Why the NRA wins. (2)

[rrneck]

Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:48 AM - Edit history (2)

Part 1
Part 3
Part 4

Everything about a gun is authoritarian in nature. Guns are defined by unequivocal closure. You can’t call a bullet back. Guns are made to kill and death is about as unequivocal an end as you can get. The authoritarian nature of firearms defines social practices and institutions where they predominate. So, for example, from the four rules of gun safety to the military, if it’s about guns it’s about following the rules and the authority they imply. It should be unnecessary to point out the authoritarian nature of conservative ideology.

The symbolic implications of firearms attract conservatives like ants to a picnic. Firearms can be seen in the hands of troops in the field and they are inexpensive and ubiquitous enough for almost anyone to own. Guns are an actual object that can be valued beyond their utility as readily as a house or (ahem) a car. They symbolize as few other objects can the realities of survival and the history of a country that was born of violent revolution and has engaged in at least one victorious world war that cemented our place as a very wealthy and aggressive superpower. And you can wear one on your belt. Is it any wonder that conservatives regularly feature them at political events?

If anyone in the lobbyist business wanted to find an object to promote for profit they could hardly find anything better suited to that purpose than a gun. The business model almost writes itself. It’s easily recognizable, portable, ubiquitous, historically significant, entertaining and necessary for survival under certain circumstances.

The NRA and the firearms industry wouldn’t mind a bit if people spent every dime they had on guns. That’s the nature of the free market. Liberals, as the voice of economic parity and defenders of the commons, need to come up with an answer to the basic problem that people are trying to solve when they buy a gun. It doesn’t matter whether the purchaser of that gun will ever have to use it or not. It doesn’t matter if gun owners are more likely to get shot than non gun owners. People own guns to solve a certain kind of problem and if you want them to seek a different solution, it’s a good idea to have one ready for them.

It’s an especially good idea to have a solution ready if you’re trying to eliminate their preferred option while simultaneously telling them that they are irrational, stupid, deluded, cowardly, and sexually repressed.

[Lint Head]

1. Unlike things of the Stone Age that are long gone I guess killing will always be with us.

Last edited Wed Jan 29, 2014, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Even the internal combustion engine is killing us but who really cares as long as it makes a profit.

[rrneck]

2. True that. nt

[clffrdjk]

3. 2 questions

1 why split it up over so many threads when you could just post one?
2. Why take so long to post the parts when you obviously knew how many posts you wanted it to take when you started?

[rrneck]

4. It's been my experience

that anything over four hundred words or so never gets read. And my OP's sink fast enough as it is. I've actually posted them all at once before and they drew barely any responses. Although I'd like to think that when I'm done explaining something there's nothing left to say, most likely it's just because they're too long and tedious.

I thought I'd roll them out as each OP cooled off, which in this case winds up once a day. I might post them quicker, but I have to C&P them from Word and I'm only in front of a laptop in the morning and at night. I'm interested in any number of things beyond just firearms policy, which as far as I'm concerned is a done deal.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I feel that the "liberal view" on the gun rights question is an outlier; it's not liberal at all.

It's quite conservative.

A classically liberal take would be to live and let live, be tolerant about others' interests, take care to include proper regulation and safety, but err on the side of freedom of choice.

On matters of gun rights and the Second Amendment, the "liberal view" isn't liberal at all.

Of course, not all progressives are on that train, many of us are big supporters of the RKBA.

[rrneck]

6. It seems that at some point in the process

it becomes more important for some to defend ideology as they understand it rather than use it as a tool to move forward. And there will always be a few who would compel others into their orthodoxy. It's a rather authoritarian approach, and very conservative indeed.

[spin]

8. Most large urban areas of our nation suffer from gun violence. ...

Such areas are usually more liberal and vote for Democrats more than in than rural areas.

Often these areas have enacted strong gun control laws to try to curtail gun violence. Consequently it is often difficult for an honest citizen to purchase a firearm because of the restrictions and the expense of obtaining permission. Most people who possess firearms in such areas do not legally own them and often use them to commit crime.

