The Wall Street Journal: Gun owners are setting themselves up for gun control.

[irishScott]

It's a shame when I have to go to the freaking Wall Street Journal to find a good, moderate piece on gun control.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4000178156938.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

 

[Doppel]

It seems less about gun control a lot about people just being better stewards with their guns.

It's hard to legislate a constitutional right. The quick-access gun safes make sense in general and most gun owners should have one if they sleep near a gun and have kids because kids are stupid as hell and play with guns.

 

[sourn]

It seems less about gun control a lot about people just being better stewards with their guns.

It's hard to legislate a constitutional right. The quick-access gun safes make sense in general and most gun owners should have one if they sleep near a gun and have kids because kids are stupid as hell and play with guns.

Only kids that play with guns are the ones whose parent's failed them. If you have a gun in the house there is no reason what so ever not to start teaching them about safety at any age.

Me and my friend would always sneak into his parent's room to check out the guns that were locked up. He also was able to get the keys, but unlike a lot of these idiots his parents taught him at a very young age exactly what to do/not to do when it came to guns. He also showed me, so I wouldn't make a mistake while handling one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's curious indeed the the WSJ puts the onus on gun owners. After all the exist in the state who's governor fired the first shot in the war. He took his personal agenda, shoved it down the throats of the citizens via his cronies in Albany with 20 minutes of debate and absolutely no public input. Where do they factor such behavior into the equation? Nowhere.

How about when Biden misleads, or Obama uses appeal to emotion, picking one person who he should have a say. What about the women in NY state who have been denied any means of personal protection at all? I'm not just talking guns. Where are the injured and killed, where is their seat in all this?

I'm not impressed.

 

[irishScott]

It's curious indeed the the WSJ puts the onus on gun owners. After all the exist in the state who's governor fired the first shot in the war. He took his personal agenda, shoved it down the throats of the citizens via his cronies in Albany with 20 minutes of debate and absolutely no public input. Where do they factor such behavior into the equation? Nowhere.

How about when Biden misleads, or Obama uses appeal to emotion, picking one person who he should have a say. What about the women in NY state who have been denied any means of personal protection at all? I'm not just talking guns. Where are the injured and killed, where is their seat in all this?

I'm not impressed.

They don't put the entire onus on gun owners. In fact the article blatantly states, multiple times, that gun owners are correct to oppose sweeping legislation.

But simple fact is there are a lot of idiots with guns out there who aren't being responsible with their guns, and they get the attention. They're tolerated by the gun community at large for political support, but in the meantime they make us all look bad. They're the reason for the idiot stereotype that you have to be crazy to own a gun. They're the reason that the instinctive image most people have of gun rights advocates is the toothless, yee-hawing redneck or old-school firebrands like Wayne LaPierre.

It's the same way the Tea Party has tainted the entire image of the Republican party.

The gun lobby needs to alter its image and drop the siege mentality. It needs to be the calm adult in the room speaking up for individual rights and responsibility. It needs to connect with non-gun-owners. It needs to come to the middle with calm rationality and make its adversaries look petty and stupid for not doing the same.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They don't put the entire onus on gun owners. In fact the article blatantly states, multiple times, that gun owners are correct to oppose sweeping legislation.

But simple fact is there are a lot of idiots with guns out there who aren't being responsible with their guns, and they get the attention. They're tolerated by the gun community at large for political support, but in the meantime they make us all look bad. They're the reason for the idiot stereotype that you have to be crazy to own a gun. They're the reason that the instinctive image most people have of gun rights advocates is the toothless, yee-hawing redneck or old-school firebrands like Wayne LaPierre.

It's the same way the Tea Party has tainted the entire image of the Republican party.

The gun lobby needs to alter its image and drop the siege mentality. It needs to be the calm adult in the room speaking up for individual rights and responsibility. It needs to connect with non-gun-owners. It needs to come to the middle with calm rationality and make its adversaries look petty and stupid for not doing the same.

I agree that there needs to be some rational voice on the pro gun side. We have a whole lot of people in opposition at the county level in NY state and can express themselves well. Did you even know that?

My point is that when we act responsibly we do not get recognition of our existence or efforts. We aren't interesting.

What now?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Personally I don't care. If someone goes against the right to bare arms because of some idiot they saw on TV then they are addressing the issue of public opinion and not self defense. That important distinction must be made.

 

[irishScott]

I agree that there needs to be some rational voice on the pro gun side. We have a whole lot of people in opposition at the county level in NY state and can express themselves well. Did you even know that?

My point is that when we act responsibly we do not get recognition of our existence or efforts. We aren't interesting.

