You make an interesting case for our present gun control problem. As with much of the thoughts expressed by the right, they are totally out of touch with reality as it exists today. No group of citizens can stand up to any modern army, no matter how many AR-15s, etc., they may have. It is a myth from a bygone era. I understand the need for guns in hunting. Still, unless Bambie has gotten body armor and can shoot back, it is unnecessary to have semi or fully automatic weapons with 30-round mags to be a successful hunter. My father served with many "farm boys in the first world war." Almost all were excellent shots, and they all learned to shoot the same way. Dad taught them how to shoot and hunt, then they were three bullets and told to get dinner. Bullets were expensive, even if you were a re-loader. They all ate well and were fed by single-shot rifles. Since then, guns have become more accurate, and bullets are better made. Other than hunting a dangerous animal like a grizzly bear or a wolf, the need for these large magazines lies in the mind of the shooters. I have known hunters who went after black bears with magnum revolvers - 6 shots. They hunted in groups, and if the first hunter only wounded the animal, he had backup. They prided themselves on the accuracy of their shooting. Different parts of this country have different lifestyles, and I understand that many in the western areas grow up with guns and shooting. This is why my liberal associates are wrong in trying to pass laws that work for everyone and everywhere. I like the idea that a gun owner or the parent of a young adult who owns a gun is legally and financially liable if that weapon or weapons are used in an unauthorized manner. If we start heavily fining and incarcerating gun owners and those who should be responsible for the legal use of those weapons, we will see a drop in this gun madness. As the saying goes, the most sensitive organ in the human body is the wallet. Hit them where it hurts. It won't bring back anyone, but it will cut down on future shootings.
Love this line of thinking, which I hadn’t seriously considered but find very compelling. I’m going to reread later when I have more time to process. Only thing I take issue with is this idea of a “gun lobby.” There’s no gun lobby. The NRA is powerful because gun owners vote. And they will vote single-issue. Ask Tom Foley how the 1994 AWB went for him.
I am a liberal, and I have no problem with hunting rifles. As Edward states here, the fantasy of an armed citizenry fighting the US military is laughable. Also the paranoia about confiscating guns is also laughable. By many estimates there are at least 400,000,000 guns in this country. Any effort at confiscation would be an impossible undertaking. My suggestions are as follows: 1) to carry a gun in public, openly or concealed, one should show proof that one has such a need. Most people do not. To get such a permit, after proving a need, one should be required to have to take certified training in safety and marksmanship. 2) Raise the legal age of buying a gun to 21. Again, to actually get the gun one must either undergo training, or demonstrate that such training has been completed. 3) outlaw Automatic and semiautomatic rifles, aka assault weapons. No citizen needs such a weapon. 4) enact red flag laws that allow guns to be inaccessible to people showing overly aggressive behavior, or suicidal tendencies. 5) make the purchase of a gun safe mandatory. 6) aggressively enforce these laws. In order to accomplish this, ban donations to politicians from gun and ammunition manufacturers and dealers. Elect people who hold these views. Bankrupt the NRW and put Wayne LaPierre out to pasture.
I think this is a great analysis -- if conservatives/liberatarians prioritize "private individuals and groups (families and churches especially) to the government, with the legitimacy of the latter depending on its powers being limited to securing the liberty of the former" (and it seems that they do), why wouldn't they prefer securing the means to defend themselves (e.g., guns) from real or imagined threats instead of relying on the police and the government? There's a breakdown of the social contract here, or a disagreement about what it entails.
I also suspect that the gun fervor is connected to a crisis of masculinity, in which men, evolutionarily and even biologically primed to fight, build, and protect, are largely prohibited from doing so by the decline of blue-collar labor and patriarchal families. Though I suppose that doesn't explain the particular American enthusiasm for guns.
Thank you. As a limey contrarian, I had got as far as the sovereignty argument (that sovereignty lies with the individual rather than the collective). But I hadn't made the link to the collapse of trust in the government, which is a common feature of the democracies.
The obvious answer is to rebuild the link between the individual and the government.
