Sure, it is.
2 Likes
They may have started it, but elements of the left have adopted it. I long considered before discussing on this board my ownership of firearms for all the piling on against gun ownership I’ve read here. There’s lots of variations of ‘there’s no valid reason to own guns’ argued.
1 Like
Maybe once, twice? in five years did I have anyone looked at after failing NICS. The sheriff’s department came after felons pawning firearms but that came from the pawn records submitted each night. Somebody figured out it was easy stats.
1 Like
Age six for me and the same otherwise.
2 Likes
I know it has devolved to a left right thing a lot of the time down there but is is not more on the libertarian-whatever the other side of scale thing?
Promoting the sane use and regulation of firearms does not seem to me to be inherently left vs right.
1 Like
I was probably still too scatter-brained at six.
That’s what I’m coming to as well. @Mister44’s observation of Dixiecrat gun policy struck me. I wonder if anyone else has more insight on the history of gun policy in the Democratic party? It would be - ironic? sad? politics as usual? if the racist past of the party willing to pay at least lip service to issue of inequality in our penal system was responsible for the laws that allow the piling on of charges.
2 Likes
Want to offer any explanation for how the rebels could’ve kept up and won the Revolutionary War without the financial and naval support of European powers, or is asserting controversial interpretations of history with no supporting argument your idea of a good time?
Badly because “gun rights” folks fight decent laws and decent studies of gun deaths tooth and nail. So we get shitty band-aid laws instead that then get starved for enforcement, allowing gun folks to point to them and say they’re ineffective. Hello, Catch-22.
8 Likes
I was aiming for emphatic.
1 Like
I was going to guess concise.
1 Like
Laconic.
1 Like
Gun ownership is a pretty heated topic, for sure. If it weren’t for the sudden swoop of the American Right into late-Wiemar-era politics, I would be stating the same position that I have in the past - that regulation is a broad social benefit that far outweighs the adversity suffered by would-be gun owners who ought not to be allowed guns. The current situation is that the law as it stands has put guns in the hands of people whose extremism, prejudice and willingness to submit to naked authority places everyone else - and particularly those for whom some feature of their being marks them out for attention - in danger. So the gun regulation lobby - sensible as they may be - have lost. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that the only rational approach is to adapt to conditions as they are, and anticipate the worst as to future developments.
2 Likes
I’m very far left in most of my leanings. I like and enjoy firearms on both a mechanical and visceral level. It’s just plain fun and cathartic to go and shoot some shit up. I don’t hunt. I feel that killing animals for sport is wrong.
That said I’m fully in favor of increased gun control (and by that I don’t mean “learning to hold your weapon”), mandatory training and regular recertification, and restrictions on how much ammunition you can keep at home. I don’t see the necessity in needing to own things like “assault weapons”. I think open carry is fucking stupid and only serves as intimidation.
I also don’t subscribe to the notion of a “good guy with a gun” or that there are criminals waiting in the shadows to break into your home and rape your spouse and children.
I think the Swiss do it right with a deeply entrenched gun culture but sensible regulations and few firearm related homicides.
What does this make me?
6 Likes
But how much of that is how people are expressing their views versus how certain media outlets are REPORTING those views. It once again goes back to a media issue, distorting people’s view points.
2 Likes
Sure, that’s a part of it. But later on I also addressed statements I’ve read here. Individuals posting their opinions aren’t controlled by media reporting.
Fairly sensible?
3 Likes
Gun laws that seem perfectly sensible in dense urban areas that are well policed make no sense in sparsely populated areas or areas that are not blessed with effective, responsive, humane law enforcement.
This means anyone who is pushing federal-level firearms legislation is going to be trying to force a “one-size-fits-all” non-solution on somebody. Usually, it’s going to be that other guy over there, that guy on the other side of some political, geographic or ethnic divide.
We can’t unite people by forcing half of them to abide by laws that only make sense for the other half. And if we divide ourselves rather than uniting, we aren’t an unstoppable force for positive change, we are just an easily crushed disruptive element.
When the NRA and anti-gun groups fight at the Federal level, they basically just make sure everything stays permanently broken. Perhaps they know that; it guarantees that their organizations stay prominent and influential. They’d be no more important than a model rocketry club if we had localized gun laws that made sense locally.
2 Likes
That doesn’t necessarily follow, as laws can be nuanced. Population density decides whether or not you’re allowed to discharge a firearm on your property, here.
2 Likes
ha ha ha ha
You’re serious? In major cities?
It isn’t half of America that are rural gun owners…
I guarantee that the NRA knows it. Where would their funding come from, otherwise? Hunter safety instruction? (As you say.)
4 Likes
