I’m not a gun owner but I agree with all of that. I don’t want all guns banned; I just want the people who own guns to be as responsible as possible with them. If the approach works for car ownership, let’s try it for guns too.
I’m also anti-crazy-people-owning-guns and sometimes the only way to tell how crazy some people are is to listen to them talk about their guns. But that’s a different thread.
Now - did someone say something about bacon?
Strongly anti-gun, since there was no option for “Despises guns with the brilliance of a thousand suns”. Although I would like that with bacon.
In what way is the “looney gun-control fringe” not already completely marginalized?
Notice the use of the word “neutralize” (not marginalize). We all know what neutralize means when talking about people.
Ended up with strongly pro-gun.
Guns are not even close to a leading cause of death in this country. Curbing obesity and tobacco-related illnesses & traffic fatalities is a whole slew of other threads, however. In fact, if I were to indulge my paranoid instincts I might suggest this whole gun-control brewhaha is stirred up by the cabal that runs the tobacco & fast food industries.
But that would be crazy.
This.
Could not have said it any better.
I have a lifetime license to carry a concealed handgun and own a shotgun for home protection, and neither gun will EVER be registered. To GET that lifetime CC, I had to undergo a background check and be fingerprinted and entered into the system. I’m good with that. The mandatory background check do weed out the folks who shouldn’t own weapons - such as convicted felons. Not that that little impediment will stop someone determined to get their hands on weapons as previously mentioned.
After that, gun control begins to infringe on the 2nd amendment. And that is not a good thing. To deprive a society of its weapons and its right to defend itself is to invite government to take total control of said society. Is that what we want?
As **sahirrnee ** said, a gun is a tool, just like my hammers, channel locks, and cordless drill.
I had need of that tool myself a few years ago when a couple of uninvited guests tried to invade my home. Blessedly, not a shot was fired, but I sure felt a hell of a lot safer for having had that tool available to me. Racking a shell into the chamber certainly got their attention.
A pump-action is a marvelous invention, yanno?
Bacon, since I do eat it (and the falafel option is sorely absent! :mad:**)
Really, I think it’s so easy to find yourself as “other” that I’m afraid I can’t take the poll seriously…
(and that’s not a knock on the OP; just, as **Airman **noted, a comment on the difficulty of framing the issue at all.)
Did you notice that New York and Connecticut passed the most stringent gun laws in the country in the past month and are now less gun-friendly than California, long the example of anti-gun politics?
Marginalization doesn’t occur until the defeat is final. As long as gun-control advocates can keep bringing it up, can change and control the discussion at will, and can occasionally achieve a victory however major or minor it may be, then they are never marginalized.
See, when you talked earlier about the “looney fringe” I assumed that you were talking about people who advocate things like total confiscation of all weapons, including hunting rifles and the like. You know, the insane people who argue for things that will never happen.
I had no idea that you include very typical gun control proposals, like magazine size limitations or assault weapon restrictions. And apparently your definition of “looney fringe” is any gun control advocate who achieves any victory “however major or minor it may be.” In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is the looney fringe in your mind.
Do I have that right? Or do you want to reassess what you just said?
That would be me. Although I know my desire of complete and total confiscation is a pipe dream, so I content myself with pushing for the strongest control possible.
It looks from the poll as if Dopers are generally strongly pro- or anti-gun, with the benighted pro crowd edging out. Ironically, I feel it may be time just to shoot those bastards and be done with it.
Strongly anti- … however, not as strong as I used to be. Years (decades!) of debates have smoothed off some of the rougher edges of my views.
My views tend to wander according to the quality of the loyal opposition. My opinions harden when I read opinions by idiots; when reasonable people explain their opinions, my own opinions swing back more closely to theirs.
(The quickest way to turn me into a gun-grabber is to call me one.)
I chose “strongly pro-gun.”
I think we need much stronger gun control in the US, but I vehemently oppose a ban on any type of gun or gun-related equipment (magazines, etc.), or anything that is effectively a ban.
Licensing, registration, liability, transfer laws, all of that is okay with. But a ban is not. A ban is the government saying that I must give up what I view as an essential right and an essential freedom because they cannot distinguish me from a criminal, and that disturbs me. Legal private ownership of firearms means the relationship between an individual and society is one of trust, mutual understanding, and respect. Regulation is necessary, because not everyone is deserving of that trust, but bans are a sign that the relationship between an individual and society is deteriorating on a fundamental level.
Because of the wide range of gun control measures I would support, many people would not consider me strongly pro-gun, but I feel strongly enough about the topic of outright bans that that’s how I would classify myself.
One definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. The “looney fringe” in this case is people who endlessly, repeatedly bring up the Assault Weapons ban as the panacea of choice.
I have my own idea of what I would be OK with. The AWB is a non-starter, yet it is the centerpiece, the crown jewel, of gun control proposals. Knowing that and still pushing for reimplementation? Lunacy.
And fringe? I await your justification.
The justification is easy. It doesn’t stand a chance in Hell of ever being implemented again Federally. In fact, the mention of it devastated the push for more legislation when it seemed certain that something was going to pass. Feinstein had it ready to go immediately and sucked the air completely out of the room with it. It failed 40-60. It wasn’t even close. The idea that it ever will be again is a pipe dream, and the people who push for it are absolutely fringe, they’re trying for something that isn’t possible at the expense of what IS possible.
40% is fringe. Got it.
Assuming that the current status quo is neutral, I guess I’m moderately anti-gun. I support background checks and closing a ton of loopholes. I want a lot done to prevent illegal gun use. I realize that any attempt at actual disarmament will cause unacceptable levels of increase in short-term gun deaths. I do believe in the right to self defense, and, as long as criminals have guns, that means people need guns, even if I wish we didn’t.
My main thing is that that I’m anti-pro-gun. I’m against the idea that guns are a right in and of themselves. I’m against the idea that even sensible regulations are a violation of gun owners’ freedoms. And I’m against the demonization of everyone who is not in the first category of this poll.
It’s a really big fringe. Like disco-era-cowboy-jacket quantities of fringe.
This poll so far is indicating one truth that we should all happily agree on : from time to time, even the left can get it right.
I think it’s interesting that there are so many anti-gun posters on a left leaning board.
I put the anti-gun people in the same category as Pro-Life and Anti-SSM people. They are trying to impose their values on others, as in I don’t need or want a gun so you can’t have one either.
Pro-gun people are in the same category as Pro-Choice and Pro-SSM people, as in I may not want to get an abortion or I’m not gay and don’t want to marry someone of the same gender but it’s okay with me if you do.
That is one of the big differences between the anti-gun and the pro-gun crowds. The anti-gun people want to tell the pro-gun people how to live, the pro-gun people don’t give a shit if the anti-gun people have guns or not.