I just figured out how to reach those who are apprehensive over gun control.

[Baitball Blogger]

So I had a conversation with someone today who had stopped calling a while back when she realized I might be a socialist... Not that I am a socialist, but the last time I spoke to her was right before the Tucson shooting and she got rattled when I wasn't on board over her concerns that Glen Beck was afraid they were trying to take him off the air.

Today she called out of the blue and I noticed some changes. She was upset that everyone was out for themselves (and in this case, I think she was referring to Republicans.) She was even upset that I referred to her as a right-winger. So, among the extremes, there seems to be some sensitivity about being pegged with the really real crazys.

Seriously, though, we got to talking about gun control and we came to the usual impasse. She wasn't in support of background checks because it would lead to a registry, "and don't you know that they're trying to raise our fear levels so that we'll start a revolution so they'll have a reason to come after our guns!" (I'm not kidding.)

To which I responded, (and here is where I get really brilliant), C'mon. If you all really wanted to protect your weapons from the government, you know you're clever enough to hide them where no one can find them.

Seriously, there's a t.v. show on bunker building. How hard can it be to market furniture that has hidey holes to stock rifles and guns where no one can find them?

So, that's my contribution to the gun debate. We just convince them that they're clever enough to know how to hide their guns so that argument is no longer valid.

Will it fly?

BTW, I assume this qualifies under the Skinner gun exception rule. If not, let me know and I'll self-delete.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. I'm not sure convincing them to commit more illegal acts is a great idea.

Last edited Thu May 9, 2013, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Given their penchant towards being dumb as fuck.

Sounds like a really excellent way to make the situation a lot worse.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. How is it illegal to hide guns that are properly permitted?

[Gravitycollapse]

3. If our goal is to create registries, hiding firearms from the state becomes illegal.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Okay, I made a correction to my original post.

It was background checks I was referring to. I associate background checks with gun control or regulation. She was opposed to it because she felt it would lead to a registry. So, yes to the background check, but no to the registry.

However, I'm still not following your thoughts. Being part of a registry would not mean that the government has any right to confiscate them. It's still your property.

[Llewlladdwr]

5. A registry provides a list of who owns what firearms and where they're located.

Useful information for the Government to have when they decide to confiscate, wouldn't you agree?

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Wouldn't you agree that the government couldn't get to everyone on Day One

of a coup? And it would be impossible to enforce a penalty if the numbers who suddenly lost their guns were in the millions?

[Llewlladdwr]

8. So then, no point in a registry, right? nt

[Baitball Blogger]

11. I was just concerned about the background check.

If the registry was quietly being kept, then during civil times it might be useful to law enforcement to track guns that were involved in crimes. But if the absolute worst possible scenario comes to pass and our government gets taken over, (which is the source of their fears) what can be expected is a massive act of civil disobedience, which would make that registry useless?

[Gravitycollapse]

15. The registry has a useful peacetime purpose.

To track the flow of firearms. Also, it can potentially grant authorities the power to hold gun owners legally accountable for being careless about how they use and store their firearms if, for instance, a bunch of them suddenly go missing. Or if those missing guns are found at a crime scene.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. That's why we need to get over their apprehension. There is a lot of benefits we are losing because

they are succumbing to their fears.

That's another thing I told her. When did it start happening that we suddenly began to fear everything? Americans are not suppose to fear anything.

[sigmasix]

17. great evidence for tracking evil doers

My suspicion is that the resistment to registration has less to do with an Obama-led conspiracy to take all the gunz, and more to do with violent AntiAmerican right wing traitors trying to make sure that thier armories remain undetected by LEO.
Domestic terrorists are members of the NRA for good reason; Most of the NRA wants to destroy America and they are more than willing to help irresponsible, dangerous anti-American terrorists with finding a way to obscure or hide from LEO the extent of thier ability to cause murder and mayhem in the name of Teabagger treason and paranoid anti-American conspiracy theories.

When pure partisan hatred and paranoia is the reasoning behind the individual stockpiling of assault weapons and other tools of death, it's a sure sign that the individual should not be lagally able to own gunz.

One of the most common beliefs held by mass gun killers is that there is a conspiracy on the part of the government to take the precious gunz away from them- shouldnt we be using this factor in determining which gun owners represent a real threat, and which of them are responsible gun owners?

LEOs already are short-staffed and underfunded and unable to enforce (because of NRA/republican legislation to underfund gun law enforcement) our gun laws already on the books.
Keeping a registry would enable LEOs to keep an eye on dangerous concentrations of gunz in the hands of small bands of people that share the same extremist paranoid conspiracy theories and hatred for America.
Collecting gunz doesnt make the collector a bad person- collecting gunz because of a mental illness or to repel imagined jack-booted government thugs DOES make the collector a bad person that should not have legal rights to gunz.

