Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on Gun Control

sbmike said:

http://professional.wsj.com/article...178156938.html?mod=WSJPRO_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

The writer makes many good points and a few points that made me raise my eyebrows but they were reasoned points. Overall a good article in my opinion. Your particular mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

I think he gets off to a pretty bad start when he says the NRA has been screaming its head off since Sandy Hook. The screaming I hear is from gun control advocates like Dianne Feinstein, Piers Morgan, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and the hypocritical Hollywood left.

His saying that the NRA doesn't speak for the country's 100 million gun owners because there are only four million NRA members is like me saying Obama isn't president of a country of 315 million people because only 60 million people voted for him.

I also find it difficult to believe that 1/3 people in the US own a gun, considering that nearly 25% of that 315 million is under the age of 18, and over half of the population is female. Yes, I know women own guns too, but certainly not a high percentage of them. But I digress...

When we have to debate obviously false statements like that, and the even more idiotic "There are the tens of thousands of shootings every year by people who aren't criminals until they pick up a gun," we run out of time to go to our state capitol and debate the merits of restricting magazine capacity and draconian registration requirements and fees.

He argues that the NRA is somehow wrong in its belief that stand together or hand separately philosophy, that supporting an undefined "wider community of gun owners" is akin to all gun owners sharing responsibility for the negative results of irresponsible gun use. The leap in logic is most likely too great for him to explain in a small article. Maybe the book he's selling is going to be big enough for him to do a better job.

He also does a pretty bad job of explaining how the NRA's numerous training and safety programs are not enough, and that they need to promote people acting badly with guns if they want to keep further gun control regulations from being passed.

If he made any resonable points in the article, they might have been buried in the falsehoods and unsupportable, illogical statements in which he surrounded them. Oh, yeah, when was it socially acceptable to smoke inside another person's house without permission, or to make lascivious comments about underage girls?

jpk1md said:

There are folks here that are making comments about "Rigid People" and "People who are extreme"

I'll tell you what.....MY RIGHTS aren't up for discussion, debate or compromise and if you think each of us should "Go Along to Get Along" with this creeping incremental infringement on natural rights then I suggest you sit down and decide how you're going to explain to the next generation that you compromised THEIR rights away because you lacked the morals/values and intestinal fortitude to defend them.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! -Sam Adams

The time has come for folks to put up or shut up....its time to show up at hearings and run legislative aides ragged with phones, email and letters...its time to badger politicians as they walk to/from their cars, at their homes and anywhere else they can be found in public...use the Soap Box and Ballot Box not so that no one has to consider the use of any other boxes.

And its high time folks start thinking about what it may take in terms of personal committment to put these politicians in their place.....if gun manufacturers are going to make the commitment to move to another state and deprive liberals of their labor and revenue then maybe its high time you started thinking about it too.

Click to expand...

What makes you think the members here have not been sending emails, letters, attending meetings, reaching out to friends, acquaintances, family, non-gun owners, and the like in an attempt to convey the message that gun ownership is not a bad thing?
Doing so without being overtly aggressive and overly obnoxious does not make it less effective.
"I'm right, it's my right, and **** you" isn't going to open many doors.
You want to move then go if you have not already, but some of us are stuck here and trying to mitigate what could be a bad situation without need to resort to extreme means.
As to extreme means, well, you first. When I read about your rampage at a federal building I'll thank you for all the 'progress' you've made towards keeping our gun rights intact.
Those gun manufacturers that may be moving will be given fat tax breaks and incentives to do so. If you want to front me some money to move my family from Maryland, I'll give you a POBox to send the check to.
I'm not screaming from the rooftops about gun rights and filling my posts with pro-revolutionary propaganda but that doesn't make me less aware and active about the issue than most. If it is less than your standards then I bow before your greatness...

Ignoring all the fluff (which I think was aimed largely at Democrats anyways), I got two main points out of this: we should be looking at safe storage laws and reporting of stolen weapons.

Safe handling/storage laws are one of the only pieces of legislation that I can think of that may have stood a chance of preventing, or at least blunting, the Sandy Hook shooting. And, if the majority of criminals really do use stolen guns, requiring secure storage will only hurt the supply of guns to said criminals.