What now?

What now is the NRA and such needs to get vocal about personal responsibility and use what media recognition we get to promote that image. Right now the gun grabbers are preaching "common sense" and "obvious" and we try to tear down those arguments. Why isn't the NRA throwing their own words back at them, and when they do why don't they have the same pull on non-gun-owners as the gun grabber's rhetoric?

Moreover, why are gun rights advocates automatically seen in such a negative light, but gun control advocates have no such stereotype?

To sum it up, why isn't the pro-gun message connecting as strongly as the gun control message?

The answer is the very defensive, siege mentality that the NRA and others are promoting. Imagine if David Keene (NRA President) came out tomorrow and said the NRA was willing to support shall-issue gun licensing (basic, 8 hour NRA safety class for a permit) in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity. I realize a lot of the NRA would flat-out revolt over this, but just say for the sake of argument, it happened.

Given the NRA's previous stances, this would generate massive media coverage, and if the gun grabbers didn't come tot the table, then all of a sudden they're the uncompromising radicals and the NRA are the ones proposing common sense legislation that would do next to nothing to law-abiding gun owners and gain national CCW reciprocity, while making your opponents look like idiots in front of the entire country. At the same time, you set hard, concrete milestones that are non-negotiable. I'm talking things like no national registry and such. Then you *gasp* stick to them. Given the NRA's stubborn reputation, these milestones would have weight.

Suffice it to say the defensive, hold-the-line mentality is a stagnant strategy at best, and will eventually fail. For my part, I'd rather endure paying $100 for a safety class so I can buy an AR-15, as opposed to seeing AR-15s banned nation wide. To boot, when the next shooting comes around we'll already have a highly visible licensing system in place, and the primary question will be "how can we fix the filters?" as opposed to "how do we get rid of these guns?"

But this is unlikely to happen. What is likely to happen is the NRA, GOA, SAF, and others dig in their heels, and instead of actively managing and containing gun control, they hold on until their grip shatters completely and we lose everything.

 

[Zebo]

Only kids that play with guns are the ones whose parent's failed them. If you have a gun in the house there is no reason what so ever not to start teaching them about safety at any age.

Me and my friend would always sneak into his parent's room to check out the guns that were locked up. He also was able to get the keys, but unlike a lot of these idiots his parents taught him at a very young age exactly what to do/not to do when it came to guns. He also showed me, so I wouldn't make a mistake while handling one.

I just think kids are fed up these days. We had a huge family with 5 boys and my dad had guns everywhere. On fireplace mantle in unlocked gun cabinet in his closet in gun bags and we knew to even touch them was ass whoopin time so we never did. They were furniture.

 

[michal1980]

What now is the NRA and such needs to get vocal about personal responsibility and use what media recognition we get to promote that image. Right now the gun grabbers are preaching "common sense" and "obvious" and we try to tear down those arguments. Why isn't the NRA throwing their own words back at them, and when they do why don't they have the same pull on non-gun-owners as the gun grabber's rhetoric?

Moreover, why are gun rights advocates automatically seen in such a negative light, but gun control advocates have no such stereotype?

To sum it up, why isn't the pro-gun message connecting as strongly as the gun control message?

The answer is the very defensive, siege mentality that the NRA and others are promoting. Imagine if David Keene (NRA President) came out tomorrow and said the NRA was willing to support shall-issue gun licensing (basic, 8 hour NRA safety class for a permit) in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity. I realize a lot of the NRA would flat-out revolt over this, but just say for the sake of argument, it happened.

Given the NRA's previous stances, this would generate massive media coverage, and if the gun grabbers didn't come tot the table, then all of a sudden they're the uncompromising radicals and the NRA are the ones proposing common sense legislation that would do next to nothing to law-abiding gun owners and gain national CCW reciprocity, while making your opponents look like idiots in front of the entire country. At the same time, you set hard, concrete milestones that are non-negotiable. I'm talking things like no national registry and such. Then you *gasp* stick to them. Given the NRA's stubborn reputation, these milestones would have weight.

Suffice it to say the defensive, hold-the-line mentality is a stagnant strategy at best, and will eventually fail. For my part, I'd rather endure paying $100 for a safety class so I can buy an AR-15, as opposed to seeing AR-15s banned nation wide. To boot, when the next shooting comes around we'll already have a highly visible licensing system in place, and the primary question will be "how can we fix the filters?" as opposed to "how do we get rid of these guns?"

But this is unlikely to happen. What is likely to happen is the NRA, GOA, SAF, and others dig in their heels, and instead of actively managing and containing gun control, they hold on until their grip shatters completely and we lose everything.

bla bla bla.

