not saying I'd want to trust my life to an $80 (are handguns still available that cheaply?) piece of crap, but if that's all you can afford I guess it's better than nothing.

[iverglas]

20. fascinating

One could write a book about the logical fallacies employed in this forum.

It is annoying when people pass judgement on something without checking out the facts. It's especially annoying when they get all moralistic about something they don't know anything about. I'm with you on that.

Now, the question asked was about *guns*. How is it possible to "pass judgment" on *guns*? Like 'em or don't like 'em; that's just a matter of personal taste. Not a matter of public policy, or argument.

Who's "all moralistic" about *guns*? I don't know anybody who is. So I don't know what might be "especially annoying" in our context.

And of course, on the main point, I don't know what anyone's personal experience with firearms might have to do with his/her position regarding public policies concerning firearms possession and use.

I've never hunted, and I find some specific instances of hunting distasteful, but I have no desire to stop anyone else from hunting. Just fer instance.

I also have personally known one person who was murdered by firearm, and one person whose minor child committed suicide by firearm. Whether *I* have ever hunted, or played with guns, or grew up with guns, or had anything else to do with guns, hasn't got thing one to do with what happened to those people, and the public policies that I advocate as ways of preventing what happened to them happening to others.

.

[iamjoy]

2. Don't Like Guns/Never Fired/Question Not Snarky

I am afraid that if I had a gun and were threatened, my soft hearted indecisiveness would take over, allowing my attacker to grab the gun and use it against me. Besides, I am so uncoordinated and athletic, that I don't think I could ever fire a gun with any accuracy, especially since I tend to panic.

I do believe guns increase violence. I mean, sure, if someone really wants to murder, they will do it, but guns make it all too easy. There are also tragic accidents. Still, we don't take rights away from an innocent person because criminals are out there. I am actually a little wary of most gun control laws (if they can take away that right, what next?) I even kind of sort of understand why the gun-fans are opposed to any regulations, but, come on, when they fight against an assault weapons ban and a waiting period so we can do a background check - that is extreme.

As with many issues (abortion, gay rights), it is the extremists on both sides of the issue who polarize society and prevent us from having an honest and open discussion.

[texasdem99]

6. Well, being soft hearted isn't necessarily a fault

I guess it does depend a lot on your life experience and your point of view towards violence in general, i.e, does it become absolutely necessary at some point, and would you be willing to use it if it did.

In any event, many people who are pro gun are actually not opposed to regulation, such as myself. I know many others that feel the same way. Like any issue, you are right, it has its extremists on both sides.

[FeebMaster]

9. Waiting periods have nothing

to do with background checks.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

[Catch22Dem]

3. Not real into guns

Hunted lots of times. Fired all kinds of guns. Was in the military, but it was Air Force...it ain't like we shoot. LOL.

[yankeeinlouisiana]

4. My ex-husband had one

I saw it, up close, and that's why he's my ex. I don't like guns.

[teach1st]

5. I've fired a gun once

Deep in a rain forest on a mountain ridge with a spectacular view of a river valley on the Garden Isle in Hawai'i, I fired a .38 at nothing in particular. It seemed all wrong - the unnatural and startling noise that raped the beautiful silence, the heavy kick, the lead projectile hurling from the barrel splitting the peaceful Hawai'ian air...it just seemed bullying and unnecessary and overbearing. I didn't like it.

[Spentastic]

10. Interesting

I've handled guns on a few occassions. From a small airgun my friend owned when I was a kid to an AK47 whilst on holiday. I'm not frightened of guns. I quite enjoyed firing at targets.

I'm from the U.K. I can't own a gun. I don't want to own a gun. I want the police to ensure that as far as possible no one in the U.K has a gun.

I don't feel a right has been abridged. I'm not afraid.

I believe that unrestricted access to guns delivers more risk than rewards. Whilst gunners will not move for fear of a slippery slope people will keep abusing their "rights".

[MrBenchley]

11. "I'm really posting this without being snarky"

"Many of the rabid anti-gunners I've ever talked with, when I get around to asking them, have admitted that they've never even seen a real firearm"
Have you asked them if they know someone who's been shot with one?

Did you give them a look at your great big gun?

It sure seems like a pretty damn snarky question...

"I feel strongly that this issue is divisive for us dems"
Funny, I feel strongly that it's a winning issue. And as far as being divisive, how many Republicans crossed the line the other day to vote to close the gun show loophole and ban assault weapons? Do you really want to pretend that it was because they were "skittish"?

[Romulus]

12. My cousin was shot and killed in Brooklyn in 1982

Professional hazard of the drug dealing trade.

I now have a relative-in-law whose husband was shot and killed in bed next to her during a home invasion in Philadelphia.

[MrBenchley]

15. Well if you think all that is needed

is a little peek at a REAL gun, here's one...being held by a REAL right wing asswipe of the sort that peddles that dishonest "gun rights" crap in public.



Everybody happy and "non-skittish" now?

[slackmaster]

13. Why don't you answer the question, MrBenchley?

Are you afraid of guns? Have you ever seen one in person? Have you ever fired one?

