The reason pro-gun Second Amendment-absolutists (which I lean towards) furiously object to gun control as usually proposed is for any of the following reasons or often a combination of them:
[ol]
[li]That gun owners consider the very premise of gun control flawed; that limiting or banning firearms would lead to a safer more peaceful society.[/li][li]That gun owners bitterly resent statistical models of crime control that make no allowance for individual choice or personal character, thus lumping peaceful law-abiding gun owners with career criminals and sociopaths.[/li][li]The idea that owning firearms, and thus possessing the practical means of self-defense, is a privilege which the government can grant or withdraw by the simple passage of a law.[/li][li]The idea that the government should have a monopoly on “serious” firearms, leaving the populace with at most some minimally effective second-rate weapons.[/li][li]The historical precedent that things that aren’t gun bans in and of themselves- like universal registration- have frequently been the prelude to gun bans.[/li][li]The open proclamation by many gun-control advocates that they really are seeking to abolish firearms from civil society, by an incremental process of delegitimizing gun ownership.[/li][li]That many of the proposed laws, like “assault weapons” bans, would do little or nothing to make the public safer, at the cost of lost utility for legitimate possession of such weapons.[/li][/ol]
Gun owners wish they didn’t need to fear a slippery slope, and would gladly accept reasonable limitations on firearms ownership, if it could somehow be impossible for those limits to ever be exceeded.
exactly! Me and my sister go through about 200-300 rounds when we go to the range to practice, considerably less now that ammo pricing has gone up. 50 rounds is not even enough to sight in my pistol.
Some folks hear 1000 rounds and imagine crates full of the stuff in reality it is a few small boxes you could probably fit in bowling bag with room to spare for lunch, gloves, eye and ear protection and the gun.
So no cites then? Got it.
Then why don’t we try modeling American gun control on other countries’ gun-control systems that work? E.g., Canada’s. Most sensible American gun owners of the sort the OP is talking about would be entirely comfortable with that.
[quote=“Lumpy, post:41, topic:648422”]
The reason pro-gun Second Amendment-absolutists (which I lean towards) furiously object to gun control as usually proposed is for any of the following reasons or often a combination of them:
[LIST=1]
[li]That gun owners consider the very premise of gun control flawed; that limiting or banning firearms would lead to a safer more peaceful society.[/li][/quote]
Well, that’s demonstrably false if you look around the world; and you should always look around the world.
[quote]
[li]The idea that the government should have a monopoly on “serious” firearms, leaving the populace with at most some minimally effective second-rate weapons.[/li][/quote]
They are quite effective against home invaders, etc. They are not effective against the police or the Army – nor should they be. The Second Amendment does not and should not exist to facilitate insurrection.
[quote]
[li]The open proclamation by many gun-control advocates that they really are seeking to abolish firearms from civil society, by an incremental process of delegitimizing gun ownership.[/li][/quote]
So? That certainly is worth doing – personal firearms are good enough for home-defense and hunting and collecting, but they have no legitimate place in civil society. Do you have a better idea as to how?
:dubious: Like Hell they do! Based on everything one reads on the Intertubes, they love it!
False dichotomy. You can believe that it is deleterious to liberty for there to exist a subjection of the people to a statist monopoly of force without believing that armed insurrection is a good thing.
. . . No, I don’t see any crack between the two. Where is it?
In that case, I think you have an oversimplified imagination of the situation. The ability to exercise violent force is the ultimate foundation of all covenants. When we form social contracts we cede a certain amount of our liberty to establish a central authority, which we vest with the right to perform violence on our behalf to hold the covenant; this is not contradictory with believing it to be an ill when that force must actually be used. Likewise, it is not contradictory to believe that some capacity for force should be retained by all parties to the covenant, without sanctioning violence against the covenant or in opposition to its founding principles.
There is a difference between “X should be possible, because the possibility of X may deter Y, or else because we envision a possible future in which X is better than some alternative Z,” and “X in itself is a good.” You may disagree with the exact weighing of the utilities, or argue that the entire chain of logic is wrong, but to pretend that there’s no difference is simply incorrect.
. . . OK, that’s bullshit, to start with.
Has it ever not been true? When we pass laws it means we sanction the use of force to stop law-breakers or to punish those who have broken the law. Without the ability to use violence, enforcement is not possible – unless you assume that everyone innately wishes to follow the covenant, in which case, why was it necessary in the first place?
