- This topic has 23 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
the NRA has done a fabulous job of convincing the insecure
Don’t mean to sound admonishing, just serenely matter of fact, but that language (in the quoted phrase only) gets antagonistic. If you are pro-NRA that would sound provocative, and since I already had to close one thread on this topic, I am trying to keep things a bit less confrontive sounding. Sorry to lecture but I guess it comes with the “mod” job description.
I know we’ve beaten to death the gun control topic and no one will convince anyone who holds a different opinion on the subject. And the Second Amendment is here to stay and there will always be contrasting opinions as to what it’s real meaning is. Anyway a disclaimer. I own 4 shotguns (20, 16, 12, and 4-10 gauges) plus a savage deer rifle. Also numerous spear guns for diving. All are designed to kill something. Needless to say I am not “against guns”. However, if I was forced to register all these weapons or even take some classes to display my proficiency I would never feel that my freedom was in jeopardy. Even if I had to place them in a dispensary like the military and check them out whenever I wanted to go hunting or just target shootingI wouldn’t think the “government” was somehow taking away my freedom any more than telling me I can’t burn wood in my fireplace on certain days. Personally, I think that the NRA has done a fabulous job of convincing the insecure that those for gun control are wusses lacking machismo and are about to take away their toughness under the guise of “freedom.” For me the real issues is not the meaning of the 2d amendment, the loss of “freedom”. Rather,in the simplest,of terms it’s really about $$$$$$.(at least for the NRA)
It is about $$$$ for the gun grabbers. And what would you say when they say no to your checking out ‘your’ firearms? Better yet what will you say when they charge you monthly for each firearm they hold? What would you say when out of concern for cost cutting and greater efficiency they consolidate the existing gun holding facilities to a single facility that is now 300 miles from where you live?
Theres more but you should get the idea. 2nd Amendment in name only.
No not insecure and not a dupe.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
And that kinda sums up the difference in the ‘gun-debate’
One trusts the gov. (on guns) One doesn’t.w
vBut is that really the difference? I don’t trust the government. And I don’t trust 2nd amendment absolutists — I’m trying to be nice with my terms. I don’t trust either of them. I also don’t believe that the rationale for having guns (put forward by those on the “gun rights” side) — they must have their AR-15s to defend against government tyranny — makes any sense. I see it as insane, to be honest. For a host of reasons. And from my encounters with those who hold these beliefs, they’re all too often the last people on earth I’d want to lead the revolution against a system I, too, want to replace. I just want to replace it non-violently, democratically.
To them, “tyranny” usually consists of things like raising tax rates on rich people, the existence of Medicare, small grazing fees on public lands, and the mere existence of public lands themselves. They also have more than their share of white supremacists in their midst. It’s pretty rare for blacks and minorities to hold those views, even though they really have far more reason to be angry about things than the “gun rights” crowd. They tend not to side with gun extremists, however.
To me, the debate can’t be divided that way, WV. Just my take, but I don’t think that’s an accurate way to describe differences.
WV: “well that’s you.”
That’s correct. I honestly do not believe the government is about to come knocking on my door at any moment to take away my “freedom”. Maybe you do WV but I sincerely don’t. Those that do are simply paranoid IMO. And I feel sorry for such people because the cynicism robs them of any possibility of a satisfying life-at least in my opinion.
Now do I agree with the decisions and policies of various administrations, politicians, political parties-of course not-that is a totally different subject. Do I believe there is injustice to many here and abroad -of course -but again a different subject. Indeed I give much of my time and dough to many causes that I believe can help right what I perceive as injustice because I don’t “trust” many in charge of our welfare to do so.
Now a different subject: BNW appears to have a genuine “fear” that the government will take away his freedom if there is an inch given to some sort of gun control. Not me. Maybe because of my age. I’ve lived a fairly long time w/o ever experiencing the loss of any sort of “freedom” by the government -other than the basic regulatory schemes. If your “personal” experience is different I would like to hear about it.
