Reply #158: What's so difficult to understand?

[Sapphocrat]

From what I can see, what it makes you is way to the left of any organized firearms control movement in the US these days. The idea of handgun registration is something that I've been given to understand would give strong men the vapours, and cause a volcano to erupt somewhere in a southern kind of state.

Well, I've guess you've learned today that gun owners are not all cut from the same cloth.

And, for the record, I don't belong to any "group" or "movement" on either side of the gun issue. Perhaps that's what throws you: My views on guns don't fit into some sort of neat little box -- any more than my views on abortion (don't ask -- it's the wrong thread for that).

I guess I'm just not gittin' yer point. You define being a "strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner" differently from anybody else hereabouts?

Apparently I do define it differently.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Supporting that makes me an "oxymoran"? I don't see the problem, or the conflict. What gets people's panties in a twist is when the NRA types start trying to pervert that single sentence into indicating some sort of inalienable individual right to own guns.

That's certainly not my interpretation. I understand that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" depends solely on the condition of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

What I object to is being lumped in with those nuts up in Montana who think they are the "Militia."

Perhaps I erred by including the qualifier "Second Amendment-supporting" in the same sentence as "gun owner" -- but I thought it necessary to include it, because in my thinking, the two phrases are not redundant. I recognize that one can support the Second Amendment without owning a gun, and that individual gun ownership has precious little (if anything) to do with the Second Amendment.

This sort of thinking is definitely outside the norm, I know. But I believe it's a far more accurate interpretation of the law than I've seen from (almost) "anybody else hereabouts."

That's why I'm not aligned with any sort of group or movement on either side of the fence -- and I'm sure neither side would want me on its team. LOL

(I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's my own Coles notes version: I regard firearms acquisition and possession as just like any other human activity -- an exercise of a right to liberty, and in some respects and situations the right to life, although I'm actually talking about things like subsistence hunting, not toting pistols in one's pants to ward off chimerical bad people. Just as eating pizza for breakfast is an exercise of the right to life and liberty. And, accordingly, subject to the same limitations as any other human activity -- that is, limitations that are rationally connected to an important public objective, that do not disproportionately interfere in the exercise of the right, etc. etc. Limitations pretty much just like we have right here in Canada. ... Hmm, funny thing, that. We don't have any Pink Pistols up here.)

Did I just get slammed here? Why wouldn't you expect me to know what I think? Never mind...

While it's obvious you're making fun of me with the above quote, I'll just say yes, you've pretty much got it. I suppose I've just walked into some sort of trap by saying that, but I'll (optimistically) hope you're not trying to set me up to make a complete ass of me.

I'm not sure what your point is about the lack of Pink Pistols in Canada, unless you're trying to ferret out my hypocrisy about U.S. vs. Canadian gun laws... Again, I'm sure I'm being set up here -- but I hope not.

If it makes you feel any better, I have no issue with Canadian gun laws. In fact, I have no issue with Australian gun laws (i.e., individual handgun ownership is prohibited). I suppose that sounds hypocritical, too; however, I suppose it's my simple belief in democracy that makes me think this way: If a law is enacted by the wishes of the majority, and applied equally, across the board, then, like it or not, it's my duty to abide by that law.

In other words, if handgun ownership were outlawed in the U.S. tomorrow, I would have no alternative but to turn mine in. I wouldn't like it one bit, but I'm not a Charlton Heston "cold, dead hands" gun owner. And I don't like anyone assuming I am.

(Of course, such a law could never be enforced "across the board" in the gun-crazy U.S., but that's another tangent altogether.)

I just don't see why it's so difficult for some people to understand that not all gun owners are wild-eyed fanatics holing up in some underground, off-the-grid bunker.

Which brings us back to the original point that irked me to no end: Never let your own biases lead to the assumption that anyone is just like any other member of a group, or shares the same "values" as the majority of that group.

You've seen the results of doing just that, right in this thread; i.e., labeling all gun owners "neocons." That sort of stretch absolutely astounds me -- and it certainly doesn't lead to any sort of open, thoughtful, mutually-respectful debate.