What if there were serious gun controls?

[bblhd672]

http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus ... ontrols%3F

[J.R.@A&M]

I currently possess five revolvers and one semiauto shotgun, but still that article made me mad

[LDB415]

I kept reading thinking wait, that's already a law, and then got to the finish line and saw what they were doing.

[montgomery]

http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus ... ontrols%3F

I'll just leave this right here and hope the appeasers and squishy 2A supporters will read it, finally understanding we don't need more infringements.

No, we don't need to give another inch. And we do not need fair weather gun people in the gun community either. If those among us are not willing to stand and fight, then they are supporting the domestic enemy. Standing behind a NRA membership card is not going to cut it.

[MechAg94]

What if there were serious gun controls?

Already have those. Have you seen how expensive the Geiselle triggers are? Those are serious controls.

[cmgee67]

What if there were serious gun controls?

Already have those. Have you seen how expensive the Geiselle triggers are? Those are serious controls.

What about a “smile wait for the flash” dust cover?

[strogg]

Once I got to the FFL paragraph, I went, "Wait a minute..." then decided to skip to the end of the article. Either the writer's are severely uninformed or they are expecting people reading it to be severely uninformed. Fortunately, it's the latter.

The writers are correct, though. There is serious gun control already in place. And frankly, it's enough legislation. Too much, actually. No need to go further. "Who needs 100 round magazines?" Um, I'll be honest. I don't. And no one really does. But no one really needs sports cars. Or skis. Or board games. Should we ban them all? I don't think so. "But those 100 round magazines will help kill more people!" OK, I get it, but used irresponsibly, all the other examples may contribute to one's early demise. Speeding vehicle in a collision, skiing accident on a double black diamond slope, and choking hazard on small game pieces.

What we need to focus on is the root cause of the problem: deranged people. We need to focus on locking up the criminals and giving proper help to the mentally ill. Not adding more legislation that, let's be honest, will be only sparsely enforced at best. I hope people the antis at some point realize that for our sake.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wonder how many, if any, people read the entire article. David Kopel is a major 2A supporter! He is the attorney who represented all of the Colorado Sheriffs suing the State of Colorado to overturn some of its more onerous gun control laws. He's written countless articles and law review articles opposing gun control laws and arguing for strict construction of the Second Amendment.

I understand full well the sentiment and even anger that we all feel when guns and gun owners are attacked as being "the problem" when nothing could be further from the truth. That said, here are some facts that will be a bitter pill for some to swallow. Non-gun owners out number gun owners. Not all gun owners will support a "shall not be infringed" position on all current or proposed gun laws. In Texas, only about 4% to 6% of the total population have an LTC. Of those that do, not all carry self-defense handguns on a daily basis. Collectively, these people outnumber those gun owners who view any and all gun laws as a violation of the 2A. These people greatly outnumber hardliners and they participate in elections. At the national level, we are successful at preventing passage of almost all anti-gun bills. Indeed, we kill far more than most people know, but I won't go into that in detail. (Remember, our enemy reads the Forum.) Passing pro-gun bills in Washington is not like passing them in Austin. I wish it were otherwise, but it is not.

People like Shannon Watts, Gabby Gifford, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi and others don't win support by inflammatory lies like "NRA has blood on its hands" and "AR-15s are only good for killing people." That only fans the flames in their tiny lunatic base; it doesn't generate enough support to pass their anti-gun bills. The true danger comes from people who speak rationally, without insults, and that focus on what they perceive as a problem. Questions like "why do you need an assault rifle" and "why do you need more than 10 rds in your gun" appeal to a lot of Americans. Although they are based upon a false premise (that "need" is part of constitutional protections), they have a ring of validity to many people. These groundless arguments can be defeated only with a rational fact-based opposition that appeal to rational people. Beating your chest, vowing never to accept anything other than what you perceive as ideal and flinging insults at our opponents like a siege catapult only serve to strengthen enemies of the 2A. Such conduct makes absurd statements by our enemy appear to be more plausible. Remember when your Mom told you that, if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all? Well, Mom's advice applies in the legislative and political arena as well. I'm not saying people should not respond to Shannon Watts Class lies and insults, but trying to out-insult your opponent is counterproductive. Most good people don't like jerks, regardless of their position on any issue.

