[Pre-diddy]

Normally I don't post new threads unless I have a specific question or something important to say. Alas, I'm stuck on my couch this weekend after getting my wisdom teeth out. So here I sit watchin inane daytime tv and feeling sorry for myself, so hey here's a story from me.


I have a friend who happens to be a very liberal Democrat. And not just your typical wanker who (liberal or conservative) refuses to agknowledge any position but their own. But he's the president of college Dems. at our school, capt of the debate team, poli-sci major, and intends to persue a political or legal career. Very well read and researched, has the U.S. Constitution practically memorized, can cite various supreme court descisions, etc.

Being fairly liberal myself (not a democrat though) we agree on most things, gun ownership not being one of them. He is one of those that doesn't have a problem with shotguns and "hunting" rifles. But hand guns, semi-auto EBRs, and the like he just doesn't see the "need" for. Also doesn't believe that the second amendment applies today.

Now our discussion went down the same road as most do, all pretty stereotypical gun debate topics. But as we were winding down I picked up on a few of his "hang ups" that he didn't explicitly say but could tell he was feeling. So I pry further and we come up with this conclusion...

1) I can conceed that no one "needs" a handgun. With a little subtle prompting he conceeds that just because he doesn't like them, there is no reason for anyone else to be bared from owning one as they are no more dangerous than any other firearm.

2) Same goes for scary looking rifles.

3) The above conditions are only valid if the backgroud check system actually works.

4) CCW a far greater danger to criminals than innocent people.

Now these may seem pretty over simplified conclusions but rest assured, this was at the end of probably an hour and half debate where just about everything came up at least once. The four rules, a bunch of stuff about fingerprint scanners, firearms registration, 2nd amendment valididty/relevance, caliber/power debate, mechanical operation of various guns, cosmetics, optics and accessories.

Not to toot my own horn, but I was pretty pleased with the outcome. He came away with a greater understanding of firearms and practical usage in general and lost some of his prejudices towards various aspects of gun ownership. All in all I wouldn't say a true convert, but one less vocal dissenter is good in my book.

I also offered to take him shooting with some other of our mutual gun friendly friends - as soon as I get my ar-15 and G19. We'll get him set straight soon enough.

 

[MrMcCrackin]

woot -


something right out of mr. rogers - changing the world 1 person at a time!

 

[Janq]

Congrats to you man...and take that guy to the range ASAP considering he's open to as much.
Let him shoot some severely low powered stuff like a .22 pistol and rifle at some cans and targets.

As to no one "needing" a handgun I disagree with that.
Citizens who carry lawfully and licensed by their state cannot lawfully or even reasonably do so with a shotgun or rifle in their purse or under their winter jacket. As well deployment of such in the event of a crime event (e.g. mugging, kidnapping, assault, etc.) is not optimal toward as much where a handgun is most useful.
Additionally for persons who keep firearms in their home for protection have been shown numerous times in real world events to be extremely successful with quick deployment of a handgun in extremely close quarters such as being awakened from ones sleep to find a BG in your bedroom or attempting to enter via a window. Deploying a longgun from such a state in close quarters is of course do able but is not nearly as efficient as a pistol under same conditions.
Also what about persons with physical handicaps who may not be able to quickly drag or wheel themselves over to a longgun, what are they to do...sleep with it lengthwise in their bed? No. They keep a handgun within arms reach in a nightstand or when on the street concealed amongst their body or locomotive device (e.g. wheelchair).

I could go on but I suppose you get the idea.
There definitely are people who "need" or would very much prefer a handgun as opposed to a longgun and might never ever hunt as your friend incorrectly supposed is the only good and justifiable use for a civilian owned firearm.

As to the 2nd. Ammendment no longer being relevant tell your friend that the Bill of Rights throughout American history have always been relevant no matter what the political or social climate has been, and he should know this being the poli-sci major he is.
For further information toward as much you might point him to the many references of as much including information and links I'd provided here;

'Black history, the Second Ammendment, and American Civil Rights'
http://www.gunatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1413

Take specific note toward the 'Deacons for Defense', Rob Williams, and ask him if he knows who Crispus Attucks is and what was his story.

I think maybe your friend might need to read more about history then and up to now to better understand how completely relevant the 2nd. Ammendment was, has been, and very much still is as well as will be to Americans past, present, and future. History shows that in every culture freedom and civilization is secured at the edge of a spear and kept with same.
As O'Shea Jackson once said; "Freedom got an AK".

$0.02 street

- Janq

"No one knows what kind of massive racist retaliation would have been directed at grass-roots black people had the black community not had a healthy measure of firearms within it." - John R. Salter, Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of North Dakota

 

[jamz]

Nice, it's always great to argue with someone who has an open mind.

One thing I never get- people often say one doesn't "need" a handgun... but "Needs" a deer rifle?

I've never heard anyone convince me of a "need" to hunt.

I'd make him justify and rationalize his position of "not having a problem with" shotguns and long guns with his sense that a certain type of gun has to be "needed".

He may well come to the conclusion that no guns are needed at all, which is fine, but it also makes him (if he's intellectually honest at all) realize or have to face the fact that that his opinions on guns are based entirely on his "feelings" about them. And By "feelings", I really mean "lack of knowledge" and "fear".

