This message was self-deleted by its author

[billh58]

This message was self-deleted by its author (billh58) on Thu Mar 12, 2015, 05:36 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[guillaumeb]

1. why guns matter

Wages and living conditions have been stagnant for the bottom 90% since the Carter years. Causes, in my view, range from the dwindling unionized work force in this country, free trade agreements that eliminated the manufacturing base, politicians from both parties who are owned by the 1%, general lack of knowledge by the adult population, taxes that are far too low on the 1%, the list could go on.

How does this relate? Because guns symbolize freedom for many people. One might be living in a shack, no assets to speak of, no hope for a real future, but a gun makes that person powerful.

Plus guns are a link to the mythical pioneer days, or the Wild West, or the always heroic American freedom fighter busy fighting Indians, black slaves, Indians again.

It does not matter that this movie mythstory masquerading as history has no relation to reality. Most Americans have no grasp of their own history, much less world history.

Throw in the fact that this country has always been at war, and guns are an essential tool of war.

I feel that if gun control advocates do not address the psychological aspects of gun ownership the fight can never be won. Simply trying to control or regulate gun ownership would be seen as a taking away of what many see as a symbol of their American freedom.

[arcane1]

2. Those people are brainwashed idiots. Similar to how a hybrid car isn't considered "manly"

When something is marketed as a symbol of male sexual virility, dumb-ass reactions follow common sense.

[billh58]

3. Like the "cold dead hands" gun

fetishist crowd, you assume that ALL gun owners are anti-gun control, and vote as a bloc. They do not, and a large percentage of American gun owners (only around 25-30% of which are self-declared Democrats) agree with the need for sensible gun control measures.

This blatant lie promoted by the NRA/ILA and the right-wing gun lobby that they speak for ALL gun owners, and that ALL gun owners subscribe to group think, is just another way of selling fear -- in this case the fear of non-existent numbers. The number of US households that own guns is falling, and has been for years. More guns are being amassed by a dwindling number of right-wing extremists, which accounts for most of the "increased sales" of lethal weapons, along with straw purchases.

As for winning over the minds and hearts of gun nuts, there is no need because they are a dying breed. The NRA, and your, misrepresentation of the goals of gun control advocates as a movement solely advocating for the banning of guns, is as reprehensible as it is patently false. Strict regulation of lethal weapons has been proven to be an effective means of reducing gun violence, and as the OP points out, the gun industry has absolutely no government oversight as do other consumer products. Your sacred Second Amendment prohibits neither regulation, nor government oversight for public safety.

And lastly, this is not a fight about "gun ownership," but rather gun usage, safety, and accountability.

[guillaumeb]

4. clarification needed

I never used the words "all gun owners". I think you should reread my comment.

Fear sells guns. My point is that by catering to that fear the gun manufacturers assure continued gun sales. They also propagate the myths that I referred to.

As to your other points about the goals of the proponents , I agree that gun control is essential. In Canada, the Firearms Act regulates who can own and what they can own. That is one reason Canada has a much lower rate of homicide violence than the US.

As to the Second Amendment, nowhere in the Amendment does it provide for private citizens to possess guns. It talks about "a well regulated militia" and the right of "the people" not the right of private individuals.

I feel that we actually agree on this issue.

[billh58]

5. When I see a statement like:

"Simply trying to control or regulate gun ownership would be seen as a taking away of what many see as a symbol of their American freedom," it strikes me as a request to negotiate with right-wing terrorists, and at least partial agreement with the NRA/ILA message of speaking for ALL gun owners. It also reinforces the "Democrats are coming for our guns" lie.

The same argument could be used to persuade Democrats to attempt to "win over" Tea Party members to Liberalism, but I personally would not want them on my side.

[guillaumeb]

6. the point remains

My point remains that framing the argument is important. Calling someone who kills others a "freedom fighter" is making an argument on a subliminal plane. Same as calling the person a "terrorist". In each case the person using the term is trying to influence the debate by word choice.

Right wingers generally do not talk about freedom when describing abortion, nor do they generally talk about freedom FROM religion when talking about the Establishment Clause. They frame their arguments on personal terms. Thus my "simply trying to control..." argument is how the right will frame ANY effort to regulate guns. For them it is an all or nothing affair. Small a segment as they are, they, in concert with the NRA, own a lot of politicians. To ignore that is to ignore reality.

I have attended some Tea Party meetings in my area. It is an interesting experience listening to how they perceive the US. I think education is the way to reframe the debate, but given that numerous studies show that approximately 40% of the population is functionally illiterate I do not know how it will work.

