techs, I am simply trying to say that we need to be vigilant about the anti-gun movement. I did not intend to make this a political discussion, however, it is my understanding that the “progressives,” whoever they may be, are the vast majority of those wanting to eliminate, or at least severely restrict, private gun ownership. I guess my overarching concern is awareness (or, lack thereof). Thanks for your thoughts.
Thank you, Denise_J, for your thought provoking, and enlightening, post. I have checked out some of your suggested resources, and, WOW! Thank you, and good hunting to you, too!
Welcome to “the club”! I realize you probably didn’t intend to make an overtly political statement. That’s why I felt the need to push back against the idea that gun prohibition or 2A infringement is the “agenda” of “the ‘progressives’, whoever they may be”.
I consider myself a proponent of progressive values — maybe ultra-progressive whatever that is. Yet, I am 100% with you when you say “we need to be vigilant about the anti-gun movement” (maybe 110% whatever that means ). So, then what? Why attack my values when we share common cause?
I think that banning guns to “prevent violence” is deluded or dishonest, not a progressive value. The idea that many on the left and right (and center) of the political spectrum are deluded or dishonest shouldn’t be a surprise to observant adults. If two-thirds of Americans are not opposed to private firearms ownership, that is enough to prevail in defense of the Second — if we bring them in. But we will lose if progressives are blindly alienated and “othered” because they don’t share 100% of some broad doctrine or worldview which claims exclusive ownership of RTKBA.
Why do you consider yourself a “progressive”? I am not a fan of labels, like progressive or conservative, they don’t reflect on the variety of opinions a person may hold, but I would guess you don’t meet , e.g. CNN’s high standard for being progressive. You don’t trust public figures, use logic to undermine their message Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Well, techs, I’m sorry that it appeared that I was attacking your values; I wasn’t. I guess that it has been inculcated in me that “progressives” are anti-gun. However, after careful consideration, I suppose that I am guilty of painting with too broad of a brush. I would agree with Alexander8’s comment about not being a fan of labels. Mea culpa. You are correct; I wouldn’t want to exclude someone, anyone, from supporting our 2A rights, especially if they were to feel alienated by my “label.” I will do better…
I’m not a fan of labels, either. But a label is a convenient, if clumsy, way to communicate a complex meaning when “not going through all the details at this particular moment” seems like the best way to remain on a specific point. Until the use of the label breaks the discussion of the actual topic.
Putting a label on a set of values can also convey a vague sense of “membership” in a group one supports or opposes, without getting into “but I disagree with you about this particular” or “I agree with them about that specific”. IMHO, the “membership” I support at USCCA is RTKBA, and the “membership” I oppose is infringement and banning. Membership here is not liberal or conservative, progressive or reactionary, Democrat or Republican — it’s all of those things. Else, I’m in the wrong place.
As far as why I consider myself a progressive, maybe that’s better left for another time and place. Cheers.
Whatever happened to a government of We The People, For The People and By The People?
Same thing as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. You grew up.
Sorry, I don’t agree on the mandatory training issue. The gang-bangers who do MOST of the shooting are not affected. Gun “accidents” are not that big a percentage of total gun violence. The real issue is the illegal use of guns, education will not help this at all.
That being said, I have spent lots of money and time on gun carry training, for my own benefit, I don’t want to be irresponsible if I choose to use a gun.
If the gun related issues in the U.S. were equal to the issues recorded from those with carry licenses, we would not have a gun issue to discuss.
Notice what happened in this discussion. We have people from multiple sides of the political spectrum calmly (eventually) discussing and supporting a common issue.
SO DIFFERENT from the extreme polarization in our present culture.
There was a time when people of all persuasions could discuss, disagree, dispute, disengage and then go out for a beer together. Or maybe go to the range and put some holes in targets…TOGETHER.