It sure seems like a pretty damn snarky question...

Not half as snarky as your non-answer, in my opinion.

Have you asked them if they know someone who's been shot with one?

That would make a good subject for a different thread. Why don't you start one?

BTW - Do YOU know someone who has been shot? In all the months you've been posting here you haven't said word one about your PERSONAL experiences with firearms.

[texasdem99]

16. You didn't answer my question,

Yes, I have asked people if they know anybody who has been shot.

The answer is always no.

You didn't answer the question, you just attacked the question, then attacked me for even asking it. I've read a lot of your posts, and I had previously formed the opinion that you are a pretty intelligent person. Instead of thoughtful commentary, why would you lower yourself to just sling some nasty invective?

I thought my explanation was pretty even handed and fair.

I know I don't have a myopic view of this subject, I'm sorry if you refuse to see both sides.

By the way, it's not my "great big gun". In my case, it's my great big GUNS, plural.

[MrBenchley]

17. You'll notice I rarely play these crapass games

"I'm sorry if you refuse to see both sides"
I've heard just about every dishonest RKBA argument there is...

[slackmaster]

18. Sharing personal experiences is a "crapass game"?

What an unfortunate attitude.

[texasdem99]

19. What games? And you still haven't answered my question

Games? Is that an indication that there is only one side to this argument, your side, as far as your concerned?

Well, I can't help that. But I think you are doing yourself a disservice if you simply refuse to consider anyone else's point of view.

[MrBenchley]

22. It's an indication that I don't play crapass games

"you simply refuse to consider anyone else's point of view. "
Hey I considered the RKBA arguments years ago and concluded then how worthless they were....and they haven't aged into sudden honesty.

And I doubt it's a disservice to anyone because I don't stroke my stubby over gun porn....or fantasize that the only reason most Americans are in favor of gun control is that they haven't seen a REAL gun....

[slackmaster]

23. Sexual put-downs aside...

...Why won't you share your personal experiences with us?

[FatSlob]

41. Please, don't tell us about your penis anymore.

"I don't stroke my stubby over gun porn" wrote MrBenchley.

We didn't need the "stubby" description of your penis, so please, spare us further details of your genitalia.

[MrBenchley]

42. Gee, fat slob

I'll stop pointing out gun porn the day the RKBA crowd stop whacking their willies over it.

[slackmaster]

44. Now he's talking about OTHER PEOPLE'S penises

I thought this was a family-oriented forum.

[FatSlob]

45. A multitude of penises.

Could it get any worse? And other people are accused of having a fetish?

[slackmaster]

14. My stepfather was a rifle instructor in the US Navy

For the latter part of his career, after World War II during which he served as a Radio Man. I got first-class gun safety instruction at age 10. My brother was 6 at the time, and he got the message too.

I really can't recall having a strong opinion about guns before I got my hands-on instruction with the real thing.

[CO Liberal]

21. My Ex-Marine Father Had Several Guns

I used to belong to the Junior Rifle Club in my home town, when I was in junior high in the mid-'60s. It was more of an excuse for getting out of the house one Friday night a month and meeting girls. I also fired a rifle on the range at my Boy Scout camp, also in the mid-'60s.

I have not held or fired a firearm since, because I decided it was not something I liked.

I know what guns are. I know what they can do. That's why I favor reasonable gun control measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

* * * * *

PS to Pete Puma - Personally, I prefer to refer to myself as "pro-control" rather than "anti-gun".

[slackmaster]

24. This is why I respect CO Liberal's opinions more than most

He's seen all sides of the issue and is willing to discuss his personal experiences.

We all have our biases. It takes an enlightened person to understand the source of his or her own attitudes.

CO Liberal, I salute you.

:toast:

[CO Liberal]

25. Thanks, Slack

:-)

[iverglas]

28. damn, eh?

I was just "discussing my personal experiences" in that Oklahoma thread, and the silence has been thunderingly deafening.

Perhaps it's because my personal experiences just can't be twisted into some polemic for letting anybody with fingers walk around with a firearm ...

.

[slackmaster]

30. Your experiences are beyond my comprehension

I can't imagine such a terrible violation of my body. I don't feel qualified to respond.

[iverglas]

35. precisely

Your experiences are beyond my comprehension
I can't imagine such a terrible violation of my body. I don't feel qualified to respond.

It actually had little to do with "violation of my body". It had to do with experiencing the almost certain probability of death.

And my whole point is that NO ONE is qualified to speak FOR ME, or for others like me who live with the after-effects of that kind of trauma, or of many other kinds of trauma.

And that anyone who proposes the carrying of arms as a way of dealing with those after-effects -- as a way of feeling secure against future harm -- is doing everything I said in that post: exploiting others' experiences and problems for his/her own ends, manipulating those to whom s/he is addressing that exploitation, manipulating the people being exploited, expropriating the voice of people whose own voices need to be heard and many whom have difficulty speaking or making themselves heard, and substituting his/her own words for theirs.

"I will never be a victim again" IS NOT an appropriate response to victimization.

