I don't know anyone who is pro-gun that is going to give up his gun as long as there is a terrorism threat to his family and country. Politicians need to squelch the terrorism war chanting if they ever want any form of gun control to pass in the U.S.
No one but scared liberals want "gun control". Freedom-loving Americans want elected officials to enforce the existing laws, not create new ones out of fear.
Registration is the first step to disarmament. Look back no further than Janet Reno, thankfully no longer in her position, who famously said that the actual goal is disarmament of the population. A certain venomous Democrat presidential hopeful has also echoed this sentiment publicly, recently stating on the record that only police and military should own handguns. Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution?
To some degree I agree. The problem with most vocal proponents of "reasonable" regulation in this space is that they are negotiating in bad faith. In many ways it reminds me of the current debate on encryption. Fundamentally these people don't want to seek a viable middle ground which protects freedoms while mitigating problems, they want to remove the rights or protections entirely. It therefore becomes almost impossible to take anything other than an absolutist stance because every negotiation involves the outcome of previous "reasonable negotiations" being used as the starting point for the people on defense. Their fundamental goal is to slowly chip away until there is nothing left.
> Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution?
Because it is adjusted as we develop and learn more about the world we live in, it has happened in the past, and I sincerely hope it continues to happen.
Then the politicians who wish to ban guns should do it through the front door and propose a constitutional amendment. They won't do that, because it won't pass because there is nowhere near the level of consensus in the country to get such a massive change to the American law done.
I am quite pro-gun, and terrorism doesn't even register on the reasons why. I believe the same could be said of most everyone I know in that community.
It's not about fear; it's primarily about a worldview that centers on individuality and distrust of government.
I've never understood this argument. The day you pull a gun on "government" is the day you will be killed on the spot, or sentenced to death row, or sent to life in prison with no chance of parole. You will be permanently removed from your comfortable life, and whomever takes that life away from you will face no penalty for doing so.
So you own a handgun? The government will have assault rifles. Oh, you own an assault-like rifle? The government will have RPG's and grenades. It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose.
We hear this argument from Americans every single time this topic is brought up. "It's to keep the government in check!". What a load of horse crap. Every time, we only hear repeated "Constitution! Constitution!". Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms.
It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.
No one is imagining turning into Rambo and overthrowing their local sheriff. The idea is that there are limits to how far the American people can be pushed before we - as a group - simply refuse to go along anymore.
This stems directly from American history. The Constitution was written in a time when things like the Boston Massacre, Bunker Hill, and Col. Parker's stand in Concord and Lexington were fresh in the collective consciousness.
> Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms.
I don't believe it is - and there are millions of others who agree with me. We're armed to the teeth, so good luck changing it. That's the whole point :)
> It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.
I understand that. Sitting here in Virginia, I cannot fathom how the Brits gave up their weapons without a fight less than a generation after they were literally asking the American public to donate firearms in preparation of a German invasion.
That's OK though, because I don't live under their rule. I'm happy to share my perspective and learn about theirs. I hold no ill will against people on the other side of an ocean that don't understand my political views.
No one is imagining turning into Rambo and overthrowing their local sheriff.
I think people certainly do imagine that, although few of them put it into practice. What about those guys who occupied the wildlife refuge? Like a lonelier, more heavily armed Occupy?
Brits gave up their weapons without a fight .. German invasion
Funny thing this. The war looms large in UK national identity; our finest hour, Dunkirk, the Blitz, the Few, etc. However there's no English(+) tradition of anti-government armed struggle, and obviously WW2 we were fighting for the government. There is very little gun culture either. It's just not an important factor in politics. The idea of the government going rogue is just not something people think about - unless you're on the left, which has perhaps a few more wounds. Whereas in the US this particular kind of armed antigovernmentalism seems to be a right-wing thing.
(+) does not apply in Scotland and NI!
The UK history of violent confrontation with the state is mostly "left". Bloody Sunday. Orgreave. Hillsborough(++). Peterloo. Red Clydeside. Brixton.
(++) an accident made far worse by aggressive victim-blaming and systematic evidence forging by police and press.
The ways in which violence, crime, race, poverty, policing, politics, political violence and dissent are conceptualised are mostly entirely different. Ideas do constantly leak through from the US film industry though.
> It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose.
I think this isn't true if enough people decide to attack the government in concert, say 10% of the population, that's 30 million people. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up.
But probably, knives would suffice for that purpose. Or just not showing up for work.
> American police forces are already stretched to the limit and can be easily tied up
Which is why state police and then the National Guard and then other branches of the military become involved in any serious unrest. E.g. Ferguson for an extremely recent example.
> say 10% of the population
Overwhlemingly dispersed throughout suburban and rural populations that are far more easily controlled than a large urban uprising. And also, it would take extraordinary circumstances to find 10% of the population willing to commit to an armed revolution. If you have that many people that angry, odds are that the democratic process would work far better anyways. That's the rub with this fantasy and why it hasn't happened in recent memory -- once that many people are that angry, they probably have a sympathetic majority anyways.
Keep in mind that the United States has 2mil+ prisoners and has absolutely no problem keeping the police. If we assume only a small fraction of people who could land in prison actually do, then it's entirely possible that 10% of the population is or was at one point at danger of being locked up and still would never commit to an armed insurrection.
Also, only ~60% of the US even votes. So 10% is a truly huge number.
Actually, the most ironic thing about this part of the gun debate is that the people who are least persecuted by actual systemic violence against subpopulations of the United States both 1) insist that this violence doesn't exist or is justified; and 2) worry about their own non-existent completely hypothetical persecution at some vague distant point in the future.
All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit.
10% is absurdly high. That's beyond an insurgency, straight past an insurrection, and on into civil war.
> All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit.
In my experience, racial minorities see firearms as a tool of a criminal and the oppressor, because they often grow up in a place where the only people they see with them are criminals and cops.
Meanwhile, I've personally introduced several individuals who are members of minority groups to firearms, and the message of self-reliance is something that really resonates with them. Consider that the motto of the Pink Pistols is "armed gays don't get bashed". It's not like it used to be, the gun community isn't just a bunch of old middle-class white dudes. Sure, I'm a member of the NRA - but I'm also a member of the Pink Pistols and the JPFO.
"Actually, the most ironic thing about this part of the gun debate is that the people who are least persecuted by actual systemic violence against subpopulations of the United States both 1) insist that this violence doesn't exist or is justified; and 2) worry about their own non-existent completely hypothetical persecution at some vague distant point in the future.
All the while, people who are in actually persecuted groups (poor, racial minorities who have double digit odds at incarceration) don't get involved in the gun debate because they know the "standing up to the man" fantasy is dangerous bullshit."
I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this.
> It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose.
You're thinking at the individual level. Of course the state is going to have far more firepower than anything an individual can muster.
Think in terms of asymmetrical warfare.
Why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan? Why did OIF go from a three-week invasion to over a decade of grueling counterinsurgency operations? Surely those scrappy little resistance fighters couldn't stand up to our might...they die in droves, yet they persist.
I distrust my toddler, because she is incapable of making rational choices. I'm not going to let her walk across a parking lot by herself.
I distrust a venomous snake for the same reasons. I'm also extremely cautious around them, because they can cause pain or death if mishandled. That doesn't mean I'm afraid of them.
But that has to be cultural reaction as well. The UK was subject through the 80s/90s to a persistent, genuine, armed terrorist threat in the form of Irish republican and unionist terrorism. If the reaction of the population of Northern Ireland and England to that had been to demand that they be allowed to arm themselves, I don't think we'd have ever reached an end to the Troubles.
