Defensive Carry banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I post this, because I think it's worth reading, and us being exposed to this might help how we can deal with the gun control agenda. With this article I'm not suggesting this is a "silver bullet", I'm just saying emotion, culture are at least two of the prongs we need to be able to deal with to maintain our 2A position.

Aside from the BOR, or the word "infringed", or the SCOTUS, etc, we as 2A supporters must do more than cast our single vote during an election. We must get involved by supporting a good candidate. We have to outwork the competition, especially in 2014. If we're successful most of our gun problems will subside.


The gun debate is a culture debate | Fox News


The gun debate is a culture debate
By Trevor Burrus

Published March 19, 2013
FoxNews.com


Nearly three months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are still debating the place of guns in American society. That debate is not just about statistics and laws—it is about culture.

In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don’t have “real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]”

Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don’t need to justify owning an “assault weapon,” the government needs to justify taking it.


Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence.

Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them? Because the gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate.

One cultural tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people.

The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

One tradition views private gun ownership as important for resisting tyranny; the other views guns as, at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, something we should discard to become a fully civilized society.

Gun-control advocates scoff at the suggestion that personal arms can stand up to tanks and drones. But the anti-tyranny argument is not so much based on efficacy as it is on power: who has it and why.

In America, the government derives its power from the people. But the cultural divide goes deeper than the role of government.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.

In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.

Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting.

What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real. If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
As we here in the Socialist Republic of New York are fighting to have the SAFE ACT repealed (which only provides additional safety for criminals), I ran across a forum discussion which raised an excellent point....

While we will never win the gun debate outright because the media is so far in the tank for Obama and the anti-gun legislators......SO.....we, the gun owners must make an effort to change the legislators! Consider this... we the responsible, conservative gun owners and WE VOTE!!! We have always supported the conservative candidates, who are then demonized and mischaracterized by the media, leading in many cases to State and even National legislative bodies which lean far left. We take stock after the election and wonder...what went wrong (much the same way the Republican party did recently). Rather than fight the far left liberals in the media and at election time, why don't we stack the deck against them...on their own court?

Here's how it goes... (don't get me wrong....I'd probably throw up in my own mouth doing this)...we conservatives, change party affiliation to Democrat (don't go nuts yet!), which allows us to VOTE in Democratic Primaries. We take a very close look at the candidates and vote for the most Pro-2A candidates we can find....vote for them in the primary and get rid of the most liberal candidates, both as they relate to fiscal and 2A issues. WE then have a say in who the conservative candidate runs against!! Hopefully, the more middle left or centrist candidate is running against the more conservative party... there's not such a wide divide for the general election. Plus the conservative isn't running against Santa, giving away the goodies.

THEN..... in the privacy of the voting booth, WE GET OUT THE VOTE for the conservative candidate who best represents YOU!!! Even if the Dem wins, they're not so far left that you can't even see them....and they are closer to being 2A friendly...or at least not an anti-gun zealot.

Again...We're gun owners AND WE VOTE. Why not take control of that vote.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I think it is still about control! and by the way that is one scary photo of Diane Frankenstein
Very true, that is another one of the prongs we deal with. I also think the "control" has two parts. A- The gubmint, wants the people unarmed so they can control them better; B- Some of the people desires that the gubmint have more power over the people so they'd feel safer.

The "B" reminds me of the sig line below I see often:


AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).
This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
SUBJECTS: Liberty
WORKS: Benjamin Franklin Collection
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
)...we conservatives, change party affiliation to Democrat (don't go nuts yet!), which allows us to VOTE in Democratic Primaries. We take a very close look at the candidates and vote for the most Pro-2A candidates we can find....vote for them in the primary and get rid of the most liberal candidates, both as they relate to fiscal and 2A issues. WE then have a say in who the conservative candidate runs against!! Hopefully, the more middle left or centrist candidate is running against the more conservative party... there's not such a wide divide for the general election. Plus the conservative isn't running against Santa, giving away the goodies.

THEN..... in the privacy of the voting booth, WE GET OUT THE VOTE for the conservative candidate who best represents YOU!!! Even if the Dem wins, they're not so far left that you can't even see them....and they are closer to being 2A friendly...or at least not an anti-gun zealot.

Again...We're gun owners AND WE VOTE. Why not take control of that vote.
I'm already doing that. Equally important is for us ambassadors of 2A is to "get the vote out", help the person who you favor win that election. We have to get more involved in the election process. That'll cure much of this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
It's cultural alright.

If the culture without guns thinks that the culture with guns is just going to give them up, they've got another thing coming.
I hope you're right, however a "2A Revolution" in 2014 will go a long ways bolstering the Second Amendment. Some of those people badly need a 1994 refresher course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,001 Posts
It's cultural alright.

The culture of free-men against the culture of bond-men.

This is a fight/debate about liberty. Guns are just one point, albeit a very important one.

Sent from my Galaxy S2
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top