We DO NOT and CANNOT control everything that happens to us -- and adopting the belief that we can, and acting on that belief, can put us and others in more danger than learning to live and deal with the risks of life again in a healthy and appropriate way.

People who have not learned to respond to their experiences in ways that are likely to reduce rather than exacerbate both their stress and the dangerousness of their reactions to it are NOT people whom you want walking around with guns.

And "self-defence" courses are NOT where people learn to deal with their stress and develop appropriate responses to it.

And people who market, and proselytize for, this response to victimization do not have the interests of either the victims or the public at heart.

.

[demsrule4life]

37. You are correct

nobody is qualified to speak about you. I might be wrong but you do give me the impression that you feel that you are qualified to speak for everyone else. I apologize if I'm wrong.

[jimsteuben]

39. the reason I carry

And that anyone who proposes the carrying of arms as a way of dealing with those after-effects

I don't carry to deal with the after-effects. I carry to prevent attacks on my person. I carry to defend myself, my homes, my loved ones, and my property.

We DO NOT and CANNOT control everything that happens to us

True enough, that's why I carry. It's also why I have a fire extinguisher and first-aid kit in my home, and why I have insurance.

If you do not want to learn self-defense, if you do not want to own a firearm or mace, fine, that is your choice.

Don't force your choice on me.

[iverglas]

43. who's talking about you?

Nice evasion of the point, though.

The point is that YOU are talking for someone else, with your big old "won't be prey", "never again", or whatever they are, posters.

You go head and "carry" for whatever reasons you like. None of my business. I'll just avoid being in your vicinity, that being my business, and make sure that you're not "carrying" in mine, that being my business too.

But since YOU are not a rape victim, and YOU are not a woman, YOU are the one talking about, and for, others whom you presume to be qualified and entitled to speak for and about.

And the things you have been posting very definitely DO present toting a firearm around as a way of dealing with the after-effects of victimization. They very definitly DO play on fears, and offer an alleged way of dealing with those fears.

For pity's sake, do you imagine that the people producing them don't know, and I don't know they know, what they're doing??

They're MARKETING. Whether it be a product or an ideology, they are targeting an audience who is susceptible to being sold what they're selling. And what they're selling isn't a product or a solution, it is a feeling. They are selling the opportunity to feel safe, but the means they are selling for achieving that feeling, while it might make people feel like they can avoid being harmed, will not in fact make people feel safe ... let alone make them safe. People who feel safe don't generally carry guns around.

Note that I am not saying that it is possible for everyone to "feel safe" all the time -- that would be foolhardy. And equipping one's self with means to prevent being harmed is not *always* a dysfunctional response to pathological feelings of being unsafe. But constantly feeling unsafe *is* pathological, and arming one's self against harm is *not* a healthy response to the environment, in the first instance, by people with those feelings.

And constant feelings of being unsafe -- feelings of fear -- are a typical response to trauma. It is the feelings themselves that must be addressed in that case -- they are symptoms, they are a dysfunctional response to the environment.

Carrying a firearm around DOES NOT make people with those symptoms feel good; they ARE still afraid, pathologically. It simply makes/allows them believe that they can respond to any and all threats to their safety without getting hurt. And that IS NOT TRUE. NO ONE can respond to any and all threats to his/her safety without getting hurt.

The fearful response to trauma -- including the heightened fight or flight response -- is a mechanism we need in order to avoid harm, just as our "normal" fight or flight response is.

But the heightened response to perceived threats to safety -- which includes a heightened tendency to perceive something as a threat to safety -- makes a person unable to accurately assess danger and determine an appropriate response to it.

And all I can do is repeat: you do NOT want people with this problem walking around with firearms.

And marketing the idea to them that arming themselves will make them feel safe, and make them safe, is dishonest and manipulative and, in this instance, exploitive.

.

[MrBenchley]

27. Amazing!

So you actually saw a real gun and you still think there ought to be background checks at gun shows?

How did you resist the firearm's siren call? After all, I hear all we have to do is glance at one to realize that honest upstanding folks like Tom DeLay, Larry Craig, Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt have our best interests at heart...(snicker)

[texasdem99]

32. Sorry, I didn't mean "anti-gun" as a smear

But then again, usually anyone who is even for moderate gun control with continued access for lawful citizens is usually painted with the broadest brush possible as a "gun nut".

On this thread alone, I have been accused of
"...strok(ing) my stubby over gun porn," and giving people "..a look at (my) great big gun." And asking a snarky question, even when I went out of my way to explain both sides. I guess some people are just blinded by ideology.

Childish invective, as far as I'm concerned. Usually when someone cannot discuss a subject rationally, they resort to playground insults. "I don't agree with you. And you're just a poo-poo head!"

I respect a pro-control stance, since I favor some restrictions myself.

You will never hear me attempt to smear those that don't agree with me; there's plenty of repukes already lying in that gutter, you won't see me joining them.

[MrBenchley]

38. "anyone who is even for moderate gun control"

Really? Who would that be?

Certainly not THIS person....

