Why are gun nuts still so paranoid?

[Bono]

I have a dream that one day people who want to make the second amendment dead letter will be treated with the same disgust as those who would do the same to the first--not that the two groups don't overlap.

Uh, here's the results from a Quinnipiac poll from July, 2008:

"Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?"
 
                      Support         Oppose       Unsure    
                          %                   %               %    
 7/8-13/08        17                  78                6

Yes, but how many of those people support restrictions that would never be acceptable if the same scrutiny that is applied to the first amendment was applied to the second?
Besides, many of those 17% are in positions of power to shape public opinion, and thus what is acceptable or not. That is why it's still politically and socially acceptable to attack this one fundamental constitutional right.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think gun nuts are paranoid because people who are paranoid about their self defense are paranoid (and non-hunting handguns are the most likely guns to be taken away).

I mean, normal people don't feel the need to get a gun to defend themselves unless they live in the ghetto and I don't think inner city people count as "gun nuts" usually.  In many rural and suburban places you can leave your garage door open and your door unlocked...

I must once again disagree with the extreme left wing lunatic.

First, I have yet to see any evidence that the lunatic "thinks."

Second, I have seen considerable evidence that the lunatic engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of thought.  Those who disagree with his are "nuts" and "paranoid."

Third, he asserts that non-hunting handguns are those most likely to be taken away (thereby acknowledging that there is a real chance of such firearms being prohibited).

Fourth, he asserts that unless you live in a ghetto you don't need a firearms to defend yourself.  Hmm, wonder where he gets that idea?

Now, leaving the lunatic aside, Congress is unlikely to enact legislation attacking the right to keep and bear arms, but, sociopaths like Holder are likely to attack firearm ownership.

First, you have an extremely strange and inaccurate definition of "left-wing lunatic".

Second, what does stating one's opinion of whether owning a gun is necessary under certain conditions have to do with actively supporting gun control legislation?

Third, why do you type so many of your posts using this format?

First, let me note that I was describing Lunar as a left-wing lunatic.  I did not provide a definition, but rather merely cited him as an example.  As such, my example was accurate, and that you find it "extremely strange" reflects you viewpoint.

Second, Lunar is a very dishonest poster who tries to have things both ways.  He attacks those who support libertarian positions (reread his posts and tell me how many different names he calls those who disagree with him), and when called on it, tries to say he really didn't mean what he plainly said.

Third, if you follow the long argument on the right to keep and bear arms, you will find that the advocates of denying that right frequently start out by alleging there is no "need" for firearms for self-defense.  In addition, persons in rural areas find that law enforcement response time is frequently lengthy (due largely to distances).  As such, they require firearms for self-defense (something which apparently did not occur to the lunatic).

Fourth, there are several posters on this forum who provide long, rambling (and often incoherent) posts.  I try to make mine clear, and find the format I employ useful for that purpose.

Of course your lying your full head off, but nothing else should be expected.  Those who favor gun-control rarely if ever make the suggestion that we should take all guns away, or guns for self-defense shouldn't be needed.  The argument is about, having stringent background checks, registration, or not in order to make sure psychopaths are less likely to get their hands on guns.  The argument is about keeping certain guns, which really have no self-defense value off the streets.

Well lets see.

First, lets take a look at Chicago and Washington, D.C. which are continuing to refused to abide by Heller.

Second, would you please identify those "guns," the proper term is firearms, that have no self-defense value?

Third, unless you retract your allegation that the sole area of contetion is over background checks and registration, I will post the agenda of a leading hoplaphobe organization.

[Bono]

Here it is, straight from El Presidenté's mouth:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dead0man]

But Bono, I've been assured by Obama supporters that this won't happen.  Don't worry, don't be paranoid.  If Obama tries that, BRTD will give 'em hell!

[memphis]

mental illness

[Scam of God]

Of course it isn't going to happen. Obama is the consummate politician, and has a real possibility of being elected for a second-term by a massive margin. Why alienate potential supporters?

[DanielX]

The reason why gun control probably won't come back? It would murder rural Democrats. If the Democratic party took gun control seriously, they could kiss West Virginia goodbye, because it would hurry it down the same road Texas took a few decades ago (West Virginia is still a largely Democratic state, but three things are changing that: social issues, coal, and guns. The Dems are already on the wrong side of the "social issues" for socially conservative West Virginia; if they bash on coal and guns, then the GOP will take over completely about when Rockefeller retires or dies).

Gun rights is also the key to any GOP resurgence in northern New England, which is mostly to the social left of the modern GOP but is still quite into gun rights. New Hampshire might start voting Republican again, and I can see a competitive GOP in Maine or even Vermont, if gun control becomes a serious issue again. 

Gun Control would be for rural (Appalachian, Southern, Western, northern New England) Democrats what the Iraq War and Social Conservatives are to the New England GOP: a huge, crushing millstone. Therefore, if Obama is as smart as people think he is, then he wouldn't emphasize it and let it be. Things like healthcare he can gain serious traction on, gun control would cost him. It doesn't hurt that many, if not most, southern Democrats are pro-gun-rights.