Why come to the table with gun fearing pussies? The gun pussies will never understand anything about guns, so its pointless to talk to them.

Its like asking a 2 year old, if you should switch jobs. pointless.

 

[irishScott]

bla bla bla.

Why come to the table with gun fearing pussies? The gun pussies will never understand anything about guns, so its pointless to talk to them.

Its like asking a 2 year old, if you should switch jobs. pointless.

You don't come to the table for the gun fearing pussies, you come to the table for the silent majority who actually determines these things. We can pay a minimum for good PR and get them on our side, marginalizing the opposition, or we can let the opposition get them on their side and fuck us up the ass.

This is typically known as "strategy".

Gun owners by themselves are not enough for a sustained defense of gun rights as we know them, and the siege mentality many currently practice completely surrenders the initiative and is doomed to eventual failure.

 

[michal1980]

You don't come to the table for the gun fearing pussies, you come to the table for the silent majority who actually determines these things. We can pay a minimum for good PR and get them on our side, marginalizing the opposition, or we can let the opposition get them on their side and fuck us up the ass.

This is typically known as "strategy".

Gun owners by themselves are not enough for a sustained defense of gun rights as we know them, and the siege mentality many currently practice completely surrenders the initiative and is doomed to eventual failure.

If the gun majority is as big as claimed. Then the party that goes after them will lose plenty of power in the upcoming election. Theres hardly anything permanent about politically power. So the need to talk to anti-gun pussies is zero. Since the more they talk the more power they lose.

its my opinion that I want the anti gun pussies to keep talking, keep this issue up for the next year and a half. The amount of influence they'll have after that is will be deafening.

 

[Zorkorist]

I agree that there needs to be some rational voice on the pro gun side. We have a whole lot of people in opposition at the county level in NY state and can express themselves well. Did you even know that?

My point is that when we act responsibly we do not get recognition of our existence or efforts. We aren't interesting.

What now?

The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, says quite clearly that we have the right to bear arms. The constitution, is the rational voice, you seek.

-John

 

[blankslate]

After children were slaughtered, the point has been reached where Wayne Lapierre & Co.'s effort to talk about everything else except for the firearms just is not enough.

Either control and (over)regulate the firearms or make more of an effort to ensure that mentally disturbed people and criminals don't get their hands on the firearms.

If people want to minimize or prevent new laws on firearms then the other option is closing loopholes to background checks and tightening up extremely lax laws on straw purchases.

If you want to categorize this as the post of a gun fearing pussy go ahead. you're just an absolute idiot if you do.

 

[Fenixgoon]

After children were slaughtered, the point has been reached where Wayne Lapierre & Co.'s effort to talk about everything else except for the firearms just is not enough.

Either control and (over)regulate the firearms or make more of an effort to ensure that mentally disturbed people and criminals don't get their hands on the firearms.

If people want to minimize or prevent new laws on firearms then the other option is closing loopholes to background checks and tightening up extremely lax laws on straw purchases.

If you want to categorize this as the post of a gun fearing pussy go ahead. you're just an absolute idiot if you do.

the problem is that virtually none of the proposed legislation will prevent another massacre from happening again.

it's all feel-good nonsense with very little rooted in practically addressing gun violence.

 

[michal1980]

After children were slaughtered, the point has been reached where Wayne Lapierre & Co.'s effort to talk about everything else except for the firearms just is not enough.

Either control and (over)regulate the firearms or make more of an effort to ensure that mentally disturbed people and criminals don't get their hands on the firearms.

If people want to minimize or prevent new laws on firearms then the other option is closing loopholes to background checks and tightening up extremely lax laws on straw purchases.

If you want to categorize this as the post of a gun fearing pussy go ahead. you're just an absolute idiot if you do.

Well, would you call a spade, a spade?

What problem did the new law in new York fix? Who passed it? - Gun fearing pussies. Irrational people that pass laws just to pass them so they can pat themselves on the backs for being pussies and doing 'something'.

People like you just support them. sickening.

 

[OverVolt]

WSJ just wants to quote retarded gun owners to make all gun owners look bad.

They just couldn't find any dumb gun owners :awe: just pro-gun control guys.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I've been saying this here and elsewhere for months.

The usual response from the far-right gun-owning fringe is always WE MUST OPPOSE EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS NO MATTER WHAT.

And the average American is increasingly deciding that they simply don't give a shit about what the extremists want. They have marginalized themselves, and they will be marginalized.

