Robert asks, “So how should gun rights advocates play it?”
Well, for one thing they should stop resisting every single gun control initiative. You lose credibility when you do that. Background checks on private sales and registering particular guns to particular buyers at the time of purchase would go a long way towards reducing gun flow into the criminal world. By all means, continue ridiculing people who make magazine capacity their chief concern, and the suppressor laws and the 1000-foot bubble law, but acquiesce to the more sensible and practical ideas which would help, even if that means you’d be inconvenienced.
Another thing, you can stop doing what Sean does [in the post on Congresswoman McCarthy’s high cap mag ban bill]: stop pretending it’s EITHER gun control OR keeping violent offenders in jail. We can and should do both. In fact it’s our failure to do both that increases the problem. Violent people who shouldn’t be out on the street have easy access to guns. This is because we fail to do the first things I mentioned, background checks and proper registration.
And finally, stop with the excessive blustering talk. All that crap about Molon labe and the rest of it is just that, crap. Very few people are that die-hard about it and the ones who are don’t need to boast about it on the internet. The only result is you sound like a bunch of nuts, and for what? No one is coming for you guns anyway, why keep saying “I’ll never give them up” and “just come and get them, I dare ya.”
I think MikeB302000 is on to something — the eventual end of gun ownership in America. There is no such thing as a few benign controls, no government is benign not even ours.
“practicle ideas which would help”
That right there is a poisoning the well fallacy and an opinion.
If you disagree w/ his idea, you’re ‘impractical’. The same as calling them ‘common-sense’ and ‘reasonable’ when they’re anything but.
And he has no idea if they’ld help or not. Just another case of wishful thinking. But this is MikeB, who’s openly admitted he doesn’t really care about factual information in regards to his opinions and regards an individual banned from this very blog as a quality source.
Background checks: would that stop criminals from stealing lawfully owned guns? What about owners who “snap”? What about guns given as gifts, or otherwise inherited?
Gun registration: yeah, because no government ever confiscated registered arms.
Molon Labe: yeah, I’d agree with you. A lone police officer, with a badge, shows up at my door, and I’d hand over my stash. Said officer wouldn’t even have to have a sidearm (but he better have a warrent). I’m not dying today, nor would I care much for rotting away in prison. Afterall, I could easily replenish my arms on the blackmarket.
You know what’d be a real cure? Remove the societal outrage against letting criminals get what they have coming to them. Man trying to rape a woman? Congradulate her when she blows him away. Petty theives in the attic? make sure to print his rap sheet in his obit the following day.
Maybe we’d meet you half way, in some compromise, when you stop molly-coddling criminals. Then again, would we need to?
MikeB302000:
Lose credibility? Ha!
Every incremental step we allow to further “reasonable” gun control, is a permanent loss to our gun freedoms which will never be regained. The anti-gun element and the bureaucrats will never be satisfied with any compromise on our part. Anti-gunners seek to completely ban guns from society, while bureaucrats (ATF, for example) constantly seek more funding, larger empires and greater power – at almost any cost. Both are eager for us to concede on each little step.
Do we want criminals to get guns? Hell, no! Will reasonable “Background checks on private sales and registering particular guns to particular buyers at the time of purchase” keep criminals from getting guns? Hell, no! These “reasonable controls” primarily serve the bureaucrats by providing more funding, larger empires and greater power – which will encourage them to seek still more. They also serve the anti-gunners who see it as one more success story.
Do we want to wind up like Canada? Where firearms storage violations are punished more severely than a robbery with a firearm? Where a shopkeeper defending himself against an armed robber is charged with a weapons violation while the robber is offered a reduced sentence for testifying against the shopkeeper?
Or like England? Where a elderly WWII veteran was charged with weapons violations because his war trophies were (illegally) kept in his closet?
Keep compromising and giving ground, and this is where we are going. It’s happened before, and it’s happening now. Stay the course and keep up the fight!
“Robert asks, ‘So how should gun rights advocates play it?’”
Well, since Robert asked me first, I should probably answer. First, I think there is a broad range of gun advocates that you guys might not necessarily represent. So I presume you are asking me how you guys in particular should “play” it.
Really, I don’t think you should “play” it at all. Just keep being yourselves. That way, you people will go on frightening the general public nearly as much as the criminals do, alienating mainstream gun enthusiasts from your extremist positions and marginalizing yourselves from the real debate — thus speeding the way to intelligent and reasonable firearms legislation.
The problem with “reasonable, common sense gun control,” is that it is never enough. Gun crimes are always used as an excuse for more gun control, but gun crimes still occur in places where private gun ownership is 100% illegal. If you could somehow say, “OK, we’ll give you registry and background checks in these situations, and in return you guys stop pushing all the other stuff,” it might be worth it. That would require an honorable opponent. That is not how people who advocate gun control as method of societal control, I mean crime prevention, think. Every little bit of restriction is a victory for them and a stepping stone to another.