"I'm a newbie, pro gun, and ready for the Gungeon!
I'm a very pro gun ex military dem.
I've got my flame retardant bullet proof vest on!"

"Usually when someone cannot discuss a subject rationally, they resort to playground insults."
Sort of like...
"Many of the rabid anti-gunners I've ever talked with, when I get around to asking them, have admitted that they've never even seen a real firearm"

[slackmaster]

40. And still no response to the question at hand

Very telling IMO.

[texasdem99]

51. You keep trying to bait me, and I'm not biting, sorry...

See, I disagree with you, but I'll never hold it against you personally. You can try to get me mad at you but it will never work.

I'll sum it up for you:

Though I am for the right to own firearms, I see the other side's points, and I feel an agreement on certain terms is the way to bridge this gap between the two sides. I would love to have a rational discussion on it.

"Many of the rabid anti gunners have never seen a firearm".

You don't think with the set of responses you've given so far that you don't qualify as "rabid anti-gun"? I think that's a perfect description. You openly stated that the pro gun side of the argument has absolutely, positively, unequivocally no merit no how, no way whatsoever. You don't consider that to be rabid anti-gun? Please define what is, then, because I can't think of a better example than being completely unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint.

You consider that an insult? I'm sorry if I insulted you. You, however, responded with references to me stroking my penis thinking about guns. The last time I made penis jokes in reference to someone's libido was in college, if I remember right, but it's been a while.

I have to say, I hope you are you capable of discussing this subject without resorting to anger. Most people responding on this thread are capable of that. You disappoint me.

Regardless, I still think that you've raised some excellent points in the past, though, and look forward to maybe hearing more of them in the future.

[MrBenchley]

55. I'm not trying to bait you...

Just quoting YOUR OWN WORDS.

"I would love to have a rational discussion on it."
And you think this preposterous assumption (if only these people had seen my gun) is the way to begin.....hokay.

"You openly stated that the pro gun side of the argument has absolutely, positively, unequivocally no merit no how, no way whatsoever."
And I think the responses I got proved that. In spades.

[texasdem99]

61. Huh? What are you talking about?

"If only these people had seen my gun" When did I say that?

"The responses I got proved that in spades" What responses are you talking about? You keep hurling invective and in my responses I keep trying to engage you in an actual intelligent conversation. I'm failing, miserably, I admit.

Why are you talking in circles? There was an original question, to which people gave thoughtful responses, and somehow, with you, I'm discussing stroking penises and showing big guns...

And the irony is that 99% of the people on this thread are having an intelligent discussion already. The 1% left is you.

[MrBenchley]

65. Hello?

What was the title of this thread?

"I keep trying to engage you in an actual intelligent conversation."
DO you now? Funny, I don't see anything like that here...starting with the initial question.

"99% of the people on this thread are having an intelligent discussion"
Is that what you'd call contributions like

"I might be wrong but you do give me the impression that you feel that you are qualified to speak for everyone else."

"Note well that libertarian does not refer to the Libertarian Party and its views unless it has a capital "L" and clearly refers to the party. I submit that any time I use the word "libertarian", it does not refer to the party and its adherants unless I use the word "party" after it. "

"Well, then let the authoritarians fight for a Karl Marx approved system of government."

"There is no right to "brotherhood." I'm not even sure how to conceptualize that as a natural right."

[FatSlob]

26. Pete, you'll learn real quickly,

here in the gungeon, there are two general types. There are authoritarians and libertarians. Note well that libertarian does not refer to the Libertarian Party and its views unless it has a capital "L" and clearly refers to the party. I submit that any time I use the word "libertarian", it does not refer to the party and its adherants unless I use the word "party" after it. Basically, authoritarians prefer power to be in the hands of the government, while libertarians prefer power to be in the hands of the people. Of course, I am over-simplifying, but gun-control is inherently authoritarian, while people who support gun-rights hold a libertarian view on that particular issue. It all comes down to freedom.

[iverglas]

29. yeah

... gun-control is inherently authoritarian, while people who support gun-rights hold a libertarian view on that particular issue. It all comes down to freedom.

Freedom feeds the kids' tummies and keeps the rain out and cures disease and nourishes the mind ... and protects against bullets ... so damned well.

And people whose attention is so easily diverted from food and shelter and health care and education ... and their families' and communities' safety and well-being ... are exactly who the people blathering about "freedom" from all the television sets and radios and Oval Offices in the land are counting on -- to keep on electing governments that keep them or their fellow citizens hungry, homeless, sick and uninformed.

Me, I'd feel foolish if I were so easily duped, and ashamed if I cared so little about other people that I participated so eagerly in the charade.

.

[FatSlob]

31. Give me liberty or give me death!

Frankly, I care about liberty. That is far more important than anything else. From your post, I'd surmise that you are willing to hand your freedom over if the government will take care of you and "feeds the kids' tummies and keeps the rain out and cures disease and nourishes the mind ... and protects against bullets." Well, then let the authoritarians fight for a Karl Marx approved system of government. I prefer the Constitution. It isn't the government's job to take care of me, you or most anybody else. I prefer freedom from intrusive government, not the authoritarianism that has been proven to work so well in Zimbabwe and the old South Africa.

