Obviously You have not gone through the NY Suffolk County Gun License NIGHTMARE.
Many States are reasonable.. Not South-Eastern NY.
Point the finger at New York. Or California. Or one of the very few states where you've got to jump through hoops to protect yourself. Explain that "The government of New York makes it difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals."
But don't exaggerate by claiming that "the government wants you 100% defenseless". You're not helping our cause with such exaggerations. In the eyes of our detractors, you're perpetuating the stereotype that gun owners are irrational, paranoid, delusional, and stupid.
The biggest problem we have isn't the message; it's how we present it. Our message is good. But a lot of us convey that message badly, and our anti-gun adversaries use that against us, negating all the positives of our message. We need to be extremely precise with our language to prevent anti-gun folks from being able to twist our words around against us.
The biggest thing I would ask every gun owner to do is to ignore what "government" was in 1776, and remember what it is now. In 1776, "government" was synonymous with "king". When we talk about guns protecting us against tyrannical governments, we mean "kingdoms"; "dictatorships"; "fascism" and the like. The 2nd Amendment does not convey any right to overthrow a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Quite the contrary, the constitution explicitly grants the government the authority to suppress insurrection.
Another point we need to express is the positive affects of firearms on violent crime. To often, we allow anti-gunners to describe the problem as "gun crime", which prevents us from showing things like the effectiveness of gun owners at stopping violent crime, regardless of whether that crime is committed with bare hands, baseball bats, cars, or guns. We need to show things like how concealed carriers hit bad guys and miss good guys more often than police. How police are, at best, second responders to a criminal attack. We need to show that police lack the situational awareness of the actual first responders on the scene: the victims and bystanders. We need to show that the sooner an attack of any sort is stopped, the better the outcome for everyone. We need to show that the fastest way to stop a violent crime is for the intended victim to bring sufficient threat of force to bear the moment the attacker commits to his criminal act.
Before 9/11, passengers and flight crews were indoctrinated into the belief that cooperation with hijackers until the authorities can rescue the passengers was the best course of action. After 9/11, this asinine viewpoint was abandoned, replaced with "resist at all costs". We need to show that this same viewpoint must apply to victims and bystanders reactions to the threat of violent crime. And we do that by showing a panicky public what happens when their friends and neighbors are willing and able to intervene on their behalf.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Point the finger at New York. Or California. Or one of the very few states where you've got to jump through hoops to protect yourself. Explain that "The government of New York makes it difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals."
But don't exaggerate by claiming that "the government wants you 100% defenseless". You're not helping our cause with such exaggerations. In the eyes of our detractors, you're perpetuating the stereotype that gun owners are irrational, paranoid, delusional, and stupid.
The biggest problem we have isn't the message; it's how we present it. Our message is good. But a lot of us convey that message badly, and our anti-gun adversaries use that against us, negating all the positives of our message. We need to be extremely precise with our language to prevent anti-gun folks from being able to twist our words around against us.
The biggest thing I would ask every gun owner to do is to ignore what "government" was in 1776, and remember what it is now. In 1776, "government" was synonymous with "king". When we talk about guns protecting us against tyrannical governments, we mean "kingdoms"; "dictatorships"; "fascism" and the like. The 2nd Amendment does not convey any right to overthrow a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Quite the contrary, the constitution explicitly grants the government the authority to suppress insurrection.
Another point we need to express is the positive affects of firearms on violent crime. To often, we allow anti-gunners to describe the problem as "gun crime", which prevents us from showing things like the effectiveness of gun owners at stopping violent crime, regardless of whether that crime is committed with bare hands, baseball bats, cars, or guns. We need to show things like how concealed carriers hit bad guys and miss good guys more often than police. How police are, at best, second responders to a criminal attack. We need to show that police lack the situational awareness of the actual first responders on the scene: the victims and bystanders. We need to show that the sooner an attack of any sort is stopped, the better the outcome for everyone. We need to show that the fastest way to stop a violent crime is for the intended victim to bring sufficient threat of force to bear the moment the attacker commits to his criminal act.
Before 9/11, passengers and flight crews were indoctrinated into the belief that cooperation with hijackers until the authorities can rescue the passengers was the best course of action. After 9/11, this asinine viewpoint was abandoned, replaced with "resist at all costs". We need to show that this same viewpoint must apply to victims and bystanders reactions to the threat of violent crime. And we do that by showing a panicky public what happens when their friends and neighbors are willing and able to intervene on their behalf.