[Bono]

Obama must be the only politician whose supporters hope will break his promises.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In my reply No. 26, I challenged Smash to correct his erroneous statement about the limited area of attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.

I pointed out that if he did not correct his misstatement, I would cite the enunciated goals of just one of the organizations.

Here is the agenda of the 'Violence Policy Center':

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/agenda.htm

Ban the manufacture of concealable handguns unless that are ultraexpensive.

Stop the manufacture, imporation and sale of semiautomatic firearms they don't like

Attack the ownership of long range rifles.

Regulate ALL gun sales.  Sorry, can't sell a firearm to your brother in law without going through a ton of red tape.

Try to close gun shows.

Increase the minimum age for possesion of a handgun from 18 to 21.

Restrict the possession of rifles and shotguns for person under the age of 18.

In addition to those listed, the Cities of Chicago, Illinois and Washington, D.C. are refusing to change their laws to conform with the decision of the Supreme Court in Heller.

Further, action is pending in the state of New Jersey to limit persons to purchasing one firearm per month.

[justfollowingtheelections]

mental illness

Well said.  There's a reason they're called gun nuts.

I can relate to those who support "hunting rights".  Hunting is a sport and an activity that many people enjoy and there's nothing wrong with that.

What I don't understand is for what other reason would anyone need a gun?  I once had a discussion with a friend of mine who would like to be allowed to carry non-concealable weapons and I asked him "Why do you need a gun?".  He began explaining to me that a gun is no more of a weapon than a pencil.  Both can be used to cause harm.  I then asked him, "If a gun is not a weapon, then why the hell do you need one?"

Can anyone explain to me why the hell people want guns?  Wouldn't the world be a much safer place if there were less guns out there?

[dead0man]

What I don't understand is for what other reason would anyone need a gun? 

You don't have to understand it and we don't have to exlpain it.  It would be a giant waste of everybody's time.  It's in the Bill of Rights, that's enough.

[justfollowingtheelections]

What I don't understand is for what other reason would anyone need a gun? 

You don't have to understand it and we don't have to exlpain it.  It would be a giant waste of everybody's time.  It's in the Bill of Rights, that's enough.

But I do want to understand.  The Bill of Rights was written in a much different America than the one we live in.  Laws change all the time because as our society changes, our needs change as well.

Can someone explain to me why someone might want to own a gun?  This is a very serious question.

[Lunar]

If people who live in my city own guns (not necessarily me), that means robbers will have an extra risk in their assessment and rob me less.


As an anecdotal pseudo-counterpoint, to play the devil's advocate:
I once had a one-bedroom apartment that I let a friend of mine, who was down on his luck, sleep on the couch during a summer for free.  I refused to let him keep his weapons in my house.  He assured me that if someone was robbing the house, and he had his loaded gun near the couch, he could shoot them before they shot him.  This could be true for a suburban house, but when you are sleeping five feet away from my flimsy front door I'd rather lose my laptop than have a shootout at the old corral and trust in your ability to wake up grab the gun and fire before they fire (and of course, not fire if it's not a threat).  meh.


How does it affect you if, for example, suburban dads feel that they have more peace of mind if they have a weapon, supposing they train in its use? 

"Why would anyone want to do <drug>, it's bad for you!"   We need to outlaw cigarettes ASAP then.


I'm rambling

[dead0man]

Can someone explain to me why someone might want to own a gun?  This is a very serious question.

Fun.  Self defense needs (real or imagined).  Sport.  Food gathering.  Collecting.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The fun argument I don't get at all.  What's fun about having a gun?

I also don't buy the self-defense argument.  If people are allowed to have guns, then your neighbor can also have guns, which puts you in danger.  If neither you nor your neighbor had a gun, both of you would be in less danger.

That's how I see it.

[Lunar]

The fun argument I don't get at all.  What's fun about having a gun?

I also don't buy the self-defense argument.  If people are allowed to have guns, then your neighbor can also have guns, which puts you in danger.  If neither you nor your neighbor had a gun, both of you would be in less danger.

That's how I see it.

Do you support continuing the legalization of cigarettes?

By the way, outlawing guns in America would not stop people from obtaining them any more than outlawing heroin has.  America has a very vibrant arms trade and the fact that we already have guns everywhere in this country means that you could never succeed in preventing people from obtaining them?


By the way, I thought of the ultimate legal need to own a gun (besides being a police officer): if you're a medical marijuana grower you *need* a gun since the government can't protect you

[dead0man]

The fun argument I don't get at all.  What's fun about having a gun?

Yeah, I don't get what's fun about drinking to the point of passing out, but whatever.  I dont get what's fun about watching American Idol or sky diving, but who am I to stop it?  And those things are not even mentioned in the Constitution.  It doesn't matter if you "get" why it's fun or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And we see it differently.  If you get the Bill of Rights ammended, then you'll be right.  Until then, eat beans.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The fun argument I don't get at all.  What's fun about having a gun?

I also don't buy the self-defense argument.  If people are allowed to have guns, then your neighbor can also have guns, which puts you in danger.  If neither you nor your neighbor had a gun, both of you would be in less danger.

