Spending some time at the range this weekend gave me pause. As usual the place was chock full of anti Obama, anti liberal, pro conservative info/bias; it caused me to wonder if 2A can be a persons sole voting issue. Surprisingly, it seems so.

As much as I support the constitution, and as a veteran and former LEO have put my money where my mouth is, I can't imagine one single issue deserving my focus, loyalty, and almost religious fervor type support like 2A seems to garner. Then it occurred to me, if you already have all the "rights" you feel you deserve, you are safe in your place in the world, you hold the power... of course you could vote based on a single issue.

It was a "light bulb" moment for me; if you are white/male/xtian/straight, you have all the rights you're supposed to have already, it would be easier to have a single issue be your raison d'être!

Might be a no-brainer for some of you, but coming at it from a different world view, this was very enlightening for me.

Pax wrote:Spending some time at the range this weekend gave me pause. As usual the place was chock full of anti Obama, anti liberal, pro conservative info/bias; it caused me to wonder if 2A can be a persons sole voting issue. Surprisingly, it seems so.

As much as I support the constitution, and as a veteran and former LEO have put my money where my mouth is, I can't imagine one single issue deserving my focus, loyalty, and almost religious fervor type support like 2A seems to garner. Then it occurred to me, if you already have all the "rights" you feel you deserve, you are safe in your place in the world, you hold the power... of course you could vote based on a single issue.

It was a "light bulb" moment for me; if you are white/male/xtian/straight, you have all the rights you're supposed to have already, it would be easier to have a single issue be your raison d'être!

Might be a no-brainer for some of you, but coming at it from a different world view, this was very enlightening for me.

May I use what you just said in an article? Properly cited of course.

Welcome back!

KVoimakas wrote:
May I use what you just said in an article? Properly cited of course.

You may. Although I wish I'd been a bit more articulate.

AmirMortal wrote:Welcome back!

Thanks, it's nice to be back.

if you are white/male/xtian/straight, you have all the rights you're supposed to have already

More? yeah, but not all, you don't have all the rights your supposed to have until you're rich. Even then only by stealing/buying them.

They've been sold a bundle: who to worship, who to hate, what to think, etc. Its not just a 2nd amend thing but its included for the same price!

gendoikari87 wrote:

if you are white/male/xtian/straight, you have all the rights you're supposed to have already

More? yeah, but not all, you don't have all the rights your supposed to have until you're rich. Even then only by stealing/buying them.

You are 100% right, I actually meant to include "wealthy" in my list, it cements the winning birth lottery.

It can't be for me being a teacher.

My order of importance.

Education
Choice (Beaten into me by feminist mother)
2A
Separation of church

Pax wrote:

AmirMortal wrote:Welcome back!

Thanks, it's nice to be back.

With luck it'll be less 'sausagey'. Welcome back.

As a SWMX, I feel that it gives me more stable ground to agitate for other folk's rights. I have moral issues with folks in my position who fail to do so.

I think your initial analysis is definitely right on.

The missing piece about wealth is interesting because 2A issues in US politics are often tied to the class thing in interesting ways; 2A is often used as a tool to get people who would otherwise vote their own (not wealthy) economic interests to support the wealthy libretarian emphasis on individual freedoms and lack of regulation. Playing 2A rights as part and parcel of that ideology of alleged individual freedom is a very effective political tool and it is also very good for reaching people who find any complexity or nuance frustrating to think about.

The other important issue with class & 2A is how many of the spastic 2A supporters look the other way at laws designed to keep cheap firearms out of the hands of the poor, often non-white, population. I"m thinking the "saturday night special" laws and, in particular, "Melting point" laws designed to prevent cheap alloy frames from being available.

Hey Pax,

Great to see you again! Those "aha" moments are interesting aren't they?