Target shooting sports are fun, but mutilating an effigie of your exwife with a gun is sick and should be ample evidence of the charge of "irresponsible gun use" and violent misogyny.

These immoral actions on the part of extremists in the gun culture ought to be enough evidence to any clear thinking, fair minded individual that there are a lot of heavily armed NRA members that represent a real danger to our society- and the most sensible way to discover them is to register all firearms purchases~ especially the really large purchases as they are sometimes the culprit in many straw purchasing situations.

Time is running out for the extreme right wing in America and the gun fetish they display will one day be fully understood as an emotional and psychological illness, and like all other illnesses, hopefully we will find a cure- meanwhile it is up to fair minded and patriotic Americans to repudiate the misogyny, bigotry, hatred and violence of the gun fetish crowd.
Most Gundamentalists are not good Americans or responsible adults- they certainly shouldn't be trusted with huge caches of gunz and ammo- and 100% registration combined with backround checks will greatly reduce the number of violent, dangerous individuals and organizations with the firepower to threaten Americans and our future.

[rl6214]

22. Someone's got their tin foil on a little too tight.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Yes, but the point of hiding firearms is to conceal the fact that you own them.

Which is the exact opposite goal of a registry. That was my point.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. This is where the "clever" part comes in.

All they would have to do is file a report that the guns were stolen.

What I'm getting at, is that if they really wanted to find a loophole, they would.

[Llewlladdwr]

10. I'm just not seeing how this is 'clever'.

Suggesting ways for people to circumvent a law, especially one you agree with, can't be good.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. We are talking about the scenario that they fear the most.

The fear that the government will come after their guns. Do you really believe that would ever happen? And if you do, don't you think that our society would be so deconstructed by then that following the law would be moot?

[Honeycombe8]

25. Well, it appears her fears are correct, if you and others think a registry is a good idea.

So...she's not deluding herself. It's a real fear, apparently.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. Yeah, how could a registry be a bad idea?

[Honeycombe8]

31. I'm not expressing opinion @ registry. Just sayin' that their supposed wacky fears are well founded,

based on your post.

You know why they object to a registry. Don't pretend you don't. Would you approve a national registry for, say, people who have had abortions? Gay people? How about for people who voted for Obama both times? Jewish people? Muslims? Catholics? Just sayin'. There are always concerns when a federal government creates a national database.

[Gravitycollapse]

32. You are going to compare guns to persecuted jews?

Wow. Just...wow.

[Honeycombe8]

33. Yes. You're not listening because you don't want to.

You're not listening to those who have a different opinion.

It makes no difference the REASON for a national registry. People have concerns any time a government creates a list of a certain group of people. The govt will always have a "good reason" for having the list. But does that make the creation of the list the right thing?

Just like with the Patriot Act. We have exchanged our right to privacy for the right of the govt to try to identify potential terrorists. A very good reason for the govt to spy on you. But it's understandable that people have concerns with that.

The OP's point was...isn't that silly, the Republicans are so paranoid that they think the govt is going to do a national list of gun owners...ha ha ha. You are proving that the so-called paranoids are in fact not paranoid...their fear is well founded, it seems. And yet, you don't seem to get it.

I have no opinion on the registry. Haven't given it any thought, since there isn't going to be one.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. Clearly you haven't given it any thought. That much is obvious.

All sorts of information about you exists in national databases. How do you think the IRS operates? Where do you think your passport information is stored?

You're being paranoid.

[TnDem]

35. And again

He made several really good points and you never answered them...

Most realistic people are somewhat skeptical of government lists...Most rural people are VERY skeptical of government lists.

Gun registration you say? I am sure that you are familiar with Australia's "government firearms registration list", correct?

In 1996, Australia used their firearms registry to round all firearms up and destroy them,(with some nominal "payment&quot ...Most US Gun owners are aware of this bullshit and wish to avoid it.

Especially rural Democrats like me...

[Gravitycollapse]

36. Being skeptical is not the same as being paranoid.

[TnDem]

37. OK then....

If you are skeptical about your wife going to downtown Chicago on a business trip by herself, is that paranoid?

If your child were to come home and tell you that she learned that a Catholic priest taught a class on health in her public school, would you be skeptical?

Put yourself in the mind of a rural gun owner...A Democrat...And then ask questions about firearms that you don't know the answers to, (and these Democrats do know these answers because they live it daily), and you'll start to understand why we are state by state, county by county, losing the southern United States to the Republicans...