[jhfenton]

46. Liberty

Freedom feeds the kids' tummies and keeps the rain out and cures disease and nourishes the mind ... and protects against bullets ... so damned well.

And people whose attention is so easily diverted from food and shelter and health care and education ... and their families' and communities' safety and well-being ... are exactly who the people blathering about "freedom" from all the television sets and radios and Oval Offices in the land are counting on -- to keep on electing governments that keep them or their fellow citizens hungry, homeless, sick and uninformed.

Me, I'd feel foolish if I were so easily duped, and ashamed if I cared so little about other people that I participated so eagerly in the charade.

You should feel foolish, because you have been duped. You've been duped into believing that it is the government's job to take care of you and your fellow citizens. That's why you're apparently perfectly happy to let the government ignore the rights of citizens if it's "for their own good."

The proper job of government is to put in place a system of safeguards so that the natural rights of its citizens are protected. (Hint: lest you get confused, natural rights do not include government-provided food, shelter, health care, and education.) The government should not be in the business of regulating or prohibiting consensual private behavior that does not infringe on the rights of others. Prohibitions on the mere possession of ordinary arms, including "assault weapons," machine guns, handguns, rifles, are just more victimless crimes. I'm sorry you can't see that.

[iverglas]

48. what I am

... is not such a moron as to think that "the government" is something other than me and my fellow citizens.

(Hint: lest you get confused, natural rights do not include government-provided food, shelter, health care, and education.)

Clue: lest you forget, there's no such animal as "natural rights".

I mean ... unless you want to acknowledge that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden ...

What there *are*, are rights recognized by consensus in human groups.

And outside the strange and wonderful USofA, those rights are often stated as liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Limiting one's self to one subset of them is just so, I dunno, primitive, doncha think?

Of course you don't. Limiting one's self (and everybody else, of course) to only the subset that one happens to need at the moment, that's just - what do they call it? - enlightened egoism.

That's what some people call it, anyhoo. That Greenspan fella of yours down there is all for it, I gather:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1201235
(interesting analysis, worth reading for anybody who's buying the line)

.

[jhfenton]

57. The "government" and "natural rights"

I'm sorry you're still confused, iverglas, but you and your fellow citizens are not "the government." That is a convenient little myth sold to children in school in order to grow compliant little citizens.

Clue: lest you forget, there's no such animal as "natural rights".

I mean ... unless you want to acknowledge that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden ...

I have no idea what is at the bottom of your garden, but there most certainly are natural rights. They are those rights that can be derived by reason from an observation of natural man in a natural universe. Most in the "strange and wonderful USofA" would offer up life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as prime examples. I prefer life, liberty, and property myself, believing that everything else can be easily derived from those core rights.

As for your suggestions:

liberté -- No dispute there.

égalité -- As long as we mean equality of rights or equality of legal opportunity, then I will agree. There is, however, no right to an equality of results or even an equality of actual opportunity. Some people are simply born with unavoidable practical advantages. I've just had to accept the fact that I was born the son of a poor Baptist minister, and not the son of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

fraternité -- There is no right to "brotherhood." I'm not even sure how to conceptualize that as a natural right.

As for Greenspan, I am a fan. If coincidence amuses you, I will admit that I am rereading Atlas Shrugged right now. I haven't read it since high school -- almost 20 years -- and figured I'd get a lot more out of it now.

[iverglas]

60. I'll be happy to give you proof

... of the presence of the faeries at the bottom of my garden (I've got a photo around somewhere), as soon as you offer me proof of the existence of these "natural rights" thingies.

Strange how you could insist that they exist as "derived by reason from an observation of natural man in a natural universe" (i.e. by some 18th century definition of said "man" and said "universe" that you choose to adopt contrary to all known facts) ... and yet I don't agree! Not only as to their "existence" -- but if we assume their existence, for the sake of argument, as to what they are.

How can that be??? And how *exactly* do you propose to prove me wrong?

Oh, I know. I'm just not reasonable.

The rest of the world does eagerly look forward to you and yours joining us in the 21st century. Heck, the 20th would do.

And as for you being a Greenspan (edit: oops, a Greenspan fan), what's that we legal beagles say?

Res ipsa loquitur?

.

[jhfenton]

73. "Res ipsa loquitur"

Very apt choice of words, since I believe that natural rights do speak for themselves.

I'm quite comfortable in the 21st century. Liberty is timeless.

[iverglas]

78. if only

Very apt choice of words, since I believe that natural rights do speak for themselves.

If only that had been what I was talking about. But, sadly, it wasn't, as of course you know and everybody who read the post knew. Given that I said "And as for you being a Greenspan ... fan" right before saying "res ipsa loquitur" and all.

I was talking about people who -- how did you put it? -- oh yeah, are fans of Greenspan. That res sure loquiturs for itself pretty eloquently in my ear.

I believe that natural rights do speak for themselves.