HOWEVER, they have to do so with with no infringement on anyone's rights. NONE. By that, I mean they exist as penalties to be assigned as part of the commission of another crime (i.e. allowing access of guns to prohibited people). They should NOT in any way, shape, or form be implemented as random spot checks, door-to-door visits, etc. This is where things get hairy for me. There is much potential for abuse and infringement in a law like this, but I don't see it as inherently infringing so I think we should at least be discussing it.

I'm not in favor of requirements for reporting stolen guns. To me, all that does is let the police know that there's another potential crime gun out there, it doesn't help track it down at all. I don't see the point in that, other than as a way to know what guns law abiding citizens don't own. Plus, if a gun is stolen unknowingly and used in a crime, an otherwise lawful gun owner just got turned into a criminal. No good in my book.

Bob A said:

Rigid positions, set in concrete, might make those who hold them feel righteous, but they don't do any good at all at persuading people whose views might be swayed.

Anyone who can bring otherwise disinterested or marginalised undecided people into the pro-2A camp is OK with me. I might not think Baum is spot on in everything he says, but if he can persuade more folks to open their eyes and use their brains, I'm for him.

We cannot afford to dump on anyone who is pro-2A; most especially if he has a strong position in the literate media. Those are the folks we need most: articulate and educated people who can be convinced that the Second Amendment is a good thing which is getting a bad rap. They are the group that is most in need of being won over, because of their access and influence. These people are Baum's target audience.

But coming on with blunt uncompromising sound bites is not going to win them over. They've heard it before, and whatever truth those statements may contain will fall on deaf ears. Some of them are susceptible to being influenced by reasonable arguments; humanising the Gun Guys is an important step in the right direction.

The more folks who can be brought into the fold, the better. If we alienate the middle-of-the-road gang, we will not win this fight.

Click to expand...

This. Well said. If we don't actively recruit, and take public opinion into account, we will lose.

AntiGun said:

What makes you think the members here have not been sending emails, letters, attending meetings, reaching out to friends, acquaintances, family, non-gun owners, and the like in an attempt to convey the message that gun ownership is not a bad thing?
Doing so without being overtly aggressive and overly obnoxious does not make it less effective.

Click to expand...

Just curious, what were you doing before you joined in December of 2012?

I'm no making assumptions, I'm just curious how long you've been at it going to hearings, writing letters and knocking on politicians doors?

There are lots and lots of people here that have been at it for many many years....far longer than I have and no one single strategy works for all politicians.

Take Brochin for example....Brochin can be reasoned with......not only can he be reasoned with but he appreciates and can be swayed by a fact based argument and citizens that are collected and rational.

Frosh on the other hand is not going to listed to ANY argument....the only thing he's going to pay attention to is brute political force

AntiGun said:

"I'm right, it's my right, and **** you" isn't going to open many doors.
You want to move then go if you have not already, but some of us are stuck here and trying to mitigate what could be a bad situation without need to resort to extreme means.
As to extreme means, well, you first. When I read about your rampage at a federal building I'll thank you for all the 'progress' you've made towards keeping our gun rights intact.

Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but generally speaking we moved past "Being Nice" with the full frontal assault that the Left has launched on US in an attempt to criminalize gun owners.

If you haven;t realized yet that the left is playing for keeps and going for the whole enchilada then I don't know whats going to get you to realize it.

Asking nicely at this point is like bringing a knife to a gun fight (politically speaking).

AntiGun said:

Those gun manufacturers that may be moving will be given fat tax breaks and incentives to do so. If you want to front me some money to move my family from Maryland, I'll give you a POBox to send the check to.
I'm not screaming from the rooftops about gun rights and filling my posts with pro-revolutionary propaganda but that doesn't make me less aware and active about the issue than most. If it is less than your standards then I bow before your greatness...

Click to expand...

I did my time in Md, did a lot of work to protect my rights (and yours) while I was there......I already anti'd up, bit the fiscal bullet and got the heck out of "Cuba on the Chesapeake"....but I STILL write letters to Delagates/Senators in Md to remind them that hard working productive people like ME are voting with our dollars and beating feet to states with lower taxes and less government.

Hopefully you'll put up a fight, take vacation days off to attend hearings, send letters, emails and make the phone calls necessary.

jpk1md said:

Just curious, what were you doing before you joined in December of 2012?