For the most part I agree with everything you said there. Using precise language is important. FOR BOTH SIDES. I can't stand when they talk about "automatic weapons" and "assault rifles"... I even heard one news person say "assault magazines".... So they can just throw the word assault in and it makes it sound 10x worse.
Also, the stuff you say about disregarding the early america... And fending off tyranny referring to "kingdoms" or "dictatorships", you are right EXCEPT for the fact that just because we are of the people by the people (supposedly) right now doesn't mean that couldn't change (or evolve into something else). I still think that defense from tyranny is still valid. Now, yeah some take it too extreme.
From a secular point of view gun banning is seen as an effective means to prevent the mass killings. I think it has MUCH MORE to do with the breakdown of the families in this country and deteriorating moral standards among most americans. God and faith have been all but removed from the mainstream and has been replaced by more of a "anything goes" type of viewpoint. THAT is the real root of the problem (and MOST of our other problems too).... It's only a matter of time.
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
For the most part I agree with everything you said there. Using precise language is important. FOR BOTH SIDES. I can't stand when they talk about "automatic weapons" and "assault rifles"... I even heard one news person say "assault magazines".... So they can just throw the word assault in and it makes it sound 10x worse.
Also, the stuff you say about disregarding the early america... And fending off tyranny referring to "kingdoms" or "dictatorships", you are right EXCEPT for the fact that just because we are of the people by the people (supposedly) right now doesn't mean that couldn't change (or evolve into something else).
Correct. But the point I'm trying to convey is that the second amendment does not grant this right, nor does it protect this right. Even if we throw out the constitution entirely, this right to defend The People from tyranny remains, independent of the Second Amendment.
What protects our right to own weapons is not 27 words on a piece of paper. What protects our right to own weapons is the will of the people. THAT is what we must concern ourselves with. If we want The People to accept our right to own guns, we must convince The People that firearm ownership is the greater good.
We don't do that by telling The People that The People want us 100% defenseless; that we think there is a need to defend ourselves from The People.
We need to show that The People use weapons to defend themselves from criminals. Which they do. We need to show that firearms use by The People saves far more lives than criminals take. We need to show that the threat is not the gun, it is the criminal, who will thrive where The People are ill equipped to stop him.
Quote:
I still think that defense from tyranny is still valid. Now, yeah some take it too extreme.
From a secular point of view gun banning is seen as an effective means to prevent the mass killings. I think it has MUCH MORE to do with the breakdown of the families in this country and deteriorating moral standards among most americans. God and faith have been all but removed from the mainstream and has been replaced by more of a "anything goes" type of viewpoint. THAT is the real root of the problem (and MOST of our other problems too).... It's only a matter of time.
A secular viewpoint does not inherently support a gun ban, nor does a religious viewpoint support gun ownership. All of the pro-gun arguments I've provided have been secular, and there are plenty of religious arguments against gun ownership. "Anything Goes" is the fundamental root of democracy. Individuals decide for themselves what actions they want to take and what rights The People should possess.
God and faith haven't "been removed" from the people, they've "been abandoned" by the people. The difference may seem subtle to you, but it's an important distinction and part of the precision of language I've commented on.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Correct. But the point I'm trying to convey is that the second amendment does not grant this right, nor does it protect this right. Even if we throw out the constitution entirely, this right to defend The People from tyranny remains, independent of the Second Amendment.
What protects our right to own weapons is not 27 words on a piece of paper. What protects our right to own weapons is the will of the people. THAT is what we must concern ourselves with. If we want The People to accept our right to own guns, we must convince The People that firearm ownership is the greater good.
We don't do that by telling The People that The People want us 100% defenseless; that we think there is a need to defend ourselves from The People.
We need to show that The People use weapons to defend themselves from criminals. Which they do. We need to show that firearms use by The People saves far more lives than criminals take. We need to show that the threat is not the gun, it is the criminal, who will thrive where The People are ill equipped to stop him.
A secular viewpoint does not inherently support a gun ban, nor does a religious viewpoint support gun ownership. All of the pro-gun arguments I've provided have been secular, and there are plenty of religious arguments against gun ownership. "Anything Goes" is the fundamental root of democracy. Individuals decide for themselves what actions they want to take and what rights The People should possess.
God and faith haven't "been removed" from the people, they've "been abandoned" by the people. The difference may seem subtle to you, but it's an important distinction and part of the precision of language I've commented on.
When I am referring to a secular viewpoint, I am not talking about gun ownership or rights really.. Basically the root cause of these mass killings is the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of the family is largely due to a disregard for moral code. That can be traced back (at LEAST correlate with) our country trying to turn our backs on God.