Ah. I guess it's just that they're unilingual Murikan or something like that. I've yet to hear their whispers, myself.


I'm quite comfortable in the 21st century.

Yes, but it's the 21st century's comfort with the deal, not yours, that concerns me.

.

[jhfenton]

82. "unlingual Murikan"

I've only studied five languages -- six if you count American (Murikan?) Sign Language and seven if you count Murikan as a distinct language rather than merely a dialect -- but I'm quite confident that natural rights speak eloquently in any language.

I did enjoy your "unilingual Murikan" reference, by the way. Bonus points for cleverness. :)

[MrBenchley]

62. We, the people...

Glad to see you oppose the Constitution and our basis of government, fenton...it explains a lot

[jhfenton]

69. "We the people"

Actually, I'm quite fond of the Constitution. In fact, I think it a shame that we've abandoned it entirely in the last 70 years.

The government may be "of the people, by the people, for the people," at least in theory, but no one seriously claims the government "is the people."

[MrBenchley]

76. We the people

"no one seriously claims the government "is the people.""
Certainly right wing loonies like to babble crap like that...

[MrBenchley]

49. Doesn't smell like "liberty" from here...

Smells like more right wing hooey from the guy who says

--That Duke University's Hitler Youth manifesto is "inspired"

http://www.johnfenton.org/weblog/00000039.html

--That pResident Turd is the finest real-life candidate around...

http://www.johnfenton.org/weblog/00000037.html

--and that Craxzy Bill Buckley's Nazional Review is non-partisan

http://www.johnfenton.org/links.html

[jhfenton]

58. Get your nose checked

Thank you for those links to my website. I'm glad I can provide so much entertainment to you.

I'm sorry, however, that regardless of labels, you can't appreciate the merits of "Free men, free minds, and free markets." Somehow I don't recall the Hitler Youth espousing such things.

I'm also sorry that you can't understand simple explanations even after hearing them over and over and over....

[MrBenchley]

59. I can smell what comes off your odious site just fine....

and it's no more "liberty" than Fox News is "Fair and Balanced"

[jhfenton]

66. From you...

I'll have to take that as a compliment.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

33. Too TOO funny...

"It all comes down to freedom"
It sure was inspiring to watch those "freedom fighters" in the GOP turn on a dime from "yes" to "no" in Congress when Big Brother sent them an e-mail....Mao's Red Guard didn't jump that fast....

[slackmaster]

34. That wasn't Big Brother

It was Monty Hall with a gun.

[Wickerman]

36. In my midnight confessions

Here’re my experiences:

1. Growing up a neighborhood kid (upper middle class, small Midwestern town) and a couple of others were playing with a handgun, supposedly it turned into Russian Roulette. My next door neighbor was best friends with the kid who died. He blamed himself because he would’ve been with the kid except he’d blown off his friend to go fishing that day. The kid, an A student, track star, Bball player, got all screwed up after that senseless death. Drugs, dropout, etc. Lost a great girl. Not the kind of shit a kid should have to go through in idyllic Iowa in the 60’s.
2. A kid (early teens) our family knew well accidentally shot a friend with a hunting rifle. The case suspicious enough that it went to trial. The family bankrupted itself, parents divorced, kid went from bright future to getting by on odd jobs last I heard – must be in his 50’s now.
3. Was in the Air Force, had some experience with guns, got my marksman ribbon. Trained with the Army for ½ year, spent a lot of time with a rifle. One highlight was the 3 rainy days cleaning and re-cleaning every gun on post. Sigh, Never got to liking gun oil.
4. Several years back in a domestic situation an ex-husband who was drinking heavily confronted me in a misunderstanding. He was armed with a 22 rifle and wasn’t much into reasoning. However, with the advent of the police arriving alls well that ends well. I didn’t press charges as the behavior was well beyond his non-drunken state. The police threw a few things at him, some minor charges stuck. He lost his job, his home, and declared bankruptcy. We get along ok now – small town, we have to see each other on occasion. He agrees he is lucky for his one evening of foolishness. If I had a gun on me? Someone would be dead, I am sure.

Those are my experiences. Your mileage may differ.

[Wickerman]

47. ...

[jhfenton]

50. My experiences:

Here're my experiences:

1. I grew up all over the country. I was born in Maryland at Andrew's Air Force Base. I lived in Tennessee, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, and Ohio (both Cleveland and Cincinnati) as a child. I lived in Massachussetts and North Carolina for college and law school. My wife and I moved back to Cincinnati after law school. Other than my time in college, I've always had firearms around.

2. I was raised around rifles, and spent many summers staying with my grandmother in rural Texas. I had a BB gun at an early age and would shoot at the white birds that hung around the cows. They were too big for the BBs to really injure them, but the would squawk and fly a few feet away when hit.

3. I never owned or shot a handgun gun until a few years ago. Now I own several and shoot competively. Both for fun and for self-defense, handguns are now my favorite tools.

4. I have never been hunting, nor -- with the exception of the BB gun and the poor cow birds -- have I ever shot a living creature.

