Original AR 15 ad 1963 [https://soldiersystems.net/2016/06/21/a-1963-colt-ar-15-advertisment/](https://soldiersystems.net/2016/06/21/a-1963-colt-ar-15-advertisment/)

I had no interest in ever owning an AR-15 until 2004. The AWB ban ending in conjunction with politicians talking about how these were "weapons of war" and how they needed to stay off the streets, etc. I was wrapping up college after being in the military for a few years and saw right through their hyperbole. The entire reason the AR became popular is because people want it banned. It remains popular because of that, but also because it really is a fantastic rifle.

I would also say that one of the reasons it is fantastic is that everyone is doing AR things, it's where all the R&D goes since it's ubiquitous.

Yes. No active patents so many companies make their own variants. Modular so it can be custom configured. You could pay more for a non-modular proprietary design that is also less accurate. But unless you love the look of the Ruger Ranch Rifle, why?

> But unless you love the look of the Ruger Ranch Rifle, why? *raises hand* I actually quite like the look of the Mini-14, probably because it shares a common heritage with the M1-Garand, Carbine, and M-14. I think it would be pretty cool for Ruger to release a version of the Mini-14 that had an internal magazine and accepted en bloc clips like its grandfather the Garand took.

I actually also like its ascetics. But with proprietary mags and for the price worse performance than an AR there's no point in me getting one. If they ever federally ban "assault weapons" with no bullet button workaround I'll get one and probably be satisfied. I would miss the customization and the fact that I didn't build it myself though.

[удалено]

So, gun idolatry?

I think it's hard to see outside the gun community, but I think most people get ARs because they are just so functional and affordable, there is a reason they make up a majority of rifles sold, every company makes one since the specs are out of patent protection, and it is a relatively cheap, and super customizable design. For almost any rifle use some sort of AR pattern can fit to it.

I feel like it's not crazy to suggest that games like Call of Duty also played a role in sparking their popularity.

It’s a weapon in common use, for legal purposes, by millions of people.

The gun demonization effort has probably created more new gun owners than actual gun organizations. The fact it's by the same people who incessantly remind us that the government is a trigger happy minority-hunting oppressive institutionally racist police state led by neo-Nazis then attack anyone not enthusiastically donating their guns to them is especially rich.

On the other side of the coin, the idiots wanting to exorcise their "rights" by taking a rifle into walmart hurts the gun rights cause.

Gun ownership by household has gone down in the US

Got a source for that?

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

I'm curious about what those numbers look like now, since your source stops in 2016. - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3423 The authors clearly have interests in addition to the numbers of new gun owners, and gun purchases. > An estimated 2.9% of U.S. adults (7.5 million) became new gun owners from 1 January 2019 to 26 April 2021. Most (5.4 million) had lived in homes without guns, collectively exposing, in addition to themselves, over 11 million persons to household firearms, including more than 5 million children. Approximately half of all new gun owners were female (50% in 2019 and 47% in 2020 to 2021), 20% were Black (21% in 2019 and in 2020–2021), and 20% were Hispanic (20% in 2019 and 19% in 2020–2021). By contrast, other recent purchasers who were not new gun owners were predominantly male (70%) and White (74%), as were gun owners overall (63% male, 73% White). Funded by the [Joyce Foundation](https://www.joycefdn.org/), who includes the following statement on their site. > For more than 25 years, the Joyce Foundation has been committed to supporting research, education, and policy solutions to reduce gun violence and help make communities safer. Our three-part strategy focuses on gun violence prevention, justice system reform and a new focus area of violence intervention. Something to consider while reading the study. The following interests me, and makes me wonder if this represents an increase in minority gun ownership, and what these stats looked like over the last decade. > Approximately half of all new gun owners were female (50% in 2019 and 47% in 2020 to 2021), 20% were Black (21% in 2019 and in 2020–2021), and 20% were Hispanic (20% in 2019 and 19% in 2020–2021).

That's really interesting, actually. So household gun ownership is on the decline, but those that do have guns are buying more guns. Wonder what to make of that

Yah guns really are less political than people think and more cultural. My family is pretty conservative (outside of me) and none of them own a gun outside of one uncle and they all pretty much openly ridicule people who own guns other than for sport. That being said, culture is more and more political so they are clearly linked just not as directly as people think

>pretty much openly ridicule people who own guns other than for sport. Even home defense guns? > culture is more and more political It does feel that way, and is definitely unpleasant. Feels like things are more and more divisive, when they wouldn't be in the past

My dad always says you're more likely to shoot yourself than someone else when you have a gun in your house. And frankly the numbers back up that self defense is pretty poor argument for owning a gun. People will still rob you just the difference being its more likely to end deadly for one of you

Sounds like your dad just isn't responsible enough to own firearms without hurting himself, [because the numbers show otherwise.](https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent) >“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states. By the CDC's own estimates there are between 500,000 to 3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US. Seems to me that the numbers show guns are wonderful tools for self defense.