We live in a country where the media has discovered the road to riches is to convince a large portion of powerless people that they should be afraid that their "way of life is going to be destroyed unless constant armed vigilance is practiced." Example: Laura Ingram's response to the 1st televised Jan 6th hearing was to conclude her convoluted report with "Everyone knows the Democrats are the true terrorists." Her readers response was, "we will not watch the hearings because they cannot be true." How do you reason with people who are unreasonable?
I have discussed this in several other places (most notably over at the Bulwark--which is how I learned about your Substack from JVL there). I usually talk about it in the form of narrative rather than religion (because of my background).
As you point out there are several traditional American narratives that work together to create our gun problem. You nail two of them but don't really mention a third: the frontier and its role in both American history (and cultural practice) and its mythological role in the larger American Narrative.
The frontier narrative sort of coalesces both the private individual/group (because the the perceived limited role of government in the frontier) and the personal responsibility narrative.,, and this narrative is played out even now in the entertainment media (although now not always in the form of the Western).
I am always perplexed by the lack of "situational awareness" exhibited by obviously intelligent people when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights. I have seen enough anti-gun opinions to know that I will NEVER join them. Ever.
What baffles me is that not one of the gun grabbers, (put it anyway you want, but that is what you are), ever actually think about what a gun free America means.
It means that there would never be a left wing, or progressive, or any other party in our country. The only opinion that would ever be heard is that of .gov. Ever again.
Think I'm crazy? Think I'm just another school shooter who hasn't been discovered yet?
Well- I am neither.
What I am is a human being that realizes that the only thing that a tyrant understands is force.
***Before I continue, I ask only that any reply be respectful. I can rebut ANY arguement that you may have. I will not be disrespected.***
While disarming everyone, banning guns, and imposing consequences for their possession may seem like a good idea, it is not. If you dont like guns, dont own any. I will defend your right to your opinion.
Why do anti-everything (AE) folks never extend the courtesy that you are afforded to anyone with a counter view point? Why is it that if the AE crowd doesn't like something it should be banned for everyone?
I will keep my arguement to the 2nd Amendment. Please do the same.
As an example of why an armed citizen is a good thing, I will share the following:
When covid hit, (another story), and the world went into lockdown, there was one country that had extreme measures imposed upon them: Australia
Formerly a free country, the Aussies decided to surrender their guns. The tyrants love this idea. The citizens cannot fight back. The citizens filled the streets in protest. Their actions meant absolutely nothing. The .gov didnt care. And .gov does not care today. In the next wave of whatever, the Aussies will comply. They have no option.
Here in the US, we still have the option. And this is the only reason AE ever has their voice heard. Period.
It is the 2nd Amendment that allows for everyone's right of expression and protest to remain intact.
So, in conclusion, if you REALLY think that No Guns is a good idea, who in the .gov will care what you have to say if you dont have the ability to do serious damage to those who ignore you.
There was an uprising in North Korea about... Oh wait. Then the China protests were... Oh wait. It must have been the Canadians that were protesting something... Oh wait. That's right. An unarmed society is a defenseless society.
I have many more arguements. I will defeat yours with history and common sense. Not "common sense gun control."
One thing that has informed my (lay) opinion on this is that while it is true we have more guns than ever, we also (until relatively recently) have seen gun homicides decline. I know...which way does causation work, yada...and, these mass shootings are different...
Damon, I am 53 and believe you are around the same age. My understanding is that the 80's saw more gun homicides than we see today. I'm not a gun owner and have never shot a gun, there will be no need to pry a gun out of my cold, dead, hands...I do believe the right tends to have the better argument as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.
None of this is meant to imply we can't do better, or that we are not an outlier compared to other nations.
Rather, I ask: if we have embarked on making it easier to buy guns and we have seen a decline in gun homicides how should I view those two facts (assuming I have my facts right, maybe I don't)?
Oh, and my aopolgies if this point has been asked and answered. I wasn't able to get to all the comments. Loving your new venture, Damon!!!
