3 ms·

> many people seem to assume that most active 2A advocates What's a 2A advocate? I don't think there's any substantial opposition to the 2nd amendment itself.

> many people seem to assume that most active 2A advocates What's a 2A advocate? I don't think there's any substantial opposition to the 2nd amendment itself. The main discussion surrounding 2A tends to come up any time any sort of restrictions surrounding gun control are raised. Then the crowd of people who view any sort of gun control (background checks!!) as an attack on the 2nd amendment start coming out of the woodwork. I believe that's the crowd that gets stereotyped and I don't believe they're representative of the majority of gun owners.

jlgreco 13y ago
Most of your stereotyped gun owners do not have a categorical opposition to gun control laws. For example, most are not particularly upset with the ban on new machine guns that has been in place for many years. Rather most of the opposition that you see is against pointless laws that target particular cosmetic features of some guns ("assault weapon" laws) or actually overreaching gun laws that pop up in particular cities in particular states. There is little focus on the national laws that are already in place, laws that particular states have or are trying to have are what get the attention of the gun lobbyists.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Can you explain to me why it makes sense to ban machine guns? If I take a rifle that can shoot as rapidly as I can pull the trigger, and modify it to waste bullets as fast as possible, is it in any significant way more dangerous? Why is the second banned solely based on firing mechanism?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > Can you explain to me why it makes sense to ban machine guns? No.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
mindcrime 13y ago
I don't think there's any substantial opposition to the 2nd amendment itself. Your experiences may differ from mine, but when I get into debates about gun-control / 2A issues, I find it to be very commonplace for people to insist that the 2A is useless, outdated, and state that it should be repealed. Believe it or not, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who are for total civilian disarmament. And then there are the bulk of people who seem to be more or less ambivalent, or apathetic about it all. They aren't out to attack the 2A, but they aren't interested in going to any great length to fight for it either. What's a 2A advocate? In my book, somebody who identifies "gun rights" as an issue of specific importance to them, and takes some specific action: donating to the NRA/GOA/2AF/JPFO/etc., voting, campaigning, running for office, or something of that nature, with an intent to defend gun rights.
zanny 13y ago
Well, it is an attack to restrict firearms ownership. Remember the original purpose of the 2ed was to arm the citizenry against tyrrany. So if government can restrict your access or avaiability of firearms (especially those said government actively uses in its military) they are restricting your ability to arm yourselves against them. It doesn't hurt that the framers didn't conceptualize nuclear weapons or ICBMs, though. Back in 1800, it was perfectly reasonable to expect if the US military could have a mortar, a citizen could. Though I'm more of the opinion if you wouldn't trust your neighbor with some destructive tool than you shouldn't trust the US military with it.

jlgreco 13y ago

Most of your stereotyped gun owners do not have a categorical opposition to gun control laws. For example, most are not particularly upset with the ban on new machine guns that has been in place for many years. Rather most of the opposition that you see is against pointless laws that target particular cosmetic features of some guns ("assault weapon" laws) or actually overreaching gun laws that pop up in particular cities in particular states. There is little focus on the national laws that are already in place, laws that particular states have or are trying to have are what get the attention of the gun lobbyists.

Dylan16807 13y ago
Can you explain to me why it makes sense to ban machine guns? If I take a rifle that can shoot as rapidly as I can pull the trigger, and modify it to waste bullets as fast as possible, is it in any significant way more dangerous? Why is the second banned solely based on firing mechanism?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > Can you explain to me why it makes sense to ban machine guns? No.
Dylan16807 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

I don't think there's any substantial opposition to the 2nd amendment itself. Your experiences may differ from mine, but when I get into debates about gun-control / 2A issues, I find it to be very commonplace for people to insist that the 2A is useless, outdated, and state that it should be repealed. Believe it or not, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who are for total civilian disarmament. And then there are the bulk of people who seem to be more or less ambivalent, or apathetic about it all. They aren't out to attack the 2A, but they aren't interested in going to any great length to fight for it either. What's a 2A advocate? In my book, somebody who identifies "gun rights" as an issue of specific importance to them, and takes some specific action: donating to the NRA/GOA/2AF/JPFO/etc., voting, campaigning, running for office, or something of that nature, with an intent to defend gun rights.

zanny 13y ago

Well, it is an attack to restrict firearms ownership. Remember the original purpose of the 2ed was to arm the citizenry against tyrrany. So if government can restrict your access or avaiability of firearms (especially those said government actively uses in its military) they are restricting your ability to arm yourselves against them. It doesn't hurt that the framers didn't conceptualize nuclear weapons or ICBMs, though. Back in 1800, it was perfectly reasonable to expect if the US military could have a mortar, a citizen could. Though I'm more of the opinion if you wouldn't trust your neighbor with some destructive tool than you shouldn't trust the US military with it.