Mikeb’s “solution” reminds me of the nice woman who bought a Doberman puppy and needed to dock its tail. She felt bad about hacking off the whole thing, so she had it clipped an inch at a time. I’ll pass.
“Common sense gun safety” are four words used to describe laws to prevent legal gun ownership, proposed by those who lack the first two, hate the third and don’t care about the last.
Since when should the winners take advice from the losers? Gun control is a losing proposition, as MikeB well knows. There’s no reason for gun rights advocates to acquiesce to any gun control position until and unless the pendulum swings in the other direction regarding the public attitude towards guns.
I dunno… seems like the gun lobby goes out of its way to thwart, stifle, and neuter firearms regulation any way it can, then gripes that it isn’t effective. Hmm.
Example: For five years and counting the BATF hasn’t had a permanent director because the gun lobby has learned it can raise big bucks by opposing all potential candidates a Republican or Democratic administration can nominate, up to and possibly including Ted Nugent. Demonizing civil servants is a big money maker for them. Oh, well. It’s your money they’re taking. They’re not getting mine.
Please explain why the pro-rights groups should support ANY Director for the ATF.
If there was a federal police agency specifically constituted to keep African-Americans “in their place,” would you expect the NAACP should support anyone to be the Director?
Background checks on private sales and registering particular guns to particular buyers at the time of purchase would go a long way towards reducing gun flow into the criminal world.
As the entire proposition rests on the assumption that even more restrictions on lawful purchase of firearms will somehow mitigate crime, please demonstrate that 100% of criminals obtain their firearms through legal means.
As only about 25% of guns involved in a crime are actually backtraced to their point of origin, there is wiggle-room in how to value certain minor points of data. But the fact remains that the preponderance of crime is committed with stolen firearms. Not from a dealer, not from a gun show. The criminal bought purchased it black market, or borrowed/rented it.
As the firearms are not obtained legally, please explain how legal restrictions that only will be followed by the law-abiding, will curb the black market.
The fact that cocaine and heroin are for practical purposes 100% illegal for most of the planet does not seem to preclude anyone from obtaining either substance in rather short order pretty much anywhere.
When anything is outlawed, only outlaws will have it. If making laws prevented people from committing certain acts, that law against murder would have stopped the shooters.
You will have to forgive me for being completely uninterested in the advice of someone who has as much respect for my individual rights as the KKK does for the rights of people with darker skintones. His cause is failing and he knows it – this insincere attempt at “reaching across the aisle” is nothing more than his attempt to ameliorate the damage “gun control” is taking on a daily basis, and why should I care about doing that?
Please note: I have deleted a number of comments (and sent their author emails telling them so) questioning TTAG’s editorial judgement in giving MikeB space to rant.
I am ready, willing and able to discuss any and all editorial decisions—off-line. Simply email your complaint or criticism [email protected] and we can get into it. I don’t want discussions about substantive issues getting sidetracked by meta editorial issues.
If you feel that I’ve got it completely wrong, please pen an editorial (couple of graphs anyway) and I’ll create a separate post where we can hash it out publicly.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled website.
“If you feel that I’ve got it completely wrong,”
You got it right. It is always wise to know your enemy. MikeB is of course wrong about it being a good move on liberty advocates to support anti-liberty measures, but I think he is right about “Molon labe”.
I’ve been reading every pro-gun control article that I can find since the Arizona crime spree. One of the things I find most interesting is that folks like MikeB apparently think that gun-owners and the NRA should and likely will support their anti-liberty proposals, as if it is now a natural thing or “common sense”. There have been some gun owners publicly stating their desire to acquiesce and compromise on liberty, but the proportion of Fudds to equal rights advocates seems roughly inverted compared to when the AWB was enacted. The experienced and savvy politicians in Congress who support gun control recognize the realpolitik situation and are not joining arms (pun not intended) with their comrades. If no gun control measure passes on account of the “high capacity clip” attack on a Congresswoman and federal judge then the anti-liberty lobby will have been neutered and we may be approaching the time when pro-liberty legislation may be introduced and perhaps even passed at the federal level.
“Well, for one thing they should stop resisting every single gun control initiative. You lose credibility when you do that.”
Why would maintaining a consistent principled position lead to a loss of credibility?
If you are a gun safety advocate, rather than merely a gun banner–follow your own advice and compromise. Real compromise, I mean, not ‘we want it all, compromise and give us half’. Compromise like giving up some law you consider ineffective in exchange for one that you think will work–you make some sacrifices to get what you want, rather than just demanding we make all the sacrifices. Want to pass a new restrictive law? Propose to repeal some other restrictive law in exchange. It might be possible to keep the overall level of gun control similar or even reduced from current levels, while making some adjustments that could reduce misuse–but ‘previous restrictions didn’t work so we want even more’ isn’t acceptable.