That’s the only way America wins, folks; together, agreeing on the liberty and justice for all (white, black, brown, female, male) upon which our great republic was founded, disagreeing agreeably on the minutiae, but always, always together on the cause of freedom and liberty expressed in our constitution, 2A and everything else.
I for one come here as an Instructor to read about and communicate with others about what the Marquee says: “USCCA Community - Your Place for Self-Defense Education, Training and Discussions with Responsibly Armed Americans”
If I want to read about covid vaccines, politics, Afghanistan, etc there are a multitude of other platforms that I could visit. I don’t visit those places because of the vitriol. If things don’t change here, I see this community heading in the same direction.
I would personally like to see discussions on religion, politics and current affairs not related to the purpose of this forum to go away. Those topics take away from the purpose of our organization. To put it another way, if you attended a firearms training symposium or class, would you want every discussion to degrade into a discussion on polarizing topics?
I shared an opinion about Antifa using guns in another discussion thread and I simply used the terms “avoidance or avoid” when referring to avoiding areas where demonstrations or disturbances are occuring. My input eventually got completely twisted and morphed into how Germans in WW2 “avoided” getting involved in stopping atrocities in concentration camps. Somehow, modern Antifa thugs became the equivalent of resistance fighters on that period in WW2. That’s quite a leap! But it happened here.
I think I’ll stick with education and training and helping people (like I help my clients) to understand what USCCA is trying to do. And that is to teach defensive accuracy and physical, emotional, fiscal and legal self preservation.
Happy anniversary @Frank73
And what would the Government include in the required gun training, you can bet a lot of it would have nothing to do with the actual safety in the use of guns, and how would they decide if you pass or fail, further I bet there would be some sort of mental health evaluation that they would be in control of, all in all I do not want the Government mandating and controlling any training.
Unfortunately gun control is a political issue, and its driven 95% by Democrats, that cannot be argued. Further many of the reasons having a gun for protection has become so important are driven by Democrat / liberal ideas and policies, such as open borders, not enforcing laws, creating a false racism narrative, allowing rioting and looting and prosecuting those trying to protect life and property while not prosecuting those threatening our lives and property. Unfortunately its nearly impossible to have a discussion on gun laws and gun control without noting this.
I, for one, think some sort of mental health standard might be reasonable.
- A pilot
- A CCW gun owner
- A mental health counselor
The FAA asks pilots to self-report any treatment for mental health issues. In cases where pilots have been medically treated in the past, the FAA MAY require psychological testing. Maybe it should be similar for gun owners.
I have seen people in my therapy office who I definitely do not think would be capable of responsibly possessing a firearm.
Mental health issues like untreated schizophrenia, severe major depressive disorder, PTSD, disassociative identity disorder, and probably a few others should arguably be show-stoppers for gun ownership.
And, the FAA requires you to notify them in writing within 30 days if you understand all their rules and regulations so that they can change them.
I was at O’Hare and Gen Mitchell for 13 years.
I’m from the government and I’m here to help!
The World Health Organization Guide (2004) complements the World Report on Violence and Health (2002) and the 2003 World Health Assembly Resolution 56-24 for governments to implement nine recommendations, which were:
- Create, implement and monitor a national action plan for violence prevention.
- Enhance capacity for collecting data on violence.
- Define priorities for, and support research on, the causes, consequences, costs and prevention of violence.
- Promote primary prevention responses.
- Strengthen responses for victims of violence.
- Integrate violence prevention into social and educational policies, and thereby promote gender and social equality.
- Increase collaboration and exchange of information on violence prevention.
- Promote and monitor adherence to international treaties, laws and other mechanisms to protect human rights.
- Seek practical, internationally agreed responses to the global drugs and global arms trade.
Though I agree with your point in general, it is not your logic, it is how it may be twisted. Who is to say what is severe illness, and what is not? I presume you are aware of attempts to brand all veterans as crazy and dangerous. Unless it is “adjudicated by court as mental defective”, mere diagnosis should not open doors to strip someone of their constitutional right.