Firearms owners and shooters who aren't 100%

[Liberty]

Liberty, your right to own a cat is guaranteed by the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with your rights to work, marry, have children, enter into contracts, speak French, wear a plaid kilt, and all the other unenumerated rights.

- Jim

Shuxs I was hoping the cat grabbers would come and take her away!!

Just kidding she is good company and has more character than most people I know.

[KBCraig]

The first problem is how to define "100%". The vast majority of Fudds consider themselves "100% pro-gun"... they just don't think anyone needs (fill in the blank). For NRA director Joaquin Jackson, "100%" stops at rifles holding more than 5 rounds, many others don't think NFA arms matter, and even Ted Nugent doesn't support open carry.

No one can be "100%" if they support any restrictions on any guns or any one, anywhere, any time.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[seamusTX]

I agree. The subject line would have been "Firearms owners and shooters who aren't 100% in support of the RKBA," if the software allowed that. I am referring to the state of American law as it existed in the 18th and 19th century, until after the War Between the States.

- Jim

[nitrogen]

You know, I've been accused of being a liberal.

I don't think you need an SUV; I think the design is dumb and unsafe.
I don't think you need a 60" plasma screen TV.
I don't think you need to eat foods rich in transfats, salt, or cholesterol.

The thing is, I'm not going to say you shouldn't be able to have them by passing laws.
I might laugh at you, sure, but hey, you also don't need computers, nice cars, nice houses or pretty wives, and I enjoy all those things, too.

EDIT: I have just one wife; and I can barely handle her at times :P

[HankB]

. . . The founding fathers were classical liberals. Every part of their agendas were aimed at individual human freedom - including the RKBA . . . "Post-modern" liberalism is the real disease. We call it "liberalism," but it is more accurately "illiberalism." It seeks to impose an ever increasing level of control over individual freedoms, and to increase the size and importance of government as the source and provider of all that is good. In terms of this discussion, that explains why liberals don't want you or me to have guns. Guns threaten the liberal agenda's ability to impose itself on every part of our lives . . .

Quoted for truth.

The Founding Fathers believed in individual liberty - their goal was to severely limit government's reach and ability to impose restrictions on individuals.

Today's liberals are very much of a different mindset - they want "government" to provide for the "less fortunate" . . . everything from health care to food stamps to housing. But government cannot give to someone anything it hasn't first taken from someone else!

So the core tenet of modern liberalism is the involuntary imposition of obligations, collected, if necessary, at gunpoint.

This is incompatible with the fundamental concepts of freedom and liberty of the Founding Fathers. As they keep pushing, they may have a concern that at some point - pushback will occur.

[bdickens]

I sent the following in response to a PM and realized there may be others who don't know what a "Fudd" is:

A Fudd is one of those gun owners who thinks that "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment are okay. Typically a hunter or target shooter (a lot of shotgunners are like this) who thinks that no one "needs" a handgun, sport-utility rifle, and the like.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jlangton]

I sent the following in response to a PM and realized there may be others who don't know what a "Fudd" is:

A Fudd is one of those gun owners who thinks that "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment are okay. Typically a hunter or target shooter (a lot of shotgunners are like this) who thinks that no one "needs" a handgun, sport-utility rifle, and the like.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Those blindly ignorant people infuriate me like no other. I consider them worse than even the most rabid anti-gun advocate.
JL

[pbwalker]

I sent the following in response to a PM and realized there may be others who don't know what a "Fudd" is:

A Fudd is one of those gun owners who thinks that "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment are okay. Typically a hunter or target shooter (a lot of shotgunners are like this) who thinks that no one "needs" a handgun, sport-utility rifle, and the like.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh...the AHSA.

[SlowDave]

Those blindly ignorant people [FUDDs] infuriate me like no other. I consider them worse than even the most rabid anti-gun advocate.
JL

I understand your dislike, but I don't see hating them more than the anti-gunners. Anti-gunners want to actively take away your rights; FUDDs don't fully support your rights, but are relatively inactive. Just overstatement for effect or something I don't get?

And, I try not to hate the anti-gunners. I feel a bit sorry for them in that they are either a) too mentally incapacitated to look at the data and make the reasonable conclusion or b) really believe that somehow outlawing guns will result in criminals giving up their guns. They are uneducated in general and mis-directed. There are likely a few, IMHO, who are actually bent on controlling the public. I think the rest are just not very sharp people and have been drinking the cool-aid of their establishment long enough to disable their reasoning skills.

This is why I don't just teach my kids and others I come into contact with that the RKBA is a fundamental US right, but also tell them why trying to significantly restrict the RKBA is a futile effort with only negative consequences, regardless of the restrictor's desires.

