They should really be called Pro-victim

[ignium]

Hey People,

I was searching the net and came across an article about the phsycology of anti-bill of rights nuts by Sarah Thompson, M.D. It's an interesting read. Check it out. I'd like to hear your thoughts.


http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

 

[hminsky]

Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

Umm, that sounds like a bigoted statement to me, not even remotely scientific.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Personal experience tells me that this is basically true of almost all the American Jews (I am an American Jew, but not one of "them") that I know.

I have yet to read the article.

 

[ignium]

I can see how it has the potential to come across that way. The author could have been a little clearer. However several times I’ve heard people say that if you support the NRA or gun rights than you are more likely to be racist. This obviously is false. It has no merit. I believe that the author is trying to illustrate how the anti-gun crowd will take advantage of peoples’ fears in order to get them to agree with their views. Fear is nothing new to politics and I think that’s what she is trying to get across. The full statement is as follows.

The Common Thread: Rage
In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

 

[hminsky]

I never paid any attention to the gun control laws until I got interested in shooting recently. I had always just assumed that if you wanted to carry a gun, you could.

All the stuff I heard about the MA gun laws sounded reasonable; it sounded like the gun control adovocates were trying to get the state to be very careful about background checks and safe storage practices. It seemed like a way to give the police department some leeway to deny permits to questionable people and previously convicted criminals, and to be able to lock them up if they were found to have disobeyed the restrictions.

Then I discovered that in practice they always restrict the licenses to target shooting in my town, for no good reason. And that the state basically never prosecutes the actual criminals for illegal posession of guns, and the penalties are laughable in terms of discouraging criminals from carrying guns.

That was a real disillusioning moment with the whole gun control platform.

 

[Weerd Beard]

+1 to that hminsky! I learned to shoot in Maine, and I had be debating buying my own guns for a while. It wasn't untill I moved to Mass that I got my first gun. And then the shock began. Like a fool I didn't read the law books BEFORE I moved.

You need a permit for a long gun? WTF??? AND PEPPER SPRAY??? Who's that supposed to help?

Then when I applied to my permit, while at the time I wasn't interested in Carrying Concealed, I thought I'd keep my options open. They said "No", "Why?" "We don't do that here."

later i figgured out that other towns don't have a bone to pick, so they issue ALP permits when asked, and then THOSE people can carry concealed in my town.

Nope "common sence" simply means: "makes sence if you don't look at it very hard".

Part of me curses my foolishness for becomming a gun owner here, and having to jump through all these hoops. Still as many of you know, I grew up in a Leftie home in Maine, and with Maine's pretty reasonable gun laws, I actully hadn't really looked much into gun polotics up there, and maybe I wouldn't....why bother.

Nope, honestly I'm really glad I own guns here. It's a battle worth fighting.

-Weer'd Beard

 

[ignium]

hminsky I use to feel the same way. I was brought up in a rather liberal household. We didn’t have guns in the house. My father fired rifles as a kid and my brother and I fired 22’s at Scout Camp. Whenever we heard anything about gun rights we never understood why the gun crowd would get so upset. I mean all people are asking for is gun safety right. It wasn’t until I moved to North Carolina did I see how oppressive and aggressive the gun laws were in MA. After moving back up here and going through the process of getting a Class A did I see in absolute horror as to how radical the movement has gotten. People need to understand that this isn’t an attack on gun violence anymore. That is just an excuse. It’s an attack on gun rights. Weather or not you own a firearm isn’t the point and just because you don’t own a firearm doesn’t mean that these laws don’t affect you because they do. The second people start to chip away at any of our rights opens up opportunity for other radical establishments to do the same to other rights. What ever happen to having a Moderate view. Is it un-cool these days to want to find solutions to problems while still maintaining our freedoms? It’s a big bag of crazy. After moving back to MA, I’m sorry to say, I’m disgusted with the state and not just on the firearms issue. My wife and I are making plans to move back to NC in the next two years and we basically just got here.

 

[drgrant]

I never paid any attention to the gun control laws until I got interested in shooting recently. I had always just assumed that if you wanted to carry a gun, you could.

All the stuff I heard about the MA gun laws sounded reasonable; it sounded like the gun control adovocates were trying to get the state to be very careful about background checks and safe storage practices. It seemed like a way to give the police department some leeway to deny permits to questionable people and previously convicted criminals, and to be able to lock them up if they were found to have disobeyed the restrictions.

Then I discovered that in practice they always restrict the licenses to target shooting in my town, for no good reason. And that the state basically never prosecutes the actual criminals for illegal posession of guns, and the penalties are laughable in terms of discouraging criminals from carrying guns.

That was a real disillusioning moment with the whole gun control platform.

Even if MA government was only minimally corrupt, and licenses were "shall issue",
it's important to remember that whatever is left behind would
still be a vast infringement of our civil rights. The fact that anyone has
to ask the state's permission to buy a firearm is pretty reprehensible in and
of itself. I could probably see maybe an age limitation for ownership/purchase
as being reasonable, but not very much beyond that is. It's important to remember that
allowing governments to have anygranular level of authority with regards to guns makes
it trivial for them to install the legal framework to oppress ANY gun owner. It's simply a
cart and horse thing. As you've noted, the way the "system" works is the "real punishment"
to the law-abiders as a whole, is usually greater than to the block of criminals as a
whole. In criminal land a gun charge under a dubious law is a little wimpy tack on sentence or
a dropped charge. In a realm where the only thing a person is guilty of IS the gun
charge, that charge can be a life ruining experience, if it sticks to someone. And often times
these charges are effectuated only because of their "Malum Prohibitum" existence...eg, "illegal
only because it is illegal" and nothing more. This is a sharp contrast to a criminal's acts where
they've often assaulted/maimed/killed someone with a firearm.

It's also important to remember that there IS NO "moderate" platform on
gun control. There are groups like "americans for gun safety" that try to
create the facade of "reasonable regulation is a good thing", but when you
read between the lines it's pretty easy to detect that they're just bradyites
that have slightly less foam coming from their mouths. They're wolves
with sheeple clothing on, trying to appeal to the "only shoots trap on
sundays" types. Actually in the grand scheme of things, the NRA is
pretty moderate, too... IMO they're too far to the left. (It's funny as hell,
considering most liberal nutjobs think the NRA is some right wing extremist
group a notch or two away from the KKK, but in reality the NRA is pretty
much middle/left of the road, most of the time. Right now is a shining example
of that... we have prime opportunity to blow federal gun control
out of the water, and the NRA is going to let that pass under the bridge..... ) While
I tell people to maintain an NRA membership, I still encourage them
to seek out more progressive organizations as well.

Yes, I am aware that our government structure allows for the notion of
resonable regulation of constitutionally guaranteed rights; eg, while one
is allowed to have free speech, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not
allowed. There is no such "mimimalist moderation" overtones however in
relation to the 2nd amendment. Instead we have "Yes, you have the
right to keep and bear arms, as long as you OBEY these <insert gigantic
tomes of Federal/State overbearing regulations, limitations, and ownership
limitations, and other small arms limitations that have no real effect on
overall lethality, such as automatic weapon/silencer bans)." And obviously,
such crap is far out of the context of "reasonable regulation" of
a civil right.


-Mike