Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate

[mystery-ak]

   Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate
By David French

March 5, 2018 2:56 PM

It’s too hard to persuade people to willingly surrender the right to protect their own lives.

Last week I wrote a long essay in The Atlantic that represented my best effort to explain “gun culture” to those who may be more hostile to gun rights than, say, the typical reader of National Review. I began by describing threats to my family and how a person’s decision to carry a weapon is often directly tied to personal experience of real danger. Today, my friend Bethany Mandel published a similar essay in the New York Times, describing how her mother once chased off an intruder with a gun and how she herself decided to buy a gun when her family was threatened during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The goals of both essays are simple: to destroy stereotypes and to explain that the individual decision to purchase and carry a gun isn’t rooted in some sort of strange gun fetish or Wild West swagger but rather in the fundamental desire (and right) to protect your loved ones from harm. If arguments for gun control don’t grapple with this reality, then they’re destined to fail.

more
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The instinct of self-preservation is the strongest of all instincts.

No one will willingly give up their right to survival without a fight.

[Cyber Liberty]

Exit line, FTA:

Why does the Left keep losing the gun debate? Because it’s hard to persuade any man or woman to surrender an unalienable right — especially when exercising that right helps preserve the most vital right of all, the right to live.

They are unmoved when it's a hypothetical life...the  life of an unborn baby, but when it's their own precious life their attitude is a bit different.  This is why the left thinks they hold all the cards, but in fact they're all Jokers.

[roamer_1]

The instinct of self-preservation is the strongest of all instincts.

No one will willingly give up their right to survival without a fight.

That ain't nowhere near true - They think the military will save them. They think the cops will save them. They think the lawyers will save them... And many won't learn to think different until one brutal moment - And with their current thinking... That moment might well be their last.

[Fishrrman]

I sailed wrote:
"The instinct of self-preservation is the strongest of all instincts.
No one will willingly give up their right to survival without a fight."

Think so?
Take a look at what's going on in Western Europe right now, particularly in Sweden...

A bit more on-topic:
The left doesn't care one whit about "winning the argument".
What they really want "to win" is... the power to exert their will without restraint.
They're getting dangerously close to being able to do that, if demographics are an indication...

[Jazzhead]

I doubt that anyone has any serious issue with the right to possess a gun to defend one's person, family and property.  The objection is to 450 million guns,  unregistered and transferred in undocumented private transactions from the backs of trucks,  and high-powered rifles in the hands of children and the unstable.

There IS a problem with gun culture in this nation, and it has little to do with protecting the "right to self-preservation".   The problem is unending violence, made deadly because of guns, and all of us, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, need to put aside our prejudices and our selfishness and work toward a solution - perhaps something along the lines of Switzerland,  a nation with a healthy gun culture but one that requires both licensure and registration and the documented transfer of all firearms.     

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That ain't nowhere near true - They think the military will save them. They think the cops will save them. They think the lawyers will save them... And many won't learn to think different until one brutal moment - And with their current thinking... That moment might well be their last.

I guess you are a 'they'.

I and many like me are certainly not.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I doubt that anyone has any serious issue with the right to possess a gun to defend one's person, family and property.  The objection is to 450 million guns,  unregistered and transferred in undocumented private transactions from the backs of trucks,  and high-powered rifles in the hands of children and the unstable.

There IS a problem with gun culture in this nation, and it has little to do with protecting the "right to self-preservation".   The problem is unending violence, made deadly because of guns, and all of us, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, need to put aside our prejudices and our selfishness and work toward a solution - perhaps something along the lines of Switzerland,  a nation with a healthy gun culture but one that requires both licensure and registration and the documented transfer of all firearms.   

News flash:  The right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is to ensure the people protect themselves from the government.  Convenient isn't it you left that out, eh?