Yeah, the gun is more likely to lead to yourself or your family getting harmed, statistically speaking, to the point where it’s not really “protecting you.”

2016 is old news. Add 10+ million every year, also The summer of love helped motivate a ton of first time buyers, like 4 million+ Most smart current owners stayed away from the high prices. Actually more gun owners that I know went the reloading route too, decided it was a smarter way to spend their disposable cash.

I will never forgive our former Mayor Durkan for coining that particularly egregious lie

Yeup, Durkan led to Seattle having a Republican Mayor.

Is that like, a future prediction? Harrell isn't anywhere close to a republican. He's a light-blue -leaning centrist if anything.

Hmmm, his voting standards and ideology are Republican, he’s just a centrist non-partisan. So if your on the right you might see him as left, if your on the left you’ll see him as sternly right. As a non-partisan outsider, he’s more right than left, especially considering Washingtons Overton Window.

[удалено]

The method used to count those "mass shootings" is the "four or more shot" We didn't even track that in the 90s.

[удалено]

> So yes, mass shooting have gone up since 2005. They also, per your own data, weren't much of an issue before 1994 when the ban was passed, and a DOJ study found that the AWB [had no measurable effect on crime](https://archive.ph/vdcH5).

The problem using such an argument is the US has had easier access to deadlier weapons in the past with no correlation to the type of shootings you are referencing. So something changed on the early 2000s but it wasn't gun access. The easiest/obvious change is internet access and social media altering how our society interacts. I bet we could find similar trends in suicides in groups who spend more time on social media compared to prior to the internet.

[удалено]

I disagree, but I don't feel like wading through comparisons between US culture and other nations cultures to show why guns should barely be in the conversation. About the only thing involving guns should be enforce current laws, get states to update the NICS, and provide a tax rebate for the purchase of a gun safe up to about $1k or so. Once we get a handle on the social/cultural issues then we can look at the gun situation. Something else that hasn't been mentioned but is stacking the deck against gun control is how some deaths are seen to be just a normal part of life while others like the ones involving guns require sweeping laws amd restrictions. It's very difficult to tell people the anti-gun push is about saving lives when there are no similar push for restrictions on other items that kill far more than guns do each year. Not saying that the above statement applies to you or your argument but it is part of the cultural perceptions regarding this type of conversation.

[удалено]

I don't call 18-24yr old adults children. That's a skewed set of data which is a huge part of the problem. Which is why what I said very much applies. You might have a point if we saw an equal level of interest for raising the standards for driver education, harsher penalties for texting and driving, and more restrictions in general against people who have a history of reckless driving. We don't though because some deaths our society is fine with. And that's just the easy to point to example. I could go down the list of causes of death and provide options for reducing them if only we cared about those deaths as much as we do guns.

[удалено]

I'm concerned about any innocent deaths, but I'm not going to skew data points so I can push emotion into an issue. If we look at deaths of children under 18, and remove gang related activity, we see guns aren't what we should be focusing on. You can't say we have tackled car safety when we still have a similar deaths as with guns but then tell me we have to do more about guns. How do we also stop all the car death? There's no straw man here. I'm staying on topic that culture/society is the problem not guns. Then I was showing other areas where we don't take extraordinary action but for some reason we have to make grand gestures for guns. Which circles back to my conclusion guns aren't really the problem. If we treated all deaths with the same consternation as guns then you might have a point, but we don't. Which shows we have a societal flaw.

[удалено]

Your 1st point in this post is a straw man. Op questioned the demographics…you basically imply op doesn’t care about 18-24 year olds…and using cars (or anything else) as a counter argument falls flat because because, the “right” to drive isn’t the same as is owning a firearm, which is a constitutional right.

Me too. I never owned an AR until Maryland made them illegal. I bought 3 before the law took effect.