5. I do not personally know anyone who has been shot outside of police or military duty.

[texasdem99]

54. Sounds like we were raised similarly

I've shot many types of weapons, and I never liked hunting either. Too much trouble (chicken is $2.79 a pound on sale), too boring, and just not my thing.

By the way, love your sig line:

"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." – Elbert Hubbard

I feel like I'm going through that with some people on this thread right now!! Ha!

[texasdem99]

53. Wow, those experiences are very telling

Kind of all over the spectrum, from positive to negative. Interesting, to say the least.

I'm encouraged that people are generally responding in an intelligent way to this question, maybe getting people on both sides of the issue to think a little.

[iverglas]

56. here's me being curious

I was pretty much completely unable to identify what, in lunabush's post, could be characterized as a "positive" experience with a firearm.

I'd have to describe his experience with firearms in the military as pretty much "neutral" -- he learned to use them and clean them. Pretty much like my experience with, oh, shoes would be best described as "neutral" if that was all it amounted to.

On the other hand, I saw three pretty plainly "negative" experiences with firearms.

What might I be missing?


Btw, I haven't answered the question for two reasons:

- it is absolutely and completely irrelevant to anything I say, and the only purpose that any answer could serve would be as the "basis" for an ad personam response to anything I say;

- if I gave a detailed enough answer for it to make sense (although I've given a rough outline in the past), I'd be identifiable, although not because of any role played by a firearm in anything I've done or been involved in.

The fact remains that I know two people -- one dead, one the father of a dead son -- who suffered horrific harm because of the presence of a firearm in a situation where the harm would not have happened absent the firearm, and would not have been prevented by the presence of another firearm.

.

[MrBenchley]

63. You might also notice

that despite the ludicrously worded qualifier in his question....most of those sharing their happy firearms fun in response are opposed to sensible gun control in any shape or form...in fact even the NRA-approved Chimp in the White House isn';t quite loony enough to suit some here.

[texasdem99]

64. Well, not all of us consider earning a marksmen's medal negative

Depends, I guess, what your definition of experience with weapons in the military is. Not everybody qualifies with an M-16 in Basic Training, and it's a significant accomplishment to those that do.

My experiences with that particular event were positive. There were three categories, you could earn Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert, it was like a competition. You had to hit so many popup targets in so much time.

Anyway, the point of the original question, which I tried to state as clearly as possible, is to get people thinking about how much personal experience might shape our views on guns and gun control.

[slackmaster]

67. My stepfather was an Expert with the M1 Garand

I regret very much that he died before I ever owned one.

When he was a very young boy in the 1920s he sometimes kept his impoverished family fed by hunting for jackrabbits. His mother would give him three rounds of .22 ammo for his rifle and tell him not to come home until he had two rabbits. Usually he'd come back with two rabbits and an unfired round.

[iverglas]

68. gee, who said that s/he did?

Did I say that I considered "earning a marksmen's medal negative"?

Nope.

Of course, as I recall, someone else here pointed out not too long ago that it wasn't much of an achievement. 'Twasn't me.

But I specifically called it NEUTRAL. You did read my post, right?

Apparently you felt positive feelings about your own experience along the same lines. I didn't get any such impression from what lunabush wrote. Projecting, are we?

And so I wondered what, in lunabush's post, you were calling a "positive experience" with firearms. Guess I'll just have to keep wondering. But you can stop conveying misrepresentations of what I say anytime you like now, even if you don't want to answer my questions.


Anyway, the point of the original question, which I tried to state as clearly as possible, is to get people thinking about how much personal experience might shape our views on guns and gun control.

My goodness, it's lucky you came along. Nobody else would ever have thought of *that*, I'm sure.

And what do you plan to do with your results?

I'm sure you're not going to conclude that the opinions of people whose negative experiences with firearms have persuaded them that more regulation of the ways in which firearms are acquired, possessed and used oughta be discounted because they just don't like guns.

.

[MrBenchley]

71. "personal experience might shape our views on guns"

Wonder if this prolonged meditation is going to include one's experience with, say, the sort of politician who has the blessing of the gun lobby?

[texasdem99]

74. So now I"m a shill for GW Smirk because I disagree with you

Wow! How long did that take? Well, I should have seen it coming. That's what this conversation with you has degenerated into.

[jhfenton]

77. Yep

Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing shill for Georgy Boy. And probably racist too. ;)

[MrBenchley]

80. Gee, fenton, you actually SAY SO on your website...

http://www.johnfenton.org/weblog/00000037.html

[slackmaster]

81. My browser must be malfunctioning again

I don't see the words "I am a shill" anywhere on the page, or on Mr. Fenton's entire site.

[MrBenchley]

79. Too TOO funny....

You want to talk about how personal experiences have shaped MY views on guns and gun control....well, personally, my experience is that this rhetoric is trumpeted on the political arena by the scum of the earth.

"That's what this conversation with you has degenerated into."
Funny, I was making a remark to Iverglas...

[texasdem99]

72. My mistake,

I thought that there were only 3 experiences listed in Lunabush's post, so indeed you never referred to the military experience as negative. My apologies.