You make an interesting case for our present gun control problem. As with much of the thoughts expressed by the right, they are totally out of touch with reality as it exists today. No group of citizens can stand up to any modern army, no matter how many AR-15s, etc., they may have. It is a myth from a bygone era. I understand the need for guns in hunting. Still, unless Bambie has gotten body armor and can shoot back, it is unnecessary to have semi or fully automatic weapons with 30-round mags to be a successful hunter. My father served with many "farm boys in the first world war." Almost all were excellent shots, and they all learned to shoot the same way. Dad taught them how to shoot and hunt, then they were three bullets and told to get dinner. Bullets were expensive, even if you were a re-loader. They all ate well and were fed by single-shot rifles. Since then, guns have become more accurate, and bullets are better made. Other than hunting a dangerous animal like a grizzly bear or a wolf, the need for these large magazines lies in the mind of the shooters. I have known hunters who went after black bears with magnum revolvers - 6 shots. They hunted in groups, and if the first hunter only wounded the animal, he had backup. They prided themselves on the accuracy of their shooting. Different parts of this country have different lifestyles, and I understand that many in the western areas grow up with guns and shooting. This is why my liberal associates are wrong in trying to pass laws that work for everyone and everywhere. I like the idea that a gun owner or the parent of a young adult who owns a gun is legally and financially liable if that weapon or weapons are used in an unauthorized manner. If we start heavily fining and incarcerating gun owners and those who should be responsible for the legal use of those weapons, we will see a drop in this gun madness. As the saying goes, the most sensitive organ in the human body is the wallet. Hit them where it hurts. It won't bring back anyone, but it will cut down on future shootings.
Love this line of thinking, which I hadn’t seriously considered but find very compelling. I’m going to reread later when I have more time to process. Only thing I take issue with is this idea of a “gun lobby.” There’s no gun lobby. The NRA is powerful because gun owners vote. And they will vote single-issue. Ask Tom Foley how the 1994 AWB went for him.
I am a liberal, and I have no problem with hunting rifles. As Edward states here, the fantasy of an armed citizenry fighting the US military is laughable. Also the paranoia about confiscating guns is also laughable. By many estimates there are at least 400,000,000 guns in this country. Any effort at confiscation would be an impossible undertaking. My suggestions are as follows: 1) to carry a gun in public, openly or concealed, one should show proof that one has such a need. Most people do not. To get such a permit, after proving a need, one should be required to have to take certified training in safety and marksmanship. 2) Raise the legal age of buying a gun to 21. Again, to actually get the gun one must either undergo training, or demonstrate that such training has been completed. 3) outlaw Automatic and semiautomatic rifles, aka assault weapons. No citizen needs such a weapon. 4) enact red flag laws that allow guns to be inaccessible to people showing overly aggressive behavior, or suicidal tendencies. 5) make the purchase of a gun safe mandatory. 6) aggressively enforce these laws. In order to accomplish this, ban donations to politicians from gun and ammunition manufacturers and dealers. Elect people who hold these views. Bankrupt the NRW and put Wayne LaPierre out to pasture.
I think this is a great analysis -- if conservatives/liberatarians prioritize "private individuals and groups (families and churches especially) to the government, with the legitimacy of the latter depending on its powers being limited to securing the liberty of the former" (and it seems that they do), why wouldn't they prefer securing the means to defend themselves (e.g., guns) from real or imagined threats instead of relying on the police and the government? There's a breakdown of the social contract here, or a disagreement about what it entails.
I also suspect that the gun fervor is connected to a crisis of masculinity, in which men, evolutionarily and even biologically primed to fight, build, and protect, are largely prohibited from doing so by the decline of blue-collar labor and patriarchal families. Though I suppose that doesn't explain the particular American enthusiasm for guns.
Thank you. As a limey contrarian, I had got as far as the sovereignty argument (that sovereignty lies with the individual rather than the collective). But I hadn't made the link to the collapse of trust in the government, which is a common feature of the democracies.
The obvious answer is to rebuild the link between the individual and the government.
You're welcome!