I think there is another aspect to why some gun owners vote against there own interest. I have encountered factions of liberals that are rabidly anti -gun. They look on gun owners as violent fanatics just waiting for an opportunity to kill someone . I know people like that (anti-gun liberals) and it was expressed in an article by Mcnally in the Shepard (a liberal left free paper in S.E. Wisconsin). When you are treated with contempt by a group, I don't believe you want to associate with the group.
I also suggest that firm believers in 2a believe that they have a right to life and liberty and the right to defend it (though they may deny that right to the LGBT community and those of a different race or religion, I don't want to imply they are consistent) . If you look at some "progressive" states, such as the UK self defense is not a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Mcnally equtes self defense with murder. The philosophy is the state should handle all conflicts and if the police are a bit late, well sorry better luck in your next life.
The right wing courts gun owners. (I just got another letter from the NRA asking me to join. They are persistent)

The philosophy is the state should handle all conflicts and if the police are a bit late, well sorry better luck in your next life.

That has to be one of the dumbest philosophies ever. setting aside that police take minutes or hours to get to your home when it can take considerably less time to be killed by even an unarmed intruder, this philosophy gives a monopoly to state on violence, a state mind you which is increasingly tyrannical, and that goes for any state no matter how noble or ignoble their beginnings.

I find myself unable to be a "single issue voter" for the Second Amendment.

I prefer to support and defend the entire Constitution.

I'm new here, so I took out two paragraphs. I don't yet know the level of discussion that's accepted here.

CDFingers

gendoikari87 wrote:

The philosophy is the state should handle all conflicts and if the police are a bit late, well sorry better luck in your next life.

That has to be one of the dumbest philosophies ever. setting aside that police take minutes or hours to get to your home when it can take considerably less time to be killed by even an unarmed intruder, this philosophy gives a monopoly to state on violence, a state mind you which is increasingly tyrannical, and that goes for any state no matter how noble or ignoble their beginnings.

I agree. There aren't enough police to ensure everyone's safety, nor would we want an apparatus that large because it would be at the expense of individual choice and liberty.

Many anti-gun folks have either never seen violence personally and thus have a naive idea about handling violence OR they have seen violence and just want it to go away and are willing to surrender most of their freedom to do so. I can't blame them, though I disagree. If you have ever been in a situation where your life is imminently threatened, you would probably trade away a great many things to get out of it. Some of us have been there and then decide that we have to accept violence as part of the human condition, try to avoid it, but be prepared for it as well. Other people recoil from the idea and run to some authority to deal with it, or they engage in the fantasy that it isn't part of human nature to aquire things by means of force and violence and that people willing to see it and defend themselves against it are just as bad as those who look to aggress for their own benefit.

We know that it breaks down further by geography, with the most anti-gun people living in urban or suburban areas. Those areas are typically higher crime and have a higher police visability which lends to the idea that people who have access to weapons use them to hurt others, and that the authorities are responsible for protecting us. People living in rural areas who in many cases have grown up around firearms and in some way using them to help with subsistance or for protection against predators, have a more organic understanding of the tools.

We have a perfect storm of problems with firearms at this point. We have true crime, which is horrible. We have the media reporting both sensational and inaccurate information about firearms. We have a movie industry that still make violence and the tools of violence into a fetish. We have politics, in which one side has linked firearms with "rugged individualism" and freedom, but without the idea of responsibility, sensibility, and the fact that we live in communities not in isolation; while some on the other side have linked firearms with blood lust and a desire for violence. Being rational about the topic is very difficult, even for people who are usually that way about other issues.

CDFingers wrote:I find myself unable to be a "single issue voter" for the Second Amendment.

I prefer to support and defend the entire Constitution.

I'm new here, so I took out two paragraphs. I don't yet know the level of discussion that's accepted here.

CDFingers

We destroy keyboards in conversation here, post away.