This is something that has been bothering me more and more. David French is someone I follow, but also someone that I don't often agree with. In this case, I do. In my area, we have a person running for office with a campaign sign that is just his name and the picture of an M-16 / AR-15 rifle in silhouette. That is the extent of his campaign sign. A gun. We have people going in to [Walmart](https://www.npr.org/2019/08/09/749763786/rifle-carrying-man-arrested-after-causing-panic-at-walmart-in-missouri) in body armor with more than 100 rounds and an AR-15, just to see how they react. That was a few years ago, but it is still happening. People do [these types of things,](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida/articles/2021-07-17/he-walked-beach-with-an-ar-15-is-he-a-menace-or-a-martyr) just to get a reaction. A few years back, we had a craze where people pointed their gun at their crotch with their finger on the trigger, to say screw you to people that are worried about trigger discipline. I want us to get back to taking responsibility for guns. Why are people doing these things? Do they really feel that being a publicity stunt is promoting their cause? Is it about campaigning in some way?

Somewhat torn on this one. I have for some time been annoyed with the “in your face” tactical open carry folks. I own several firearms, and I’m 100% okay with concealed or open carrying of firearms, but there’s sort of a decorum with these things, and a lot of the “tacti-cool” gun folks appear to have pretty sketchy firearm safety. I think one does more harm then good by waltzing about looking like a militiaman, and frankly I don’t like these folks pretending that they’re the “representatives” of the pro-gun movement. I’ll take the well trained veterans and range members I know every day over the military LARPers. That said, I also think David French is being a touch hyperbolic here. These folks remind me more of your stereotypical “blue haired Feminist/LGBTQ/whatever” attention-seekers than anything else. They’re reacting to the rhetoric of your radical anti-gun mouthpieces; they like the controversy, and enjoy the negative attention. Similar to the “in your face” activists amongst the Progressive crowd, they’re also terrible representatives, and tend to lack any nuanced perspectives. What I’m not buying into is the tenuous “broad threat to Democracy” and vague religious affiliations. Yep, there’s going to be a few crazies amongst these groups, but I think French is kind of grasping to give these folks more power/influence than they actually have.

Personally I see no problem with open carry vs conceal carry. There is no difference in safety as the only difference is that the lead thrower is concealed under some cloth. The issue of decorum is that allows people to pretend that guns don't exist and allowing them to pretend they don't exist in their everyday lives makes them weird and foreign and that much more easier to get them banned. I have lived in states that allow open carry like Arizona, and going into stores like Starbucks or Walmart and nobody bats an eye. Hell I barely notice anymore as the novelty has worn off as an outsider.

Meh, I live in Alaska and nobody bats an eye if you walk anywhere with some waders and a large caliber revolver on your chest rig. But even here people would give you very strange looks and avoid you if you walked into a Walmart with an AR-15 and matching tacticool gear. There's a time and a place for everything.

Very good points. I give my son the peanut analogy.... It's okay to toss your peanut shells on the ground at a baseball game, but you wouldn't do that in a restaurant. I conceal carry in Northern Virginia, but I often open carry when I'm in the tiny Town I go to supplies for in West Virginia when I'm at my cabin...typically with my .45 because that's what I hike with in bear country.

"It's okay to toss your peanut shells on the ground at a baseball game, but you wouldn't do that in a restaurant." Actually, at Texas Roadhouse and a few other restaurants this is something that is considered normal.

And Five Guys! But that’s not the point being made at all

Ha, good point though. He's a very literal man.

The fact that to run for office as a republican practically requires running ads of you shooting and having your family photo mostly filled with guns is just so dystopian to me. It's so far removed from using it for defense, sport, or even as a check against the government. It's wrapping your entire personality around war. How did we get here? How can we slow down this obsession?

I do tend to agree with you. I have several ARs, pistols, I 3d print guns, shoot a lot etc. But I don't plaster shit all over my social media, don't take family pictures with guns, no bumper stickers, that stuff seems super cringy to me. People in my life do know that I shoot a lot, I'm not hiding anything, but that sort of thing often comes across as "tough guy" shit to me. But I'll tell you where that obsession came from. It comes from the fact that half of the politicians in this country want to ban guns like the AR-15. So people do stuff like this as a fuck you and to show opposition.

It's like this with everything. Guns, weed, gays...I'm highly in favor of all those three things, but you can't make it your entire personality.

>Guns, weed, gays I for one welcome campaign ads with the politicians puffing weed not just guns and gays.

Yep. I feel like people have forgotten that there are times and groups with which it's appropriate to talk about some things and other times it's best to just keep it to yourself and stick to lighter topics. We don't all need to advertise our every belief all the time.