WV,
As mentioned before, a focus on guns doesn’t prevent a focus on all kinds of other issues. We can deal with many things at the same time, and that’s the norm.
That said, to me, cars are quite different from guns, in a host of ways. But this one is key: They are designed to transport people safely from one place to another. They are not designed to kill, though they do sometimes. Guns, OTOH, have one purpose: to kill. They can’t take you to market. You can’t eat them. You can’t drink them. They’re designed to kill. Cars aren’t. And when people do kill others with their cars, it’s virtually always accidental. People intentionally use guns all the time to kill, or rape, or kidnap, or overthrow democratically elected leaders, etc. etc.
Also, whipping up a frenzy of fear and paranoia, so more and more people buy guns — the right’s speciality — helps corporate capitalism. A lot. Placing common sense, public safety regulations on guns would actually hurt their bottom lines. In a small way, it’s fighting corporate capitalism, while at the same time saving lives.
Btw, I’m in favor of reducing speed limits too. Not sure what the science tells us is the ideal. But, yeah. That’s an excellent idea.
WV:
You ask why don’t we regulate more in the area of auto safety. We do and it has reduced the number of annual deaths. See the attached article and graph comparing the declining auto deaths with gun deaths. The analogy doesn’t work for another reason: cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.
http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/
However, my point was limited to what I consider the silly fear mongering the NRA continues to use-and lots of people buy it-that-in its most simplest of terms- someday the government’s storm troopers will break your door down and demand a Sophie’s choice-your guns or your children? That’s it.
That is it. Government storm trooper with a real assault weapon sticking it in the face of a terrified 6 year old boy held in the arms of his uncle. Amerika.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
That is it. Government storm trooper with a real assault weapon sticking it in the face of a terrified 6 year old boy held in the arms of his uncle. Amerika.
—————-
Well let me challenge you a bit on this part of that meme, bnw — Lets just say the government turns all fascist/evil because of this or that, and decides to go to war against its own citizens — How would having some stray semi-auto weapons save the day for the ‘people’ ?
I mean the government would have F-15s, stealth weapons, drones, chemical weapons, bio-weapons, neutron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm, agent-orange, depleted uranium weapons, submarines, aircraft carriers…. yes? Now how is a family or village going to fight that with a handful of semi-automatic weapons?Now, maybe you just think the semi-autos are useful to defend against…bad individuals or gangs. Which would be different. But you dont think they would be useful against the Government do you?
w
vIt isn’t as clean as you say. Look at the fall of the Soviet Union. There was no rollover of unity. There were various factions that had control over various pieces of the military industrial complex. Individual base commanders had autonomy over their immediate region. The MSM didn’t give the true scale of the disorder as Yeltsin on a tank was the symbol fed to the West. Yeltsin was helped greatly in consolidating power by the West buying the support of those commanders. Such efforts were particularly in earnest regarding their nuclear triad and research facilities. Outside of that there was a real wild west air throughout the rest of the country. Everything was for sale and at rock bottom prices. Life was cheapened in a micro sense but not macro. It is that macro sense in which the firepower you posit would have been used against the people but wasn’t. That was a nation that spanned two continents that possessed some of the most advanced weaponry on earth. A war against its people using the weaponry you suggested would not be in the interest of any domestic faction.
What you suggested is more on the lines of what much smaller nations under despotic rule endure. A good example would be Iraq where Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds at Halabja and Karbala in the north and the tanks, artillery and helicopter bombings in the south. When Saddam opened the armories and dispensed weapons to the people with the US invasion of Iraq the ensuing cost to the US forces were quite great. From RPG and IED attacks to ambushes in the streets the toll on the US forces caused small enclaves from which patrols rolled through territory not pacified. Without opening the armories as Saddam did the US occupation would not have been as difficult or costly.
I think there could be a middle ground here between the two examples. While bases are obvious centers of power as are naval ships the widespread nature of our missile defense could pose great danger everywhere.
Now whether semi-auto armed resistance will be sufficient for ‘victory’ who knows. But you don’t want to show up at a shoot out armed with a knife as they say.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