That's how I see it.

Do you support continuing the legalization of cigarettes?

By the way, outlawing guns in America would not stop people from obtaining them any more than outlawing heroin has.  America has a very vibrant arms trade and the fact that we already have guns everywhere in this country means that you could never succeed in preventing people from obtaining them?


By the way, I thought of the ultimate legal need to own a gun (besides being a police officer): if you're a medical marijuana grower you *need* a gun since the government can't protect you

Smoking inside buildings is pretty much illegal now, because of how harmful it is to non-smokers.  I support everyone's right to do what they want with their life, as long as they don't harm other individuals.  And owning a weapon tells me that you can potentially harm someone, otherwise why would you even need one?  
I realize that outlawing guns isn't a practical solution, but it is in no way comparable to drugs.  Being a drug-addict is a personal choice anyone can make and has little to no consequences on the society as a whole.  Smoking or using a weapon is a totally different story.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The fun argument I don't get at all.  What's fun about having a gun?

Yeah, I don't get what's fun about drinking to the point of passing out, but whatever.  I dont get what's fun about watching American Idol or sky diving, but who am I to stop it?  And those things are not even mentioned in the Constitution.  It doesn't matter if you "get" why it's fun or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And we see it differently.  If you get the Bill of Rights ammended, then you'll be right.  Until then, eat beans.

Your life isn't in danger though when your neighbor watches crappy tv shows.

[dead0man]

And it's not if he owns a gun either.  Do you think people that own guns are regularly having them go off in their home?  Do you think people that go insane can only kill their neighbors if they have fire arms?  You have a very strong fear of guns, it's obvious.  Why do you think you need to regulate that fear away?  Do you think everybody should be encouraged to try and have their fears regulated?

[justfollowingtheelections]

And it's not if he owns a gun either.  Do you think people that own guns are regularly having them go off in their home?  Do you think people that go insane can only kill their neighbors if they have fire arms?  You have a very strong fear of guns, it's obvious.  Why do you think you need to regulate that fear away?  Do you think everybody should be encouraged to try and have their fears regulated?

No I don't have a fear of guns, the only things I fear are getting old and dying. 
I do think it's irrational to want to own a gun for pleasure and you obviously cannot reason with someone who is irrational.

[dead0man]

Great.  If you want to announce your ignorance to the world, that is your business.  I'm certainly not going to try and stop you.

[Bono]

Looks like we'll have a pro-gun senator from New York. Carolyn McCarthy is threatening to primary her! Hilarious.

[Nym90]

because the gun issue tends to be an emotional rather than an intellectual issue, so people respond with their hearts, not their minds.

True.

Also, the NRA, being that it represents business interests, has an active interest in promoting the party of business.

Most of NRA money comes from grassroots donations, not "business interests". You've made that claim in the forum several times, and when asked to substantiate it you've repeatedly responded with silence.

The NRA has no vested interest in electing republicans, and they have endorsed many democrats in the past, such as John Dingell, which probably is one of the reasons why the democratic leadership wasted no time in lynching him politically the moment this congress started, and even Howard Dean--not to mention many other democrats who are genuinely opposed to gun control.

What they won't do is support someone like Obama who supported extreme gun control measures and now claims he doesn't because he knows he could never have gotten elected President with those stances.

As for the OP, Obama's transition website clearly stated his intention to work for the assault weapon ban passage. Even if it weren't for that, his nominations of anti-gun extremists for the DOJ provide a way to silently choke off the firearms trade without passing a single law. Janet Reno tried to do this in the first years of the Clinton administration by refusing to renew FFL licensed or issue new ones, creating a bottleneck in distribution that even today means some law enforcement agencies have trouble getting adequate supplies--that until Clinton put the kibosh on it prior to the 1996 election because he knew it was going to get him into trouble.

EDIT: Just now read the post above. Obama is also extremely likely to appoint Justices who would take the dissent view on Heller, which is extremely dangerous given how it was decided by one vote.

True, they have supported Democrats who support their positions. I should've said the ideology of business, not necessarily the party of business. My main point was that I think gun control has been transformed in the media into a social and cultural issue when it is in actuality (in terms of the reality of how it is handed politically) an economic issue.

The fact that the primary source of their donations is from the grassroots doesn't necessarily say anything about where their sympathies lie, or whose interests they primarily serve; it speaks more to the effectiveness of their organization and PR efforts (in transforming the public's view of the issue from an economic one to a social/cultural one, as per above) than anything else. I certainly would never deny that they have been an extremely effective group in that regard.

I do believe the NRA deserves commendation for their many gun safety programs and such, and I certainly agree with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I think they go way too far in a lot of respects (plastic guns, cop-killer bullets, "jack booted thugs", etc.). The first two would be the best examples of serving business interests ahead of all else, in my view.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Actually the plastic guns things was more of another scare campaign like the weapons banned by the AWB. All plastic guns still have some metal parts that are dense enough to be detected by metal detectors and even if they didn't bullets also would set off a metal detector.