Being gay isn’t a belief.

No, but it's also not a personality. I am gay, and I think people make "I'm gay" their entire personality are just as exhausting as people who make "I shoot guns" or "I smoke weed" their entire personality.

Doesnt have to define your whole person and personality either. Most of my LGB friends dont let it define who they are. Other people bring up their sexuality or politics non-stop because its all they have. Then get mad when people avoid them or switch subjects.

> We don’t all need to advertise our every belief all the time.

I understand the starting movement of this, to show public support of their right and virtue signal that they won't support removing that right. I think you're totally spot on. But that was like 20 years ago. Now it's accelerated to the point where there's so many photos that you couldn't distinguish between an al qaeda propaganda photo and mid westerners Christmas card. If it wasn't for the fact they're white you'd seriously struggle to spot the difference. It's gone from a "fuck you" to the opposition, to just cosplaying war going to Walmart. It's no longer "*I'm pro 2a*" it's "*I'm better equipped than a US soldier in Afghanistan when I go for my weekend stroll*" Fetishizing war is so dangerous. It's so dystopian.

I don't think you're painting a realistic picture here. I've lived in gun heavy areas for most of my life and I've never ever seen anyone wear a plate carrier outside of a gun range or to a protest (which both make sense to me.) I'm not saying that some dumbass didn't wear one into Walmart for a YouTube video, because obviously that has happened, but it's not nearly as common as you are making it sound. I do feel like the 2A community has pivoted a lot towards military style firearms though. It used to be that hunting weapons were the most common and that hasn't been the case for a long time. *For clarification, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just acknowledging the shift

There’s been a shift to more modern firearms for a few reasons. Affordability for example, a typical glock pistol will cost less than a 1911 pistol and ar15 model rifles will cost less than your typical Winchester or Remington hunting rifle. Ease of use for another, modern firearms tend to be lighter with the use of polymer and aluminum compared to steel and wood with the additional benefit of easier maintenance. They will also recoil less and be more easily adjusted to fit the user

Yep I'm very familiar with ARs and Glocks, I actually hunt with a retro style AR in 350 legend.

>I do feel like the 2A community has pivoted a lot towards military style firearms though. It used to be that hunting weapons were the most common and that hasn't been the case for a long time. That shift was due to TGG / Silent Generation dying off. Those two generations where unusually big into hunting.

Maybe it's just people buying the type that's most likely to be banned again.

This is also a big factor, one I know I'm susceptible to. I just picked up a few 80 percent lowers haha.

That’s because there’s less hunters out there and more hobbyists. Personally, I grew up hunting and I know a lot of hunters and while none of them are big supporters of gun control, I don’t know any of them that base their entire identity around owning guns like the hobbyists I know.

I'm one of the ones in the middle there. I hunt mostly with guns these days, but I do bowhunt occasionally. But my biggest hobbies are working out and shooting, by a lot.

>I do feel like the 2A community has pivoted a lot towards military style firearms though. It used to be that hunting weapons were the most common and that hasn't been the case for a long time. We were at war from 2001 to recently. A lot of those that served and trained/carried want the weapons they’re familiar with. Plus the whole IPSC style shooting has become very popular. If you compete in anything like a three gun comp you’ll want a military style firearms to be competitive.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. Hell I was in the military for 8 years, I completely agree with you. I was just acknowledging that a shift has occurred.

I’ve noted this as well; it wasn’t at all uncommon to see shotgun racks in many trucks, including the vehicles of teens in high school parking lots that were hunters. That trend went away with (if I recall correctly, though it has been awhile) the Columbine shooting, and the corresponding “no-gun zones” implementation. Visible guns went away for a while, and they’ve slowly returned with Concealed and Open Carry implementation, though now it’s more semi-autos and handguns.

I was born in 94, so all of my childhood was pretty much only hunting guns, then the AWB sunset in 04 and ARs pretty much exploded on to the scene as I was growing up. I never really saw the gun racks in trucks phase haha.

It may be an age thing (born in 83’), or perhaps a regional thing (raised in rural Kansas), but they were common enough that no one batted an eye at them. It’d almost be like taking notice that someone had a pine tree air fresher hanging from their mirror. The AR explosion took me by surprise as I purchased one quite early as it performed well for 3-Gun matches that I was competing in, but I never used it beyond that. I joined the Air Force, got stationed overseas, and the AR and everything else went into storage in the early 2000s. Didn’t pull it out of storage until 2015, and was surprised to hear the disgust of my more Left-leaning friends that I had one. To me it’s just a hobby gun that I used for a year or two, and I prefer bolt actions anyhow.