:0)
We live in a country where the media has discovered the road to riches is to convince a large portion of powerless people that they should be afraid that their "way of life is going to be destroyed unless constant armed vigilance is practiced." Example: Laura Ingram's response to the 1st televised Jan 6th hearing was to conclude her convoluted report with "Everyone knows the Democrats are the true terrorists." Her readers response was, "we will not watch the hearings because they cannot be true." How do you reason with people who are unreasonable?
I have discussed this in several other places (most notably over at the Bulwark--which is how I learned about your Substack from JVL there). I usually talk about it in the form of narrative rather than religion (because of my background).
As you point out there are several traditional American narratives that work together to create our gun problem. You nail two of them but don't really mention a third: the frontier and its role in both American history (and cultural practice) and its mythological role in the larger American Narrative.
The frontier narrative sort of coalesces both the private individual/group (because the the perceived limited role of government in the frontier) and the personal responsibility narrative.,, and this narrative is played out even now in the entertainment media (although now not always in the form of the Western).
I am always perplexed by the lack of "situational awareness" exhibited by obviously intelligent people when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights. I have seen enough anti-gun opinions to know that I will NEVER join them. Ever.
What baffles me is that not one of the gun grabbers, (put it anyway you want, but that is what you are), ever actually think about what a gun free America means.
It means that there would never be a left wing, or progressive, or any other party in our country. The only opinion that would ever be heard is that of .gov. Ever again.
Think I'm crazy? Think I'm just another school shooter who hasn't been discovered yet?
Well- I am neither.
What I am is a human being that realizes that the only thing that a tyrant understands is force.
***Before I continue, I ask only that any reply be respectful. I can rebut ANY arguement that you may have. I will not be disrespected.***
While disarming everyone, banning guns, and imposing consequences for their possession may seem like a good idea, it is not. If you dont like guns, dont own any. I will defend your right to your opinion.
Why do anti-everything (AE) folks never extend the courtesy that you are afforded to anyone with a counter view point? Why is it that if the AE crowd doesn't like something it should be banned for everyone?
I will keep my arguement to the 2nd Amendment. Please do the same.
As an example of why an armed citizen is a good thing, I will share the following:
When covid hit, (another story), and the world went into lockdown, there was one country that had extreme measures imposed upon them: Australia
Formerly a free country, the Aussies decided to surrender their guns. The tyrants love this idea. The citizens cannot fight back. The citizens filled the streets in protest. Their actions meant absolutely nothing. The .gov didnt care. And .gov does not care today. In the next wave of whatever, the Aussies will comply. They have no option.
Here in the US, we still have the option. And this is the only reason AE ever has their voice heard. Period.
It is the 2nd Amendment that allows for everyone's right of expression and protest to remain intact.
So, in conclusion, if you REALLY think that No Guns is a good idea, who in the .gov will care what you have to say if you dont have the ability to do serious damage to those who ignore you.
There was an uprising in North Korea about... Oh wait. Then the China protests were... Oh wait. It must have been the Canadians that were protesting something... Oh wait. That's right. An unarmed society is a defenseless society.
I have many more arguements. I will defeat yours with history and common sense. Not "common sense gun control."
Engage!! Let's get it on!! Please stay on topic!!
Molon Labe.
^^^--- That means "Come. Take."
One thing that has informed my (lay) opinion on this is that while it is true we have more guns than ever, we also (until relatively recently) have seen gun homicides decline. I know...which way does causation work, yada...and, these mass shootings are different...
Damon, I am 53 and believe you are around the same age. My understanding is that the 80's saw more gun homicides than we see today. I'm not a gun owner and have never shot a gun, there will be no need to pry a gun out of my cold, dead, hands...I do believe the right tends to have the better argument as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.
None of this is meant to imply we can't do better, or that we are not an outlier compared to other nations.
Rather, I ask: if we have embarked on making it easier to buy guns and we have seen a decline in gun homicides how should I view those two facts (assuming I have my facts right, maybe I don't)?
Oh, and my aopolgies if this point has been asked and answered. I wasn't able to get to all the comments. Loving your new venture, Damon!!!