Yes, I probably was projecting a little with my own military experience. Some people enjoy it, but most people are just happy to eventually get out.

I stated the purpose of the question again to reiterate that I don't consider experience with firearms or lack thereof to be a prerequsite to being knowledgeable on the subject.

I also notice an undercurrent of sarcasm in all of your responses. Have I angered you somehow?

[jhfenton]

75. Discounted opinions

I'm sure you're not going to conclude that the opinions of people whose negative experiences with firearms have persuaded them that more regulation of the ways in which firearms are acquired, possessed and used oughta be discounted because they just don't like guns.

Actually, the opinions of people who believe in "more regulation of the ways in which firearms are acquired, possessed and used" ought to be discounted regardless of whether they like guns. They are no different than people who want to limit or restrict free speech.

[iverglas]

83. no difference

Actually, the opinions of people who believe in "more regulation of the ways in which firearms are acquired, possessed and used" ought to be discounted regardless of whether they like guns. They are no different than people who want to limit or restrict free speech.

And there we agree precisely, except that I say "different from", and I specify that people (a) want to limit speech, and (b) want to interfere in the exercise of the right of free speech. I do like precision.

You counselled anyone to commit perjury lately? I mean, obviously the law against giving false testimony is unconstitutional. Had any clients (assuming, hypothetically, that you practise criminal law) charged with uttering death threats? Unconstitutional violation of free speech! says I. And you, of course. Anybody charged with causing a disburbance or the local equivalent -- say, by shouting "fire" in a non-burning crowded theatre?

Watch out! Here he comes with his "prior restraint".

Challenged any bylaws requiring parade permits for political demonstrators in that burg of yours lately? And if the big cheese comes to visit, you'll be in court ahead of time challenging those "free speech zone" thingies, may I assume? Unconstitutional, unconstitutional! I can hear you now.

What's that Federal Communications Commission of yours about, anyhow? And what's that they've been getting up to this week? You don't mean to tell me that people need licences to communicate with the public?! And can lose their licences for, what is it, "indecent" speech??

I could go on. But I'll bet that if I said something defamatory, you might be tempted to apply for an injunction. Oh no! Not prior restraint!

.

[jhfenton]

84. First Amendment Jurisprudence

I would be perfectly happy to apply USofA First Amendment jurisprudential principles to the Second Amendment. I do not object to reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on the exercise of the RKBA. If only that were all with which we have to deal.

In my "burg" we have no special parade permits for "political demonstrators." In fact, last fall, I was involved in organizing a large political demonstration, an open-carry walk. Because we walked two-by-two on the sidewalk, obeyed all traffic and pedestrian control laws, and did not obstruct traffic or pedestrians, we had no need for a permit. We even gathered in a city park. If we had wanted to close streets or sidewalks we would have needed a parade permit, to avoid infringing on the rights of others to use the public rights-of-way.

Laws against perjury, uttering death threats, disorderly conduct, inducing panic are legitimate because each involves an agression on the rights of another person. Perjury is a form of fraud -- agression by deception -- on the parties to a case and to the legal system itself.

Likewise, laws against brandishing a firearm, threatening another person with a firearm, firing shots into the air, etc. are reasonable. Even a general law against discharging a firearm within the city limits other than at a shooting range is appropriate as a safeguard of the rights of others.

We do not, however, license journalists, printing presses, photocopiers, typewriters, computers, or megaphones. We do not restrict high-capacity printing presses to the government.

If you want to apply First Amendment jurisprudence to the Second Amendment, go right ahead. That's exactly what I advocate.

And there we agree precisely, except that I say "different from", and I specify that people (a) want to limit speech, and (b) want to interfere in the exercise of the right of free speech. I do like precision.

Sorry, I just slipped into "unilingual Murikan." I will try to be more precise.

[enki23]

52. i own a few

an old piece of crap mossberg 12 gauge, though both the barrel and stock have been replaced. no more "select-a-choke" or whatever they called that bad idea. one kit-built 30-06 my father assembled years ago, a .50 caliber muzzleloader likewise built from a kit (the well-used deer hunting rifle,) and a ruger 10-22 plinker. i did most of my serious hunting, however, with a "factory second" custom longbow built by a neighbor. i got it for the price of materials, because he'd cut too far in for the arrow rest. it looked a bit flimsy, but never actually broke.

oh, and i'm entirely in favor of most sensible gun control legislation. that includes waiting periods, safety devices, circumstance-specific storage requirements, restrictions on some large capacity semi-auto weapons, etc. i'm also completely opposed to concealed carry without demonstration of exceptional need. i don't hunt anymore, and barring extreme circumstances probably never will again, but i was in favor of well designed firearms legislation even back then. the assault weapons ban isn't all that well designed, but in my opinion that's only because they didn't focus enough on the characteristics of the weapons that actually made them *dangerous*. bayonet lugs and pistol grips aren't really much of an issue. high capacity magazines coupled with fast firing, however, are worthy of some restriction. not an outright ban. but they could stand to be well regulated.