The secular viewpoint will ignore the real root cause and try to place it elsewhere, which leaves most thinking that guns are the root cause. That is really what I meant. Not that Religion argues one way or another on self defense..... Know what I mean?
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
When I am referring to a secular viewpoint, I am not talking about gun ownership or rights really.. Basically the root cause of these mass killings is the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of the family is largely due to a disregard for moral code. That can be traced back (at LEAST correlate with) our country trying to turn our backs on God.
The secular viewpoint will ignore the real root cause and try to place it elsewhere, which leaves most thinking that guns are the root cause. That is really what I meant. Not that Religion argues one way or another on self defense..... Know what I mean?
I do agree with you that we are "Turning our backs on God", but no, I don't know what you mean. In my opinion, the abandoning of strict religious ideology has improved the moral fiber of the nation, not detracted from it. I believe that without religion, people accept ownership of their own actions instead of attributing those actions to the will of their deity. People are more likely to "do good" when they can't justify their bad acts as a matter of religion.
As far as the breakdown of the family, I would note that divorce rates in the bible belt are the highest in the nation. Divorce rates are significantly linked to Christian religiosity - the more devout and fundamentalist the sect, the higher its divorce rate. The divorce rate among atheists and agnostics is roughly 30% lower than that of Christians.
You say there is a correlation between mass killings and "Turning our backs on God". I don't see that correlation. Frankly, I see a better correlation (but probably not a causal relationship) between the rapid and steady decrease in the violent crime rate since the late 1980's and the rapid and steady decrease in religiosity during that same time period.
I see a better correlation (but again, probably not a causal relationship) between that drop in violent crime and the wave of tolerance for homosexuality since the late 1980's.
Spree killers? There's a better correlation to population than there is to rejection of Jesus Christ as the killer's personal savior.
Perhaps you could explain what correlation you're actually seeing?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." from V for Vendetta
Modern governments *are* their people. Fear of our government is fear of our neighbors. Fear of our neighbors is paranoia, which is an incredibly dangerous thing.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I do agree with you that we are "Turning our backs on God", but no, I don't know what you mean. In my opinion, the abandoning of strict religious ideology has improved the moral fiber of the nation, not detracted from it. I believe that without religion, people accept ownership of their own actions instead of attributing those actions to the will of their deity. People are more likely to "do good" when they can't justify their bad acts as a matter of religion.
I'm not talking about "strict religious ideology". What I am talking about is a relationship with our creator which should result in an aspiration to not sin. Yes, that means NOT doing many things. Many see those things as restrictions but really those so called "restrictions" are only for our own good. The problems we are having in our country oftentimes are perfect illustrations of what happens when we reject God and reject a relationship with him.
Now, did you REALLY just say that people accept ownership of their own actions now as oppose to when people were more "religious"?
I kind of think people are much LESS LIKELY to accept responsibility for their actions..... Where have you been?
Quote:
As far as the breakdown of the family, I would note that divorce rates in the bible belt are the highest in the nation. Divorce rates are significantly linked to Christian religiosity - the more devout and fundamentalist the sect, the higher its divorce rate. The divorce rate among atheists and agnostics is roughly 30% lower than that of Christians.
Not quite sure where you get that but there are VERY few divorcees in my church. I think the problem is that there are so many folks out there that claim to be Christians but really arent. They are just the ones who would like to think they are, and visit church on Christmas and Easter. Then there is the larger chunk of "Christians" that go to church on Sunday but act like everyone else the rest of the week. Those aren't the ones I am talking about. I am talking about the ones who are "set apart" from the world. The ones that (for example) at your job it is apparent that they are a Christian. It isn't something that they hide. It is right there, and you can tell they are different. THOSE are the ones I am talking about. With a real relationship with God.
I did try to look up the info you had (no reference) and it appears that the numbers are all over the place. I guess it is because who is a christian, and are they only counting the number of people divorced or the number of divorces (because often people who are divorced get divorced multiple times)....
Quote:
You say there is a correlation between mass killings and "Turning our backs on God". I don't see that correlation. Frankly, I see a better correlation (but probably not a causal relationship) between the rapid and steady decrease in the violent crime rate since the late 1980's and the rapid and steady decrease in religiosity during that same time period.
My point goes back to the degredation of the family. I would be curious to know the family background of all these mass killers. How many came from broken homes? How many were abused? Not to say that that info would be readily available.... There is definitely something missing in these folks' lives.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Linear Mode