“Covenant” is much, much broader than “law.” Many covenants in human history, and not the weakest, have depended on a sense of honor and obligation among the participants – e.g., European feudalism (as between nobles, not as between landlord-and-peasant), founded on sword-and-blood, but maintained mostly by honor.
All covenants require a sense of honor and obligation among the participants. He’s arguing that the ability to use violence is necessary for the enforcement of the covenant. And he’s right. Using your example, if a baron decides he no longer wishes to pay his taxes or supply the king with knights and footmen how do you get him to step in line? Without the ability to use violence feudalism wouldn’t be possible.
Maybe if you picked a better example. Perhaps a Mennonite colony? Their pacifist so far as I know.
[quote=“Lumpy, post:41, topic:648422”]
The reason pro-gun Second Amendment-absolutists (which I lean towards) furiously object to gun control as usually proposed is for any of the following reasons or often a combination of them:
[li]The open proclamation by many gun-control advocates that they really are seeking to abolish firearms from civil society, by an incremental process of delegitimizing gun ownership.[/li][/QUOTE]
Since all the points I posted have been debated ad nauseum, I won’t go into them again, and I wasn’t addressing their truth or falsehood. The OP simply asked why isn’t there more of a middle ground in the gun debate; and one of the reasons I responded with is the fear that compromise is simply being a sucker when there’s an opposition that is not bargaining in good faith because it really doesn’t want a “compromise”. Your reply simply demonstrates that.
You “lean towards” “Second Amendment absolutists,” you preposterously imply that firearms have some legitimate place in “civil society” (which is not the same thing as “society”), and now you say your opponents don’t want compromise?! All gun-control advocates in America understand perfectly well that they have to compromise, that this will never be a disarmed society like the UK or Japan. Canadian-style gun control is a reasonable compromise.
Wait, so you’re saying that in order to be on the side that’s interested in compromise, you must think that gun ownership cannot occur in society? Your view of compromise is absolute banning of guns, and anyone who deviates from that is unwilling to compromise?
:rolleyes: No, once again, “civil society” is not the same thing as “society” and of course firearms have no legitimate place in the former.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: No, once again, my view of “compromise” is a gun-control regime like Canada has, or something similar. There’s still plenty of privately-owned firearms in Canada.
Do learn to read for comprehension.
You seem to be making a pretty big deal about this. I must confess my ignorance: I’m not familiar with this term in the way you seem to be using it. But from reading the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that gun clubs, the CMP, and even the NRA could be considered a part of this “civil society.” What do you mean by it, and why do firearms have no legitimate place in it?
I didn’t realize you were being pedantic about “civil society” - I fail to see how it even makes sense for guns to be involved in “civil society” as per the wikipedia page. What would that even mean?
Clearly he didn’t mean civil society in that sense, since it wouldn’t make sense. I’d imagine he just meant “a civil society”.
I still don’t see how your statement follows, even given that. How does his statement, even obviously misinterpreted, indicate hypocrisy at thinking that his opponents are not interested in compromise?
Without getting into the 40-odd states that have “shall-issue” concealed carry licenses (self-defense outside of one’s home)–Canadian gun laws (if that Wikipedia article is accurate, and if I’m reading some fairly dense legalistic language correctly) don’t seem to have much provision for keeping firearms for “home defense”. According to the Wikipedia article:
[quote]
Storage
Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
[ul]
[li]Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock); or[/li][li]Have bolts or bolt-carriers removed; or[/li][li]Securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into[/li][li]Except if: (1) in areas where it is legal to fire a gun, non-restricted firearms needed for predator control can temporarily be left unlocked and operable, but they must be kept unloaded and all ammunition must be stored separately, and (2) in wilderness areas, non-restricted firearms can be left unlocked and/or operable, but must be left unloaded (ammunition may be kept nearby).[/ul][/li]
Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
[ul]
[li]Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or[/li][li]Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms[/li][li]For automatic firearms, the bolt(s) or bolt-carrier(s) must be removed, if removable, and stored in a separate locked room that cannot be easily broken into[/ul][/li]
Ammunition:
[ul]
[li]Must be kept in a location where it is not available for loading the firearm, unless both the firearm and its ammunition are securely locked up[/ul][/li][/quote]
It sounds like firearms must–with some pretty limited exceptions–be kept in a manner that basically renders them useless as weapons. That’s fine for hobbyists, but not much use for “home defense”.
Because civil society is all about talking. Gun-rights activists have a place in it, but they need not and should not come to that place actually armed.