Insulting people who are predominantly on your side of an issue doesn't help either. Intentional insults like "appeasers and squishy 2A supporters[,] "we do not need fair weather gun people in the gun community[,]" "they are supporting the domestic enemy[,]" aren't going to win you any support. Combine these types of comments/insults with attacks on the NRA because we haven't accomplished precisely what you want, and all in one legislative session, and the result is marginalizing oneself further. Blasting the NRA and experienced legislative activists for the way they deal with issues is like a Vietnam era draft-dodger who fled to Canada. After arriving safely, he then proposed to dictate how the war should be fought and won. He never stepped foot on the battlefield, never put his life in danger, never participated in a fight, had no idea of the enemy's tactics/strengths/weakness, and had not the slightest inkling what was logistically achievable. Nevertheless, he attacked, denigrated and mocked those who did fight the battles and performed to the best of their abilities and were successful in all but a very few instances.

Some will take offense at my comments, but I was once on the same path. I won’t claim to have never lashed out in anger by saying something I later regretted. I must confess that I can be very good at subtly interjecting cutting insults into a conversation. What do I achieve other than mentally patting myself on the back and thinking “that was a good one Charles!"? I may have scored points in a battle of insults, but what of substance have I achieved? Nothing! I have entrenched my opposition further and given them greater incentive to fight against my position. Worse yet, my insult may have turned an otherwise uncommitted person against me, thus against my issue. Once the pleasure of winning a battle of insults subsides, I am left with the realization that all I truly accomplished was hurting the cause for which I am fighting. That was a rude awakening I faced many years ago. It was also when I decided to become a statesman. I still get mad, I just don’t let control my attitude.

Anger is a natural response to being falsely labeled a monster, at hearing lie after lie spewed by dishonest politicians and political hacks, and being required to constantly defend what is right time and time again. That anger is a statesman's fuel that keeps him or her going when even your supposed allies appear to be more like enemies. Let righteous anger be your fuel, not your downfall.

Chas.

[Middle Age Russ]

The article was nice and well-written, but Charles post above may be more worth the read to many of us than the article was. Thanks, Charles.

[bblhd672]

Thanks Charles, I will refrain from using inflammatory comments about those who disagree with us.

[Lynyrd]

I would dare to guess that all of the people who don't own at least one gun would read that article and think that we need the laws it describes. I would also dare to guess that many, many gun owners would also read that article and think that we need the laws it describes. The political momentum for more stringent gun control does not seek to educate people on what laws already exist. That would not server their purpose.

[crazy2medic]

Let's run this through the grist mill!
1 before uou can excercise your 1st amendment to peacefully assemble you need to pass a background check be free of all crimes including misdemeanors. Before you can petition the Govt for redress of grievances you are once again required to have the governments permission to do so!
Before you can attend the Church of your choice you must once again get the govt permission to go to that Church, synagogue, mosque you must first submit to a back ground check, and your house of worship must be govt approved!
Before you can blog, or submit comments to any forum or web site you must get the govt permission to speak, what you say must be approved by a govt speech vetting office and you must wait 10 days before said speech can be published, you must apply for and obtain a free speech card prior to any publishing of expression of anything that might be considered remotely inflammatory, your limited to one expression of free speech a month.
You Get the Idea, why is our freedom the only one under attack? Can you imagine the hue and cry if any of these national talking heads had to pass a background check obtain govt permission before being able to open their lying mouths? What if they had to wait 10 days before publishing their articles?

[MaduroBU]

We are fortunate to have folks like Charles on our side. Here Here!

[Liberty]

Thanks Charles,
Maturity has proven to me through many harder lessons, that stating your case is a lot more effective than demanding that someone sees things the same way as I do. In the new media, that we know as the interwebs, the winner isn't the folk that makes the most jabs or damages his opponents. The winner is the one who presents the most satisfying facts and understanding to his side to the observers on the sidelines.