The extremists on the right -- including the frothing moron who runs the NRA -- are nearly as much of a threat to responsible gun owners as the extremists on the left.

 

[irishScott]

If the gun majority is as big as claimed. Then the party that goes after them will lose plenty of power in the upcoming election. Theres hardly anything permanent about politically power. So the need to talk to anti-gun pussies is zero. Since the more they talk the more power they lose.

its my opinion that I want the anti gun pussies to keep talking, keep this issue up for the next year and a half. The amount of influence they'll have after that is will be deafening.

Maybe this time (and that is "maybe") but mass shootings aren't going away. Exactly how many of these debates do you think gun owners can endure while completely surrendering the initiative? The pro-gun side of the debate will be chipped away until it's not enough, and then we end up with another Clinton AWB or worse. All because a bunch of morons were so busy masturbating to their "Don't Tread on Me" flags they were happy to let themselves and the issue they care about get caught in a forest fire.

 

[Cerb]

What now is the NRA and such needs to get vocal about personal responsibility and use what media recognition we get to promote that image.

When is La Pierre getting kicked out? On the occasion David Keene actually gets out in public, he's pretty level-headed, and not spouting off and being an ass, like La Pierre does all the time. If he were to be their mouthpiece, that alone would help the NRA's image.

Also, get a campaign going with Larry Potterfield. "Here's the guy you wish was your grandpa, to talk to you about guns."

 

[irishScott]

When is La Pierre getting kicked out? On the occasion David Keene actually gets out in public, he's pretty level-headed, and not spouting off and being an ass, like La Pierre does all the time. If he were to be their mouthpiece, that alone would help the NRA's image.

Also, get a campaign going with Larry Potterfield. "Here's the guy you wish was your grandpa, to talk to you about guns."

Honestly I don't know why Wayne is still around. It is a lobbyist group, and he's got political experience. I assume he just has the connections. He's a firebrand, but he's not stupid; least there's that.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I have yet to see evidence that gun control, of any form, would curb or stop violence. When the vice president admits that it won't work and the Department of Homeland Security didn't have a problem with "assault rifles" being used as "personal defense weapons" it becomes clear to me there is more of an agenda at hand than an actual concern for human life. This is why I won't budge and if people think that makes me or others like me stubborn so be it. The Executive branch isn't being upfront and honest as referenced above and the very government that says assault weapons are not needed for self defense didn't have a problem labeling them as such until this administration starting making a stink about it.

 

[Doppel]

After children were slaughtered, the point has been reached where Wayne Lapierre & Co.'s effort to talk about everything else except for the firearms just is not enough.

Either control and (over)regulate the firearms or make more of an effort to ensure that mentally disturbed people and criminals don't get their hands on the firearms.

If people want to minimize or prevent new laws on firearms then the other option is closing loopholes to background checks and tightening up extremely lax laws on straw purchases.

If you want to categorize this as the post of a gun fearing pussy go ahead. you're just an absolute idiot if you do.

Don't forget that firearms are already the most legislated and controlled consumer good, arguably, and there are no studies showing any control of them even reduces gun violence. The gun control side keeps throwing on more laws that have no effect but that to frustrate responsible owners.

 

[irishScott]

I have yet to see evidence that gun control, of any form, would curb or stop violence. When the vice president admits that it won't work and the Department of Homeland Security didn't have a problem with "assault rifles" being used as "personal defense weapons" it becomes clear to me there is more of an agenda at hand than an actual concern for human life. This is why I won't budge and if people think that makes me or others like me stubborn so be it. The Executive branch isn't being upfront and honest as referenced above and the very government that says assault weapons are not needed for self defense didn't have a problem labeling them as such until this administration starting making a stink about it.

It's called politics. It governs our lives far more than reason. You can play the game well or get fucked by the game. The latter may enable you to emotionally masturbate and crow moral superiority, but at the end of the day you're still fucked. I'd rather take the former.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I have yet to see evidence that gun control, of any form, would curb or stop violence. When the vice president admits that it won't work and the Department of Homeland Security didn't have a problem with "assault rifles" being used as "personal defense weapons" it becomes clear to me there is more of an agenda at hand than an actual concern for human life. This is why I won't budge and if people think that makes me or others like me stubborn so be it. The Executive branch isn't being upfront and honest as referenced above and the very government that says assault weapons are not needed for self defense didn't have a problem labeling them as such until this administration starting making a stink about it.

The article is about gun owners taking more responsibility for themselves. Not new laws.

The point is that the lack of self-regulation by gun owners is part of both why there are so many unnecessary deaths and why people who are not gun owners respond with calls for more gun laws.