General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

Open Letter to NFOA Membership

<< < (2/6) > >>

armed and humorous:
Jay:

Thanks for the response and for welcoming me to the group.  If I truly thought we could swing it, I'd say the hell with the anti-gunners, I know I'm right, and I think there are enough of us to get our way.  Then, I wouldn't worry about them.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to be that easy.  If it was, we wouldn't be where we are now, fighting to keep what we still have.  I sure wouldn't want it to get to the point where we had to use our guns in order to keep them.

And, as long as people are civil and make good arguments, like you do, I don't have a problem with those like you who choose to stand firm and demand the rights that we so clearly have (whether they're in the Constitution, or God given, or simply common sense).

I couldn't agree more that our major problem stems from the rampant crime that is so prevalent in our society.  I didn't get into that in my letter (concentrated on what I feel is the best way of making one's point), but I have tried for years to convince people that we don't need 50 million laws that we can't enforce, or don't enforce, or that have such lenient penalties that they have no deterrent effect.  I'm not a religious man, but the 10 commandments would pretty much cover it.  If society is going to continue to be a society, we can't allow people who refuse to abide by the rules to continue to live freely within it.

Nowadays, all you hear from everyone is that the jails are too overcrowded, it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life, the death penalty is no deterrent.  All bull.  Build more jails if we need them.  There is more than enough tax money wasted on unimportant stuff to do it.  Hell, make the lawbreakers build their own facilities.  Make them raise their own food and pump their own water from a well.  Make it so they don't want to go back if they ever do get out.  The only reason it might cost more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life is because the way we do it now, they spend a whole life sentence on death row before we ever get around to the executing part.  Does it cost more to buy a car, or to rent a car?  It costs more to buy it if you rent it first for 20 years and then buy it.  And, how is anything going to be a deterrent if it's 20 years down the road?

I can't think of one legitimate argument for not upping the penalties for the basic crimes so that it's no longer worth the risk to the criminal.  I know some people are not going to be deterred by anything.  A man goes nuts when he finds his wife in bed with his best friend and kills them both.  He isn't thinking about the death penalty, he's just insanely angry and out of control.  Now in some countries, he may not even face a criminal charge, after all it was his wife and friend that committed the sin of adultery, and they deserved what they got (not necessarily my view here).  Here, of course he's going to get charged with murder.  He may get off due to temporary insanity or something, and maybe that's even okay, as he's not likely to do it again.  But, I wouldn't care if he went to prison for the rest of his life either.  On the other hand, a career criminal who, by nature has to lie and cheat and steal and perhaps kill to maintain his way of life.  You simply can't let him back on the street again once you catch him.  We've got people with ten or fifteen drunk driving convictions.  That is assinine.  The person needs to be confined, eiither in a hospital for alcoholics or a prison, but we can't let him/her keep endangering the rest of us simply because it costs too much to put him in jail.

I could go on and on...and I probably will...but not tonight.

armed and humorous:
A quick reply to husker gun:

I don't have a problem with those who believe in a strict definition of "shall not be infringed" because I take the meaning literally myself.  I suppose the difference between you (and some of the others here who think I want us all to "cave") and me, is that I don't believe that totally disarming us is the goal of everyone on "the other side".  I'm quite sure that many, if not most, of those who want some level of gun control want just that.  Reasonable restrictions that provide some means of keeping things from getting out of hand.  I realize that you may not want to tell me, and you certainly don't have to, but I suspect that many of those who claim to feel as you do, have gotten CHPs.  Isn't that caving?  If you truly feel you have the right to carry anywhere, anytime, and anyhow you want, why would you bother to get a permit.  (Maybe you didn't personally, but I'll bet a number of you did.)  I'm not asking for any more than that.  I'm not so sure we can maintain our rights in this rapidly liberalizing world without some compromise.  Unless, we can convince large numbers of fence sitters to go along with us.  If we all act like some survivalist cult, we're simply going to polarize the rest of them against us.