I'm no making assumptions, I'm just curious how long you've been at it going to hearings, writing letters and knocking on politicians doors?

There are lots and lots of people here that have been at it for many many years....far longer than I have and no one single strategy works for all politicians.

Take Brochin for example....Brochin can be reasoned with......not only can he be reasoned with but he appreciates and can be swayed by a fact based argument and citizens that are collected and rational.

Frosh on the other hand is not going to listed to ANY argument....the only thing he's going to pay attention to is brute political force

Hate to break it to you but generally speaking we moved past "Being Nice" with the full frontal assault that the Left has launched on US in an attempt to criminalize gun owners.

If you haven;t realized yet that the left is playing for keeps and going for the whole enchilada then I don't know whats going to get you to realize it.

Asking nicely at this point is like bringing a knife to a gun fight (politically speaking).

I did my time in Md, did a lot of work to protect my rights (and yours) while I was there......I already anti'd up, bit the fiscal bullet and got the heck out of "Cuba on the Chesapeake"....but I STILL write letters to Delagates/Senators in Md to remind them that hard working productive people like ME are voting with our dollars and beating feet to states with lower taxes and less government.

Hopefully you'll put up a fight, take vacation days off to attend hearings, send letters, emails and make the phone calls necessary.

Click to expand...

My join date to mdshooters is not an indicator of my join date to the exercising of my 2A rights or obligations.

'Collected and rational' is always best even when it is Frosh. As to using brute political force to move people like Frosh, well that is what the DINO movement will hopefully do. No amount of declaration of your and my rights in a collected or histrionic manner will sway him so instead sway his voting base and remove him or at the least rattle him. It will take more than bold statements made here or at public hearings to do that. It will take a groundswell of new or converted voters to shake his hold on office. I hope those that reside in his district and others can make those changes. I will do what I can, when I can, using what I have at my disposal.

Congratulations on getting out. I'm sure your letters home to your former district are 'read' with the attention deserved a non-resident.

Nothing but Fudd propaganda.

AntiGun said:

My join date to mdshooters is not an indicator of my join date to the exercising of my 2A rights or obligations.

Click to expand...

Agree 100% which is why I predicated my question as I did.

But you didn't answer the question and based upon your response you don't know any of the politicians, nor do you know what motivates them or how they can be influenced

Your comments on Frosh demonstrate that clearly.

Furthermore you attempt to conflate some "declaration of rights" argument with my assertion that we as individuals must not accept any further infringement

You don't seem to comprehend that our current situation is a summary of nearly 100 years of incremental infringement on RKBA and now that we're literally at the edge of the cliff facing a ban/confiscation/prohibition from transferring to next generation you want to "Compromise" more?

jpk1md said:

Agree 100% which is why I predicated my question as I did.

But you didn't answer the question and based upon your response you don't know any of the politicians, nor do you know what motivates them or how they can be influenced

Your comments on Frosh demonstrate that clearly.

Furthermore you attempt to conflate some "declaration of rights" argument with my assertion that we as individuals must not accept any further infringement

You don't seem to comprehend that our current situation is a summary of nearly 100 years of incremental infringement on RKBA and now that we're literally at the edge of the cliff facing a ban/confiscation/prohibition from transferring to next generation you want to "Compromise" more?

Click to expand...

I never claimed compromise was the answer. The answer is to get a new set of elected officials. Hit them where it hurts, they only want to stay in office and will do what they have to to stay there. Undermine the votes they assume are theirs and you will have them by the balls.

I don't claim to know the individual politicians but politicians in general operate on one consistent principle, "get elected again".

We live in a country where political service is measured by how long you stay in the public arena not by what you've actually done during your time there.

To every politico with his finger in the wind looking for the next big issue to exploit and keep their name on the front page I say screw you.
It is unfortunate for us the current wind is blowing in our direction.

You and I may differ in our approach or maybe even our understanding but at least we should not be at each other. Point the poison pens in the direction they belong.

Bob A said:

While you (and I) might not agree with everything he says, his is a valuable voice in the segment of the population that many of us do not mix with. He wrote for the New Yorker for a while, and lives in Boulder with the chai and latte set. Anyone who can get their attention and slip some real information past the cultural barriers they've deployed in their minds is a very valuable asset to our cause.