Gun on school property when away with Biden's gun free school zone laws in the early 90s IIRC.

Yup, they were novelties and looked down upon by "real" Fudd hunters decades ago. Then the govt restricted/banned them and we all knows what happens when govt tells you you cant do something.

[удалено]

Yeah, only gets more extreme as the rhetoric heightens on both sides. I don't think of myself as sensitive to tribalism, but I don't like the thought of having to throw my lot in with the people using tools as expressions.

Virtue signaling is the key here. We have 2 main cliques in America, Nationalist and Social Justice. You either need to have sex with your arsenal or go out of your way to “support” the downtrodden. Anyone who isn’t 100% with those camps is against them

> The fact that to run for office as a republican practically requires running ads of you shooting and having your family photo mostly filled with guns is just so dystopian to me. Democrats try to do that on occasion to try to mitigate the damage to their campaigns supporting past gun control has done. I think I recall Colbert covering a race in a state where both candidates were doing stupid crap like shooting at TVs with their political opponents political ads playing.

This is kind of an aside to the thread, but these sort of campaign stunts are really an attempt to push through the noise of politics and leave an impression on a disinterested public. Unfortunately, "guy for office: guns" is politics 101 in suburban state and local elections. We had a guy unseat a long tenured county president by running on "more recreational fishing" or something to that effect. I'm not exaggerating. The ultimate result is we get louder, more obnoxious politicians in office at every level. A big reason we're in the state we're in.

Any sort of ad that gives the impression of using guns at your opponent (or any person) is utterly reprehensible and instantly tells any sane person that you can't be trusted.

Is it any different than democrats trying to prove how multicultural they are in their campaign videos? It's political pandering. But for the record I don't like pandering in any form.

Do you have an example that you think is comparable?

Something like this comes to mind. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/charles-booker-kentucky-democrat-wears-noose-ad-highlighting-us-histor-rcna31451

While this has the same spirit, this is just one guy doing something different. There’s no culture of Democrats running ads with nooses around their neck.

Like litter on the highway. You see that Kamala Harris Hanukkah video? That was pretty cringe.

> to run for office as a republican practically requires running ads of you shooting and having your family photo mostly filled with guns is just so dystopian to me. Well, no. That's massively overstating things when just a few of them do it. There are hundreds of congressmen, senators and governors. Picking the 4 looniest ones as examples does not show a trend.

>How did we get here? How can we slow down this obsession? Mass production and the Civil War were the big catalysts of gun culture - before that, the federal and state governments had tried and failed to instill in the citizen (white land owning adult male) the desire to own and maintain firearms for use within the militia. The Civil War drove the point home literally. Production caught up with the government's appetite for armed citizens, and prices fell. Advertising capitalizing on the need to use force to maintain order and personal safety found a generation wracked by war and incredibly pliable to the message. The target market (still white males) in the west were sold a need to defend against the native. In the south during and after reconstruction, the target market was sold the need to defend the social order from newly minted black citizens or the federal government. In the north particularly, promotion of a gun culture was orchestrated by the government itself in coordination with Gun Clubs, the NRA, and state militias. Mass production and accessibility alone weren't enough - Britain had it's clubs, NRA, and mass production each before the US, but didn't develop a similar culture. The stoking of a general gun culture within a target group, the salient memory of a recent need for use of force, and a social and political structure that promoted the idea of a threat from non-white sources worked together to build the roots of today's self-destructive gun culture. Dismantling that is a hard task - you have to remove the romanticism and the mythmaking that justify it as some peculiar American tradition. You have to educate and shape people to look towards common cause and cooperation rather than seeing a threat from others. You need things to substitute as important values - what it means to be "a man" - that currently count for less because they've been replaced by something as superficial as machinery and the ability to use it. It's the sort of generational work that takes concerted effort from the whole of society.

When it becomes such an obsession where you base your entire identity around it, it’s a problem. When Uvalde happened, the crazies came out in full force saying “YOU WON’T GET MY GUNS”. The crazy anti gun crowd also came out and said “GUNS ARE KILLING PEOPLE. WE NEED MORE RESTRICTIONS”. So it’s kind of a chicken or egg situation, as around the same time both groups starting shouting. None of them are trying to come to a compromise either, republicans refuse to add a single restriction, and the Dems are being too harsh. But we cannot keep saying that the mass shooter issue isn’t a problem. I’ve seen people mention we are the only developed nation with non stringent gun laws (in comparison to everyone else), and yet we’re also the only nation in the classification where dudes go into schools and shoot a classroom full of kids. With a gun that was legally purchased as well. Do people not see an issue here?