[billh58]

7. And my point remains as well:

we have capitulated to the right-wing gun nuts far too much already. There are too many lax, ineffective, gun violence enabling NRA/ILA laws on the books now. Further "convincing" of the gun nut crowd is neither productive, nor necessary. Public opinion and momentum is on the side of sensible gun control.

Again your framing of right-wing extremists as an "approachable" demographic is laughable. Go peddle your "can't we all get along" garbage in the other group.

[billh58]

8. From the article referenced in the OP:

"And that’s a fact that gun ownership in the U.S. is on a steady decline. In 1977, 54 percent of American households had a gun in them. By 2012, that number had dropped to 34 percent. (And this comes from the general social survey that’s done by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It’s the most cited social survey in the country. It’s the only survey that has consistently looked at this issue.) So what the industry is faced with is the fact that gun owners are aging; they’re dying off. And the constant pressure [the NRA] faces is two-fold. One is, how do you resell current gun owners? And the second is, how do you market to, for lack of a better phrase, “replacement shooters?"

And only 30% of that 34% are Democrats. Why should we pander to right-wing gun nuts who are dying out anyway?

[jimmy the one]

9. improving relations

guillaum: I agree that gun control is essential. In Canada, the Firearms Act regulates who can own and what they can own. That is one reason Canada has a much lower rate of homicide violence than the US.

You have the required FOID card in canada, firearm owners I.D. card, as well as other guncontrol; ... aside, when I visited a friend in Ottawa maybe 10 yrs back he was excited about just getting FOID & a handgun, while I was more interested in Canada's gun control approach, Canadian-American role reversal!
I also suspect canada's abandoned guncontrol legislation about same time, where govt offices were flooded with phone books to swamp the proposed bill, was due to rightwing gun owner opposition & foul play, supported by infiltrators from the creepy NRA.
Aussie John Howard had the right approach. Well known that rightwing commonwealth tory party is well to the left of rightwing American repubs, more in the center. I think 90%+ tories would not want assault rifles or high cap clips..

guillaum: It does not matter that this movie mythstory masquerading as history has no relation to reality. Most Americans have no grasp of their own history, much less world history.

Exactly. Another anecdote, I was at a joe biden rally ~2008 & asked several fellow democrats what they thought the 2nd amendment originally meant. Not one even mentioned militia, just mostly 'well I think we should be allowed to own guns' or 'my husband owns a gun & he's law abiding' etc, as if today's mindthought applied to 1791.

You are an asset to this group Guillaum, pls stay; I think bill is just unfamiliar with your style - hey happens some times, I've been there too!

[guillaumeb]

11. thanks jimmy

My family has lived in Quebec/New Brunswick area since 1600. I live in the Chicago area, but retain the Canadian view on many things.

Gun fetishism in the US is somewhat scary, given that the US might be the biggest threat to world peace. I feel that the clear intent of your Founders regarding gun ownership is that ownership is linked to a "well regulated militia". I do not feel they had in mind the various right wing separatist groups that claim to be militias or the Red Dawn fantasists and their vision of defeating a trained military force with small arms and patriotic fervor.

Also scary is the right wing hatred of a government composed of one's fellow citizens. How self government translates for these right wingers into an "overbearing occupying force intent on stamping out freedom" escapes me.

I have said this before, think it needs repeating. We had a Prime Minister in Quebec in the 1960s named Jean Lesage. In a debate on the role of government he said, in translation, "the (Quebecker) government is not an enemy among us. It emanates from us, it is from us and of us. It does for us what we cannot do alone". Best short description of the role of government that I have ever heard.

[jimmy the one]

10. wayne la pierre-head

Indeed, it’s likely that no organization is as feared in Washington as the NRA, despite the fact that its views — as embodied by the odious Wayne LaPierre — are clearly outside the mainstream and far too close to those usually associated with the kind of right-wing terrorists who recently murdered three people in Las Vegas. Put simply, the NRA is not only abnormally influential, but abnormally extreme, too.

Certainly; I also think there's some latent, hidden fear of some rightwing whackjob finding out you don't care for the nra or the 2nd amendment & deciding to sacrifice himself to remove a gun control advocate from the picture, so they keep quiet.
Like a 70 yr old gun fanatic who might spend only a couple years in hotel greybar due his terminal illness. What's the diff to him? prison or hospice?
Hardly would be the case of course; I'm not saying normal nra or gun people would really want to do this to others, just that there's this latent fear of the worst case scenario that hinders some people who would support gun control, from outright saying so.
In southern states it's worse, the inhibition is worse for supporting gun control; .. since where people work is more likely to be pro gun, & people therein who would support gun control, well, might cost them their jobs, so best to keep mum on it.