In these areas where gun ownership is fairly uncommon except by the criminal element, few people know and work with gun owners with the exception of those who leave the city to hunt.

It's hard to understand those who are different from you or who hold different views than you do if you don't personally know some. Human nature often causes people to stereotype those who are different or hold views unlike theirs. Consequently if you know few people who own firearms it's easy to assume that you are far superior and they are merely uneducated country folk or "rednecks." Since few of your acquaintances actually know people who own firearms or have concealed carry permits, almost everybody agrees with you.

Since many southern states have less restrictive gun laws it is also easy to assume that most gun owners are white people who intensely hate minorities. (This largely ignores the fact that minorities can purchase firearms as easily as can whites in southern states. Consequently you do not see the KKK night riders terrorizing Black neighborhoods anymore.)

Facing rising gun violence in the large cities, it is understandable that elected politicians would try to address the problem. This will most likely involve better policing and strong sentences for anyone who uses a firearm to commit a crime and anyone caught of owning an illegal firearms. The problem is that such ideas are extremely expensive to implement and will involve building larger prisons as the current facilities are filled by many of those who had violated minor drug laws created by our useless War on Drugs which was as effective as the prohibition of alcohol in the 18th Amendment.

Politicians love to enjoy long careers in office. The simplest solution to the gun violence problem was to enact strong gun control laws. It was cheap as it didn't involve hiring more police or building new prisons and the voters felt the politicians in office were doing their honest best to address the problem. While it didn't solve the problem most voters returned the politicians to office who had voted for such measures and they proposed passing even stricter gun control laws or even banning firearms ownership in their cities. That tactic work well then and still works today.

Republicans find the most support in more rural areas of states opposed gun control laws as it fires up their base who didn't want to see their right to own firearms for hunting, target shooting, plinking and for self defense restricted. (This strikes me as odd as Republicans by their nature favor the rich who oppress the poor. It seems to me that the rich would favor disarming America as they have good reason to fear a revolution when they finally take far too much advantage of the middle class and the poor as they have in our past history. If they gain enough power and confidence, I predict they will find an excuse to ban and confiscate all civilian firearms in our nation. We will once again live in a feudal society ruled by the rich.))

The main stream media strongly supports any group who supports gun control. Although they have tremendous resources for research and to find the facts on any issue of importance to our nation, they apparently believe that the end justifies the means and that they should strongly support any and all gun control legislation proposed by gun control advocates.

For example the media will often tell you that an AR-15 is absolutely useless for hunting and no hunter needs a 20 or 30 round "clip" to hunt a deer. A few seconds on Google will reveal that hunters do indeed use AR-15s for hunting and with some minor modification by the owner (not a gunsmith) they can be used to hunt any game in the United States or in the world. (Most states that allow deer hunting with a semiautomatic rifle limit the number of rounds in the magazine, usually to five.)

Perhaps the main stream media bias on the issue of gun control is largely due to the fact that it is located in cities such as New York. Could it be the that the reason there is so much distrust of the media is that many citizens in more gun friendly areas are quite familiar with firearm technology and can readily distinguish bullshit from fact on this issue? If the media can't get the facts straight on firearms, why should anyone trust it on more complicated issues? Could this also help explain why Fox News is so popular as they tend to be somewhat more honest on the gun control issue? If so, how much does this hurt the Democratic Party? Fox News is far from "Fair and Unbalanced" on most issues. (Admitted the blond female talking heads on Fox help its ratings.)

I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry on a regular basis. I understand that doing so involves a great responsibility. I have this right largely because of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

The media has the right to be free and should the watchdog of our society under the FIRST amendment. Therefore, in my opinion, they have an much greater responsibility than I do as a gun owner with a carry permit.

When the media ignores this responsibility, it avoids the reason it was allowed to exist and freely publish. Our form of government relies on the press to fairly and unbiasedly inform us on the issues so we can best chose those who can solve the problems we face and put them in office.

[NYC_SKP]

9. "It seems to me that the rich would favor disarming America"...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein came immediately to mind.

Dianne Feinstein net worth: $70 million.

In 2003, she was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator.

[NYC_SKP]

7. K/R. nt