[SlowDave]

And based on the definition that has been thrown down here, put me down as a <100% supporter. I do believe there should be some restrictions. [flame suit on] The situation as I see it is most similar to drunken driving. [Hold your flames for a second... it'll get worse.] In theory, drunken driving should be absolutely legal. It is your own business if you want to have a 24 pack of Bud and go down the road drunk out of your skull... you haven't infringed on anyone else's rights, so it should be legal. What should be illegal is damaging someone else (physically or financially) by driving while drunk, which is illegal anyway. If someone could guarantee me that a drunk guy was going to drive down my street tonight but would not hit anything no matter what (other than maybe the inside of his own garage), I'd say "let him roll." The issue is, a drunk driver is SO LIKELY to be involved in an accident and hurt others, that we put restrictions on that right. (And yes, I understand that drinking is not a bill of rights "right", but in the eyes of whatever doesn't infringe on someone else's rights should be allowable, it is a right. I don't think it affects this argument.) So, we restrict driving while intoxicated because of the high liklihood of damage to others as well as the inability to stop the action between the (hypothetically legal) intoxication and the (illegal) damage to others.

For guns, there is the potential for them to be used for harm. We really want to make those uses illegal, which we already have (murder, armed assault, armed robbery...). However, if you grant unlimited rights to keep and bear arms, so that any citizen can have nukes and rocket launchers (work with me here on the extreme example), the potential harm of those weapons is so great, and the inability to stop someone between the ownership of them and the use of them is so high, that in my mind, some restrictions are reasonable. I would also say that is reasonable to restrict people--e.g. someone who has previously shown the propensity to misuse firearms (armed robbery, etc.) could be restricted from the RKBA.

IMHO, those restrictions should be extremely limited. I think weapons that are capable of wiping out neighborhoods or cities in one fell swoop should probably be restricted at some level.

I concede that there are great differences in the drunken driving example and gun ownership. For one, drunken driving has no positive side while gun ownership has several critically important positives: self-defense, final limitation on the government, as well as recreation and food procurement. I don't think that really changes the argument though. Kind of comes down to the ability to enforce the law and protect the public. Oooh, that sounded bad. But what I mean is, if your neighbor has nukes, you probably can't defend yourself and neither can the US military (in time) to reduce the risk to others to a tolerable level.

Afraid I'm blathering and wandering now. I'm sure this didn't convey my feelings and thoughts very well, but maybe a starting point for flames and hopefully a couple of good discussion points. Hope to hear some of the latter on my thoughts.

[seamusTX]

Please don't start with the nukes. Only governments can own nukes. Talking about vending machines for atomic bombs just makes the discussion ridiculous (sorry, Frankie).

You can legally own a rocket launcher or a tank. You just have to do a lot of paperwork.

What I meant by shooters who are not 100% behind the RKBA are people who do nothing positive to support it and who vote for and donate money to candidates who are openly opposed to it.

I'm talking about practical issues in current politics, not some theoretical limit of the RKBA.

P.S.: I'm sorry if this response sounds offensive. I didn't mean it to be. But the nuke thing seems to derail every discussion where it comes up.

- Jim

[subsonic]

Talking about vending machines for atomic bombs just makes the discussion ridiculous

The individual citizen should be able to carry the same weapons, under the same conditions, as the police. If a Texas LEO can carry in a bar in Texas when he goes out with his wife or girlfriend, a Texas CHL should be be allowed to do the same. I have yet to see a peace officer or Marine carrying a nuke.

[SlowDave]

Seamus,
No offense taken at all. I was responding to an earlier post that said <100% means you support ANY regulation of arms at all. I guess I am not a current NRA member, so I don't support that much, even though I do in discussions with acquaintances. I do not support candidates (either financially or with my vote) that don't support RKBA.

I think the post above has it about right as far as carry: we should have roughly the same rights as LEO.

As far as ownership, I hate the "we'll make it illegal because you don't NEED it" argument. That is complete crap. When someone starts to take rights away that Americans have fought and died for, they better have a VERY strong argument of why it's reasonable to take that. I'd think things like hand grenades should probably be regulated, just due to the level of destruction they can create in a single moment.

Good discussion.

[seamusTX]

Here's how I see the issues: In 2009, some members of congress are going to try to ban semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns that anyone can legally own today, and put onerous taxes on ammunition. Some states have already done those things. We have to fight the minute those issues arise.

Theoretical discussions about hand grenades and machine guns can wait.

- Jim

[gzcp31]

One point that people need to point out when the Anti-gun cround makes the statement "If guns reduce crime then why is the United States not the safest county in the world" We need to reply that if you take out the areas that restrict guns (i.e. LA, DC, Chicago...) then you see that the United Stated IS the safest country.