I don’t believe in compromise. This isn’t a business deal where you give and take. This is a debate about what’s right and what’s wrong. There can be no compromise in that.
Our questions are about life and death, do guns really do more good than harm, or not? Where are you going to compromise with something like that.
Now, that’s not to say there’s no place for open-mindedness. All who are honest, despite strong opinions, should strive for the open mind. I know I have one (you should be smiling right now. there’s always room for humor).
So MikeB302000,
You think it right to make it harder for the law abiding citizens to own firearms in the vain hope of impacting the actions of criminals.
You think it is right to propose that every gun owner be subjected to a mental health exam.
You think it is right to propose that every gun owner’s home and inventory of firearms be subject to yearly inspection.
You think it is right for every gun owner to be licensed, tested and approved by the state.
You think it is right for for every firearm to be registered.
You think it is right for every firearm transaction to be conducted through an FFL and approved by the government.
Yet you don’t think it is right for you to come clean about why and how you illegally owned firearms?
Yet you don’t think it is right for you to come clean about who sold you those firearms.
Yet you don’t think it is right for you to say what happened to those firearms? (Did you sell them before you moved to Italy?)
When are you going to do the right thing MikeB302000 and talk about the flow of guns from legal to illegal?
When are you going to talk about how the laws in place at the time didn’t stop you from illegally owning firearms?
“Gun Control = Crime Control”
Does it? I have yet to see any credible statistical evidence that this is the case. In the interest of fairness, I will say that my side of the debate has not yet produced any credible statistical evidence that “More Guns = Less Crime”. I am aware of John Lott’s work, I am also aware of the enormous amount of controversy around it, and I haven’t had time to examine his model to see if there’s any validity to the claims of systematic bias, so I’ll ignore it for the time being. The point is that until you are making an unsubstantiated claim here, until you can provide some real (non-anecdotal) evidence.
Furthermore, what is “crime control”, exactly? If your city passes an ordinance against spitting on the sidewalk, then it is now a crime. However, does that mean that saliva on a public walkway is a serious social ill? It might be a bit gross, but I doubt that it’s ruining anybody’s life. Just because something is a crime, doesn’t mean it is a problem. A “high capacity” flush-fitting magazine for a Beretta 96 holds 11 rounds. Under Ms. McCarthy’s proposed bill, that one extra round would be the basis for ten years in the federal penitentiary, but is one extra round really a scourge upon our society?
As far as background checks and registrations go, if criminals are stealing weapons, or buying them off the black market from people who stole them, how would your proposed measures help, exactly? The paperwork is unlikely to create a magical anti-theft forcefield around the weapons.
The simple fact of the matter is even if you made all guns completely illegal, and were able to successfully confiscate a large majority of them (unlikely), the same people who smuggle cocaine and other completely illegal products into this country would diversify their business to include firearms. After all, they already have a captive market with their distributors, who are violent individuals.
Damn glad to see MikeB post here. While I find his arguments poorly constructed and lacking any logic, baring him from discourse is an exercise in fascism. I hope to see more posts from him and thanks for being a forum, not just the ramblings of paranoid firearm owners.
Dear Mike 1+1=2, 2*2=4. the equals sign denotes a fact or a truth. However criminals do not abide by the laws, and thats why they are criminals. Thieves steal. Rapist rape. killers kill. Drugs like cocaine, heroin, crack and others have been banned in the US for decades and yet the bans haven’t equated to a stop of the drug cartels making money or prisons getting smaller. Pohibition didn’t work either.
I’m with Ralph again, once you cave in to the gun grabbers silly demands you will soon lose everything to the gun haters, it’s that simple.
The second amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Every single piece of GUN CONTROL is an INFRINGEMENT, small though it may be. This is the United States of America. It’s a big world with a lot of other options, many of which include extensive gun control.
As Mike bravo’s opinions are not based on reason, but are merely strings of gratuitous assertions, neither facts nor logical argumentation will bring him to either logic or the facts. His position is faith based, and is, therefore, a religion. It is of course another variety of the prevailing tyranny of relativism-self actuated, narcissism, “Because I can’t think of any reason for ‘x’, therefore ‘y & z'”. Regarding the equal sign graphic above, that assertion is based on the assumption that firearms are not once, ever, ever, ever used to prevent violent attacks upon the innocent. Mr. B may be persuaded to accept this particular fact, but I’d wager dollars to donuts right now his “Yes” would be followed on by faster than speeding half life of the trans-uranium elements with a, “…but”.
Comments are closed.