[Restored]

The Left cannot win the debate because they don't have a unifying platform. Their arguments aren't logical.
You cannot argue that there are too many guns if you aren't going to argue for confiscation. It's like arguing "There are too many guns so let's don't do anything about it". You can't argue for more laws if you aren't enforcing the laws we have now. The Left won't even accept prosecuting people who try to buy a gun illegally.
At best, they try to weakly argue that guns should be more expensive. That's not a fix. If your plan is to "die in a blaze of glory", it doesn't matter how much the gun costs. So far, all of the Left's gun control efforts have targeted law-abiding citizens. In short, the people that aren't the problem.

[skeeter]

News flash:  The right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is to ensure the people protect themselves from the government.  Convenient isn't it you left that out, eh?

Ain't it funny how leftists are bigger on rights deriving from emanations and penumbras than they are ones that are enumerated in black and white?

[WingNot]

Ain't it funny how leftists are bigger on rights deriving from emanations and penumbras than they are ones that are enumerated in black and white?

To your Leftist gun grabbers when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[skeeter]

To your Leftist gun grabbers when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If only they were as rational as that.

[Jazzhead]

News flash:  The right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is to ensure the people protect themselves from the government.  Convenient isn't it you left that out, eh?

That is incorrect.   The 2A is concerned with the citizens' militia,  charged with (back in those days) ensuring the defense of the "free state".   It has nothing to do with empowering yahoos to amass secret arsenals so they can rise up against the gummint.  This is not a tyranny, this is a Constitutional Republic.   There are lawful means to effect change that don't involve guns.

I've been reading this weekend about the extensive system of licensure and registration that exists in Switzerland,  a country like ourselves that enjoys the shooting sports and where many keep guns for protection.   There, gun culture flourishes within a structure of registration and lawful, documented transfers.   We should insist on nothing less here.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is incorrect.   The 2A is concerned with the citizens' militia,  charged with (back in those days) ensuring the defense of the "free state".   It has nothing to do with empowering yahoos to amass secret arsenals so they can rise up against the gummint.  This is not a tyranny, this is a Constitutional Republic.   There are lawful means to effect change that don't involve guns.

I've been reading this weekend about the extensive system of licensure and registration that exists in Switzerland,  a country like ourselves that enjoys the shooting sports and where many keep guns for protection.   There, gun culture flourishes within a structure of registration and lawful, documented transfers.   We should insist on nothing less here.

Your trumpeting the liberal line of just the militia is how the Second Amendment came about just does not hold water.

The ONLY way this country will retain its freedom is for citizens to protect themselves from an oppressive government by remaining armed.  This is fundamental and can be seen in history by all attempts by facists and communists to strip guns from individuals in order to seize and retain power.

This will not happen in this country because we will not allow the government to seize our protections and the consequential forfeit of our freedoms.

[roamer_1]

I doubt that anyone has any serious issue with the right to possess a gun to defend one's person, family and property. 

Wrong. Your liberal fellows want guns gone.

The objection is to 450 million guns,  unregistered and transferred in undocumented private transactions from the backs of trucks

 Which you can do NOTHING to control at all.

and high-powered rifles in the hands of children and the unstable.

You do realize that most country kids bag their first deer somewhere around puberty, right? With rifles far more powerful than those little peashooters you are so clenched about, right?

And it is already illegal for the unstable to own firearms in most places. How exactly is that working out?

There IS a problem with gun culture in this nation, and it has little to do with protecting the "right to self-preservation".   The problem is unending violence, made deadly because of guns

You are concatenating gun culture (which is good), with crime culture. CRIME is the problem, and the violence that it breeds.

and all of us, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, need to put aside our prejudices and our selfishness and work toward a solution

Selfishness my ass. Guns are not a problem here. If they are a problem where you are, then write your damn laws for your location and see what from there. Funny, ain't it, that where gun laws are the most strict, that's also where crime and violence bloom. One way or another, your rarified back-east big city views are not qualified in the least to impose your impractical notions upon anything other than back-east big cities, where they have all been tried, and already found to bear no fruit, but more violence, and more strictures on citizens.