We're not in a position to be picking off our allies because we don't agree with them 100%. The Dems love that stuff; keep us at each others' throats, and provide them with plenty of material to make us look bad.

Click to expand...

Bob A said:

Anyone who can bring otherwise disinterested or marginalised undecided people into the pro-2A camp is OK with me. I might not think Baum is spot on in everything he says, but if he can persuade more folks to open their eyes and use their brains, I'm for him.

We cannot afford to dump on anyone who is pro-2A; most especially if he has a strong position in the literate media. Those are the folks we need most: articulate and educated people who can be convinced that the Second Amendment is a good thing which is getting a bad rap. They are the group that is most in need of being won over, because of their access and influence. These people are Baum's target audience.

The more folks who can be brought into the fold, the better. If we alienate the middle-of-the-road gang, we will not win this fight.

Click to expand...

+1 For the above quotes but it is not from a compromise stance. ANY more gun leg. is unacceptable. My like of the article is from a recognition that gun owners are a decreasing segment of the population. In some social groups, including very tony groups with lots of money and influence, gun ownership is completely unheard of. It is that ignorance that breeds fear of guns and their owners. This article does well to reach out to those groups. Doing this will really solidify gun rights infringement as a political third rail. I am showing this article to people to try to sway them. It is well written to get to a target audience that probably does not exist on this forum.

The general gist I get from the article is to police our ranks for unsafe gun behavior and proper storage. I have a veritable Rube Goldberg system to keep most of my stuff locked up. I am still paranoid. A determined and prepared thief is a successful thief. I can't support punishing a gun owner for stolen guns in light of this.

PS: That broomhandle of his is super cool.

AntiGun said:

I never claimed compromise was the answer. The answer is to get a new set of elected officials. Hit them where it hurts, they only want to stay in office and will do what they have to to stay there. Undermine the votes they assume are theirs and you will have them by the balls.

I don't claim to know the individual politicians but politicians in general operate on one consistent principle, "get elected again".

We live in a country where political service is measured by how long you stay in the public arena not by what you've actually done during your time there.

To every politico with his finger in the wind looking for the next big issue to exploit and keep their name on the front page I say screw you.
It is unfortunate for us the current wind is blowing in our direction.

You and I may differ in our approach or maybe even our understanding but at least we should not be at each other. Point the poison pens in the direction they belong.

Click to expand...

Frosh is a 5 term ambulance chasing lawyer senator from Monkey County who won 70% of the votes in 2010 and 75% in 2006

You're not going to dethrone him.

Besides, what are you going to do between now and 2014 when he's up for re-election?

You're not going to change his mind....he's going to continue to bury good bills in his drawer and force bad ones to a vote.

He thinks you're nuts



The ONLY thing you can do is to badger the snot out of him and increase the work load of his staff to prevent him and them from being effective.

Be nice, reasonable to the politicians that can be reasoned with and swayed to make good decisions and badger the snot out of the ones that can't.....make the juice not worth the squeeze and they'll think twice about whether or not they actually want to incur the wrath of pro liberty citizens

Docster said:

Really? The entire article and that's all you come away with? That's the exact problem he writes about--we as gun owners only see things one way.. First, what ban??? He spoke of safety--as a group we don't want to hold other gun owners responsible for safety and we are paying or going to pay the price sooner or later, that's his point:

What could the NRA and the community of responsible gun owners do to reduce gun deaths without government intervention? They could make unsafe gun behavior socially unacceptable, just as it has become unthinkable, among most Americans, to smoke inside another person's house or to make lascivious comments about underage girls.

Some are trying. Robert Farago, who writes a popular gun blog called The Truth About Guns, runs a regular feature called "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day"—often a YouTube video of young men acting stupidly or a news item about a needless tragedy. After Arizona instituted "constitutional carry"—allowing any adult to carry a concealed gun with no training or permit—a group called TrainMeAZ.com organized to urge citizens to get trained and to help them find trainers.

I don't think I necessarily agree about gun safes for all but as seen with the recent Baltimore police training tragedy, where the training officer was seen being 'playful' with his gun yet none of the witnesses did anything to stop him, it's hard to argue that's there may be more than can be done regarding safety and being proactive about unsafe gun behavior.