One of the reasons we will never have a real revolution(oh maybe a few crazies acting, well, crazy)is because each of us wants to keep what we have. And thus all those groups made up any minority or majority, keeping their eyes on what they do have, will only step out of line on narrow, special issues, mostly single issues, and for that they will raise a little hell, keeping in mind to not Jeopardize their benefits. 2A? Let any NRA member have explained in a way that brooks no doubt, that they will lose their jobs, boats, snowmobiles, houses and family or give up 2A and the 2nd is toast.

Sad state of affairs. In fact if we could give evey man, woman and child, regardless of age, sex, race, sexual orientation, wealth, etc enough goodies, all of them would be limited to single non-threatening issues to take a 'stand' on. And this would be the case anywhere in the world.

Isn't our species wonderful?


paul

dbluefish wrote:One of the reasons we will never have a real revolution(oh maybe a few crazies acting, well, crazy)is because each of us wants to keep what we have. And thus all those groups made up any minority or majority, keeping their eyes on what they do have, will only step out of line on narrow, special issues, mostly single issues, and for that they will raise a little hell, keeping in mind to not Jeopardize their benefits. 2A? Let any NRA member have explained in a way that brooks no doubt, that they will lose their jobs, boats, snowmobiles, houses and family or give up 2A and the 2nd is toast.

Sad state of affairs. In fact if we could give evey man, woman and child, regardless of age, sex, race, sexual orientation, wealth, etc enough goodies, all of them would be limited to single non-threatening issues to take a 'stand' on. And this would be the case anywhere in the world.

Isn't our species wonderful?


paul

Hi Paul. Think you hit the nail on the head there. The "I've got mine, so fuck you" philosophy runs very deep in this country. I've got a good job and healthcare, so fuck you if you don't, I've got toys and fun stuff so I will do everything in my power to keep them, including accepting minion status from the wealthy.

Caliman73 wrote:Hey Pax,

Great to see you again! Those "aha" moments are interesting aren't they?

Hey Caliman! Thanks, and yup. Kind of stopped me in my tracks as I was standing in front of an anti Obama poster.

Well, what could be said in a broader sense about the psychological dangers of basing your existence on firearms? It's always the thing that worries me, especially as I consider what I have to do to get paid for painting guns.

OK: I simply cannot separate out 2A issues from 1A, or 14A, or even 3A issues.

Our big trouble, as well as our big strength, is that we're a republic. This means we've set it up that we elect a small number of "representatives" to do what we hope they'll do, which is why we elected them. Our big check on that is we can turn over the House every two years if we want. When a small number of folks gets to do stuff with no check for two years, there might arise conflicts of interest. Might. ;-)

Were I to single out the biggest threat to our republic, I would point to money in politics. Money is not speech, but it can be used to bribe, one of the few crimes in the Constitution for which a pol may be impeached. To solve the problem, I would support publicly financed elections with a contribution limit on all people; corporations should be demoted to "corporate" status. They cannot be "people," as we see in the recent news corp. troubles where good ol' rupert will split his empire into two "people." I can't do that. But if you have enough money to influence politics, it's possible.

CDFingers

judgepacker wrote:Well, what could be said in a broader sense about the psychological dangers of basing your existence on firearms? It's always the thing that worries me, especially as I consider what I have to do to get paid for painting guns.

I'm not sure what we could say generally, but I've thought about this too. Once upon a time, I considered the gunsmithing business as something I might want to do. The idea of being immersed in right wing gun culture on a daily basis was definitely one of the things that kept me from pursuing it.

CDFingers, don't worry so much about knowing your place here. Come on in. The water's fine. You've got to say some pretty fucked up shit around here to get more than a friendly argument.

The idea of being immersed in right wing gun culture on a daily basis was definitely one of the things that kept me from pursuing it.

Partial threadjack in progress.....I went shooting the other day and the only other people on the range with me were a group of orthodox Jews. I got to talking to them and boy, you shoulda seen their eyes light up when I told 'em my last name (Essentially it's the Jewish version of Smith).

Threadjack off.

Heh heh!