- perhaps something along the lines of Switzerland,  a nation with a healthy gun culture but one that requires both licensure and registration and the documented transfer of all firearms.   

LOL! Switzerland is 15k square miles and 8m people. That's a couple metropolises here. What you propose is not manageable in those large cities, not to mention nation wide.   

Piss on your laws.When you start finally addressing  the actual problem - CRIME- Enforcing harsh sentencing, to include capital punishment against violent wrongdoers, when you stop coddling criminals and patrol ghettos, THEN, your problem will go away.

[roamer_1]

I guess you are a 'they'.

I and many like me are certainly not.

LOL!

[truth_seeker]

That is incorrect.   The 2A is concerned with the citizens' militia,  charged with (back in those days) ensuring the defense of the "free state".   It has nothing to do with empowering yahoos to amass secret arsenals so they can rise up against the gummint.  This is not a tyranny, this is a Constitutional Republic.   There are lawful means to effect change that don't involve guns.

I've been reading this weekend about the extensive system of licensure and registration that exists in Switzerland,  a country like ourselves that enjoys the shooting sports and where many keep guns for protection.   There, gun culture flourishes within a structure of registration and lawful, documented transfers.   We should insist on nothing less here.

In 1789 a citizen militia could be one man (or woman), in the western frontier territories of the new nation, protecting the family against hostile natives.



In recent times, an armed militia person might have saved dozens of lives at Boston, Ft. Hood, Orlando, San Bernardino, etc. In each instance, the FBI had the enemy terrorists "on their radar," as they say.

"Part I. Terrorism Cases: 2001-Today

Since 9/11, hundreds of Americans and people residing inside the United States have been charged with jihadist terrorism or related crimes, or have died before being charged but were widely reported to have engaged in jihadist criminal activity. In the past two years, the rise of ISIS has brought an unprecedented surge in terrorism cases though there have been cases every year since 9/11, as illustrated below."
  snip

https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/part-i-overview-terrorism-cases-2001-today/

Americans have the Constitutional right, to be armed against dangers. Period.
 

[Jazzhead]

Americans have the Constitutional right, to be armed against dangers. Period.

Yes, they do.  No quarrel there - that is every citizen's choice.   But it is flippin'  crazy that we have over 400 miilion unregistered firearms,  any of which be transferred in an undocumented transaction. 

Licensure.   Registration.  All transfers documented.  If is it good enough for Switzerland, it is good enough for here. 

[WingNot]

Yes, they do.  No quarrel there - that is every citizen's choice.   But it is flippin'  crazy that we have over 400 miilion unregistered firearms,  any of which be transferred in an undocumented transaction. 

Licensure.   Registration.  All transfers documented.  If is it good enough for Switzerland, it is good enough for here.

Then please move to Switzerland you Presumptuous Pip-Squeak and leave America.

[roamer_1]

But it is flippin'  crazy that we have over 400 miilion unregistered firearms,  any of which be transferred in an undocumented transaction. 

WHY?

[Cyber Liberty]

Then please move to Switzerland you Presumptuous Pip-Squeak and leave America.

I'd be satisfied if he could leave Switzerland to Switzerlandians, and America to Americans but leftists never want to do that, which is why they can't stop crying for Socialized Medicine here.

[Cyber Liberty]

WHY?

Because he wants a database of where they all are.  "Just in case."  Well, he can't have it.

[roamer_1]

Because he wants a database of where they all are.  "Just in case."  Well, he can't have it.

Well of course he can't have it. That would require absolute compliance, which is never going to happen. But I was wondering at the (il)logic that brings one to conclude that having 400m undocumented guns is 'crazy'.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well of course he can't have it. That would require absolute compliance, which is never going to happen. But I was wondering at the (il)logic that brings one to conclude that having 400m undocumented guns is 'crazy'.

Is it just illogical, or Hoplophobia?  Aren't "phobias" defined as irrational fears?