 

[Janq]

Agreed ^^

BTW Upon posting here I left and went over to CombatCarry and the first thread I see, which was a brand new posting, referenced the following which is _directly_ relevant to this thread and case (!).
Kismet!

Ask your friend if he is familiar with the following Supreme Court position and relevant bit of American 2A history. I wasn't.

American Journal of Criminal Law

Summer 2000

293

THE SELF-DEFENSE CASES:

HOW THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CONFRONTED A HANGING JUDGE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY AND TAUGHT SOME LESSONS FOR JURISPRUDENCE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST

David B. Kopel [FNa1]

Copyright © 2000 University of Texas School of Law; David B. Kopel

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm

Oh snap.
So I go back to CombatCarry and the second thread I see which also is new provides yet another relevant item for you; http://abcnews.go.com/2020/?CMP=google_branded&partner=google&gclid=CM6Jmrep9IsCFQWiIwod6nn2UQ



- Janq

 

[Pre-diddy]

No huge hurry to get him to the range, he's done some hunting before. I just want to let him experience the fun that is semi-auto.

Janq I oversimplified his take on 2A rights. His two points of contention with it are that he believes it applies to the collective not the individual. I shut that down best I could. He also takes issue with the "well regulated militia" part. He says private militias are outlawed in the U.S. according to some law he showed me once before, can't recall where. I maintain that as per U.S. Code article (29? I can't remember at the moment) the entire populations of the US from 18 to 45 or so. None of this is very accurate but I really dont feel like looking it up right now. But basically due to vague and conflicting wording there, neither of us were conceeding that.

The "needing" a handgun was also misleading. I pretty much said what you did, that we may not need handguns, as long as we can have "small" carbines or a sawed off SxS. That along with an explaination of how handguns couldn't be any worse than another gun, (power wise) they were preferable to many people for whatever reason.

jamz, he felt that hunting was a valid activity, and didn't see a use for handguns outside of killing people.

 

[Petrus]

This is a great passage:

Joining the Holmes opinion in Beard was a young new Justice, Louis Brandeis, who later wrote: "[w]e shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force.. . ." [FN305] "Holmes scholars have generally ignored Brown v. United States" because the opinion is seen as contradictory to Holmes's "supposedly more enlightened opinions" in free speech and other civil liberty cases. [FN306] Yet as Brown (the leading historian of American violence) recognizes, "to Holmes - as to so many other Americans - the right to stand one's ground and kill in self- defense was as great a civil liberty as, for example, freedom of speech." [FN307] In the early Twenty-First Century, *320 there are still many millions of Americans who cherish their freedom of speech, but who value much more deeply their right to use a firearm or other weapon to defend themselves and their families against predators like Hermes. Justices such as Harlan, Holmes, and Brandeis understood these Americans and this tendency of the American mind. To the extent that some modern judges do not, the law is delegitimated in the eyes of tens of millions of American citizens.

Petrus

 

[Petrus]

People need to realize that as much as all normal people don't want to hurt anyone (I certainly don't and it's just so many things, *the most important: the fact that you've killed someone*, the legal rammifications, the cost of defending yourself in this cracked up legal system of ours etc.) but sometimes the only way to drive a nail is to hit it with a hammer. That's why people use killcounts in war. Killing people is a necessary evil in certain cases and that's just how things are. :sigh: It's a shame but reality waits for no man.

 

[jamz]

jamz, he felt that hunting was a valid activity, and didn't see a use for handguns outside of killing people.

He's falling into the common misconception that handgun use equals shooting equals killing. While that is certainly possible, and is indeed the threat that a handgun can deliver on, he should be educated on the reality, which is this:

Handgun use= lots of different things, one of which can be shooting,

and Shooting, of which can result in a miss, a would or a death.

I seem to recall from somewhere that 80% of handgun shooting victims survive.

Your buddy is focusing on the worst case scenario, and not on the reality of their use. Needless to say, this comes from not being educated about the matter.



Personally, I'd also (if it were me) dig deeper into why he feels that hunting with firearms is at all legitimate activity.

 

[hugh g. rection]

No huge hurry to get him to the range, he's done some hunting before. I just want to let him experience the fun that is semi-auto.

Janq I oversimplified his take on 2A rights. His two points of contention with it are that he believes it applies to the collective not the individual. I shut that down best I could. He also takes issue with the "well regulated militia" part. He says private militias are outlawed in the U.S. according to some law he showed me once before, can't recall where. I maintain that as per U.S. Code article (29? I can't remember at the moment) the entire populations of the US from 18 to 45 or so. None of this is very accurate but I really dont feel like looking it up right now. But basically due to vague and conflicting wording there, neither of us were conceeding that.

The "needing" a handgun was also misleading. I pretty much said what you did, that we may not need handguns, as long as we can have "small" carbines or a sawed off SxS. That along with an explaination of how handguns couldn't be any worse than another gun, (power wise) they were preferable to many people for whatever reason.

jamz, he felt that hunting was a valid activity, and didn't see a use for handguns outside of killing people.

if after experiencing the fun that is semi auto,he has a big grin on his face.show him how to bump fire and im sure he will be a convert.