Try reading TTAG's "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day" for a few weeks and you'll get the idea. Rights do indeed have responsibilities for all of us, individually and as a group. When our Founding Father's wrote 2A everyone learned how to use their firearms out of necessity to survive. Now, the firearms are there, the learning not so much. Nowadays, that learning/training may need to involve safe/secure storage if certain circumstances are present such as teenagers, demented/mentally disabled adults, young children, etc.

His article was well thought out and well-written. Just because you may disagree with one portion does not negate the entire article. It's still worthy of consideration and debate.

Click to expand...

First, I apologize for the late reply, I only had a phone for more than a day after the post, and by the time I got back to my laptop, I figured this thread would have died.

--

Second, I was being overly dramatic, emphasizing what I considered a rather pointless article.

The first thing I noticed about the article is that the author immediately establishes that he is a "gun-guy," and therefore credible. Then proceeds to claim that the NRA are extremists that don't represent most gun owners point of view because they don't represent his point of view. He then "proves" this assertion by claiming that gun owner membership of the NRA is low because they only have 4 million members.

He then claims that the NRA, by virtue of promoting solidarity of responsible gun owners means that all gun owners must be held accountable for the actions of the irresponsible ones.

Then he discusses his good ideas, which, as I could see them amounted to:

-Securing your firearms helps prevent them from being stolen or misused by children
-We should chastise people who act childishly with their firearms
-We should report firearms that have been stolen

Maybe it's me, but this seems to be common sense. Not some grand and unheard of scheme that will save everything.

Then this:

But my fellow gun guys have plenty to answer for, too. We don't live in a vacuum. Our guns affect everybody, and the non-gun-owning public has a right to expect things to improve. More than ever, after the transformative horror of Sandy Hook, the old defensive crouch is inadequate. If gun culture is to survive, gun guys need to get in the game. If we want to hold on to our guns, we need to be part of the solution.

Click to expand...

And:

But until they [gun owners] take responsibility for the gun violence that so frightens their fellow citizens, they're setting themselves up for more regulation. Taking collective responsibility for social problems is not the same thing as knuckling under to a tyrannical government.

Click to expand...

Maybe I misread this, but what it seemed to say to me is, "So long as there are irresponsible gun owners, the public has the right to demand new legislation to make people responsible."

This seems to establish that we, as a community, are responsible for every person in this community. I've always believed in personal accountability. I can tell someone to buy a gun safe. I can even buy them one. But I can't make them use it.

It seems to me that for all of his talk of "collective responsibility," he doesn't seem to discuss anyone other than the gun owners.

So, no, I'm not buying this guy as my friend, especially with comments like:

"I am master of this death-dealing device, and you are not. I am prepared for the kind of situation you can't even bring yourself to think about." To live intimately with such lethal devices, to be able to handle them safely, is a powerful self-esteem builder.

Click to expand...

Which seems designed more to scare non-gun people more than anything else.

--

I agree that we, by virtue of exercising our rights, have an equal responsibility to safely do so, and infringe on no others rights.

I agree that we need to do everything we can to try to promote the responsibility of others who wish to exercise this right. And that there are those out there who don't do this.

I agree that all others who continue to act childishly and irresponsibly with firearms despite knowledge of their immature actions should be mocked and ostracized.

But I didn't need this guy to tell me this, and I do not agree with his position (or at least, my perception of what he wrote) that it's our fault that the public at large wants to strip us of our rights.

Why do people think this is about Frosh? Frosh is an anti, 100% pure and ideologically anti.

Nothing short of the hand of god himself will sway Frosh (and I'm not even sure about that because Frosh ignores his own religion's teachings).

The goal is to make people like Frosh seem like the fringe of the issue.

gprimr1 said:

Why do people think this is about Frosh? Frosh is an anti, 100% pure and ideologically anti.

Nothing short of the hand of god himself will sway Frosh (and I'm not even sure about that because Frosh ignores his own religion's teachings).

The goal is to make people like Frosh seem like the fringe of the issue.

Click to expand...

exactly

If you can't take out the king then you take out his pawns instead.
Frosh is one vote, there are others to be had.
Outnumber him and he will be the fringe.
Convert those that are vulnerable.