[Gravitycollapse]

38. Maybe we should take a look at the definitions...

para·noia
noun \ˌper-ə-ˈnȯi-ə, ˌpa-rə-\
Definition of PARANOIA
1
: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2
: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others



skep·ti·cism
noun \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Definition of SKEPTICISM
1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)






I am a semi-rural gun owner. Use to own a pretty decent arsenal.

So if you think I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, you are mistaken.

[Common Sense Party]

12. I believe the word you're looking for is 'penchant.'

Pension is something quite different--e.g., a defined benefit plan.

When you are laughing at others because they are as dumb as copulation, it helps to use the correct word.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. Yes, you are absolutely right.

My mistake.

[TnDem]

18. Not gonna fly

Remember, if you make ANY weapon illegal for me to own, you have made it useless to a law abiding citizen...You cannot target shoot, defend your home, hunt, plink or trade the weapon to a neighbor for a boat...It is useless..

Criminals won't give a fuck whether it's legal or not...They will use the gun to rob and rape regardless...It makes no difference to them whether it's legal or not...That's what people don't understand...You must feel that all criminals would simply comply with the law when it became "law"...News flash...The could give a flying shit about what law passes....They simply need a gun to rob me or you.

However, if I am forced to hide anything, (marijuana, guns, porn), because someone has made it illegal, you have already made criminals out of everyone that chooses to disobey.

So, to recap...You are suggesting to this person to "hide their guns" and make themselves a willing criminal?

I'd rather stop that bullshit WAYYYY before it becomes law....Which is exactly what Southern Democrats are attempting to do.

[Baitball Blogger]

19. If there was ever a time when the government comes looking for your guns, which

is the big boogeyman fear, will you sit around and hand it to him?

I don't think so. First, most of us don't believe it will ever happen. We're just trying to assuage your fears so we can resume a normal life without worrying about the next theater shooting or school shooting by someone who gets their hands on legal guns.

[TnDem]

20. Wonderful, however....

That's great, but don't try to make "hiding your guns" as an actual selling point to actual gun owners...Millions of them smell BS from the get-go and my local Democratic meetings laugh at this and scratch our heads at how the rest of the country can be so clueless about these issues?

If it ever gets to the point that someone "comes looking for your guns", then it's game over and we have major problems.

Don't say that's not the agenda of some of our party...It is and it makes me very sad.

Watch this video and understand what southern Democrats understand completely:

[Baitball Blogger]

23. I don't get the impression we heard the entire testimony.

It sounded like she was leading up to something.

[TnDem]

24. OK then...

You heard what Senator Feinstein said...What could she possibly add to this to make it more clear? She stated that, "If she could have every gun turned in by Mr. and Mrs. America, she would do it...I just don't have the votes"...

What about that statement do you not understand? She wants them ALL turned in if she had her way. We in the south understand that and will not accept that stance from any party.

This type of admission from my own Democratic party is what KILLS turnout at the polls for millions of voters like me in the south for more important issues like equal rights, social security, poverty reform, etc...This is why we are losing the south....I am here and I see and hear it everyday.

I just wished that my own party would simply STFU about guns and let the south join them into one great party, but in usual fashion, these northern and California/urban Democrats are like moths to a flame.....They don't understand us and they won't leave the issue alone.

[Yo_Mama]

21. But this did not address her concerns

about a background check leading to a registry. Hiding guns does not help you when your guns are listed on a registry, because the government will demand that you give them up under legal penalty.

Background checks without a registry are supported by gun owners - background checks leading to a registry are not. Or at least that's what I have found when talking to gun owners.

Now some who are pushing gun control do want to confiscate the weapons, and some do not. If we want to compromise, I think having the instant checks on all transfers would be very easy to get through Congress as long as it has protections that prevent it from being used to create the registry.

[Hoyt]

27. If guns were registered, I've heard so-called law-abiding gungeoneers say their boat capsized with

their guns on board.

Gun owners are law-abiding only when laws are lax. They are scared they might be next Zimmerman, shooting unarmed teen, or sell a gun in a back alley to criminals - - they don't want guns used in crimes tracked back to them.

When one engages in a questionable/seedy hobby, the last thing they want is any accountability.

[mwrguy]

28. They are law abiding

until the instant they don't get what they want.

[Hoyt]

29. Yep. Then, they try to absolve themselves with "Stand Your Ground" laws and similar crud.

[customerserviceguy]

30. So your solution

is to convince people who want to be able to defend themselves to act like people who want to smoke a little pot in 48 states have to do in order to evade the police state?

Good luck selling that one to them.