I believe in our second amendment rights just as much as you do.  And, I really don't think it is right or fair or whatever you want to call it that we should have these rights infringed.  I just think it inevitable unless we can convince others to join our ranks (those who are currently afraid of us or don't care one way or the other or simply have followed their liberal leaders like sheep because they didn't know any better).  Like I said to Dan, if we had the numbers to simply outvote the anti-gunners, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.  I'm just doing what I think is the best of the alternatives I have.

Jay:
I'm not going to attempt to speak for huskergun, but I want to address the CHP issue. I agree with huskergun in the "shall not be infringed" state of mind, but I did get a Nebraska CHP. I debated doing this for quite a while, for the reasons you mentioned... why should I pay the government and get a permit to exercise my constitutional rights?

After much internal debate, I decided to get the permit strictly in an effort to give our lawmakers a quantifiable number of constituents that support gun rights. I really thought there would be more permits issued than there have been, but of course there are many reasons for that, but I digress.

Anyways, I urged all gun owners to get a permit, even if they felt they would never even carry. Strength in numbers and all of that. You have to remember that at the time, there was no NFOA, no organized group of local (state) gun rights advocates, so there was really no other way to send the message to our unicameral that we are here, and there are enough of us to warrant a need to take our opinions seriously into consideration. Thankfully, the NFOA has since come into being and changed that.

Another reason I ended up getting the permit is that I realize that our rights were not diminished in one fell swoop, but instead eroded slowly over time. Therefore, I decided it was a reasonable approach to try to restore our rights not all at once, which obviously was very unrealistic, but instead to get them back a little at a time. A slow and steady fight if you will. This is why I don't feel that obtaining a CHP is caving, but instead a positive step forward considering our current situation and the fact that the way the current law is written, constitutional or not, without the permit, carrying under affirmative defense basically puts you in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. I don't have the money to fight that battle.

This all relates back to my opinion of being unyielding as far as concessions go. Every step needs to be a step forward at this point. We can't afford to go backwards anymore. We let that happen for too long, and look where that has gotten us. I believe that we need to get back to "shall not be infringed", in its clearest and simplest form, but I know that will not happen overnight.

Positive steps, continued vocal opposition to any further restrictions, political activism, public education, greater promotion of shooting sports, and the introduction of safe and proper firearm handling techniques to new shooters - both children and adults alike, is how we are going to restore our God given, Founding Father recognized rights and secure them for future generations to enjoy.

armed and humorous:
Jay:

Very good.  I couldn't agree more, and though some people may have misunderstood some things in my letter, I don't think I ever suggested that we continue to go backward a little at a time by compromising.  On the contrary, like you, I feel we need to get back a little at a time, and we're not going to do that by having an "all or nothing" attitude about it.  If I thought we could somehow force a once-and-for-all showdown with the antigun crowd and win, I'd be all over that.  It's not going to happen, at least not without pulling another revolution like the one that produced our Constitution in the first place.

Again, I don't have anything against anyone who feels the same as huskergun.  I just don't think it will get us what we all ultimately want:  uninfringed second amendment rights.  I should qualify that just a bit (and I'll probably be raked over the coals again for this).  I don't think even our founding fathers would have advocated private citizens owning nuclear weapons.  Back then, a gun was a gun, not that they were all exactly the same or that one wasn't maybe a bit more accurate than another, but scope of available arms was rather narrow compared to now.  Again, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but a some point you have the balance the safety of the majority of citizens against the rights of those who might amass so much power they pose a threat to the security of the nation.  I won't go so far as to say no one should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, or armor piercing bullets, or high-capacity magazines, etc.  It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that we may one day need them, as our forefathers did, to avoid having the rest of our freedoms being taken away by our enemies (foreign or domestic).  I doubt if it will come to that in my lifetime, but who knows?

Rich B:
I went through the hassle of getting a permit because I don't want to spend several months or years in a jail cell.  While I consider permits to be an infringement, I realize I have to play by the rules.



And to touch on the idea mentioned above about keeping criminals in jail, IMO, that is more of a budget issue than a justice/legal issue.  Jails are expensive, no one wants one built next door (NIMBY), and governments are quick to reallocate money to roads and schools and away from jails.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page