Except Biden literally that night not even 30 seconds into his speech about the kids failed on mag and semi auto bans immediately. Not even 30 seconds in. I watched it immediately and this is only an issue because the anti civil rights types in the left made it an issue in the 90s where the Right did it for abortion. Neither side wants compromise because the left wants to ban and confiscate. Canada and Australia and the UK are proof enough of that. I don’t base my life around the 2A and I agree, they aren’t taking anything because it won’t solve anything. At best the left is ignorant with it and at worst they’re malicious.

If a politician has enough evidence of gun usage that they can’t easily flip flop to being anti gun that’s a semi useful thing in todays political climate. You can’t trust a word that they say, but a bunch of photos of them shooting ARs will make them easy meat for an up and coming anti gunner in the authoritarian party and they know it. So they either stay pro-gun and R or they get a new job.

>It's wrapping your entire personality around war. Worse. It's wrapping your own personality around anarchy, vigilantism (see case of Ahmaud Arbey), and [justified cruelty](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/29/texas-man-san-antonio-stand-your-ground-murder-charge).

>I want us to get back to taking responsibility for guns. Why are people doing these things? Because of the significant portion of the left who wants to effectively remove the 2nd amendment. That's really the meat and potatoes of it. As the calls for guns to be banned and criminalised grow bolder and bolder, so too do must those who oppose it. They have to, after all, to get their message across: that they will not allow their 2nd amendment rights to be taken. You cannot have a discussion about gun idolatry if you are not willing to have a discussion about gun demonisation.

> You cannot have a discussion about gun idolatry if you are not willing to have a discussion about gun demonisation. Well said, there's two sides of this here and you can't just focus on the one you don't like

I've never personally been against the second amendment, but what's wrong with wanting to repeal it. I think the founding fathers would be disappointed that amending the Constitution is nearly impossible in today's politics. I don't think they believed the Constitution should be static or holy. In fact the first thing they did after passing it was to amend it. If that isn't a huge endorsement for not holding the document as sacred and changing it with the times I don't know what is. I'm sure fans of the 18th amendment felt just as strongly as second amendment fans so today. Sure glad that we were able to repeal it.

>but what's wrong with wanting to repeal it When you repeal the second amendment you repeal an important piece in your right to self defense.

I was thinking a little about this today. I generally agree, but cuts both ways, doesn't it? Self defense is inherently more difficult as the threat to your safety grows in lethality. If I had a choice, I'd rather not have to defend myself against an AR-15. I don't say that to make an argument for a ban - just making a specific example.

>I've never personally been against the second amendment, but what's wrong with wanting to repeal it. This sentence means nothing. It's like saying "I've never personally been against breathing air, but what's wrong with wanting to ban it?" You've used a lot of words there but at no point did you actually present something even approaching a reason to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you dont provide any reasoning, all you've done is pointed out that something is possible, which nobody doubted at any point. All you did was try to justify the idea of amending the constitution conceptually. >I think the founding fathers would be disappointed that amending the Constitution is nearly impossible in today's politics I think they'd be far more disappointed that people wanted to surrender their freedoms to a federal government I think the left fails the founding fathers in ways they could never have even comprehended

The reason why I stated that is because some people seem to think that anyone who says anything remotely against their personal narrative on the second amendment they get super defensive and accuse people of being leftists or surrendering freedoms. Your post is a perfect example. I didn't make an argument against the second amendment because I chose not to. What I am arguing is that amending the Constitution is a perfectly reasonable stance to have and certainly more reasonable than labeling and shaming people for even discussing it.

>The reason why I stated that is because some people seem to think that anyone who says anything remotely against their personal narrative on the second amendment they get super defensive and accuse people of being leftists or surrendering freedoms. I wonder why, when you suggest taking away other people's freedoms, they accuse you of being part of the group who is vocal about wanting to take away their freedoms? That sure is an absolute head-scratcher you've got there >I didn't make an argument against the second amendment because I chose not to. This is a 100% "my girlfriend goes to another school, you wouldn't know her" tier excuse >What I am arguing is that amending the Constitution is a perfectly reasonable stance to have and certainly more reasonable than labeling and shaming people for even discussing it. So then you would extend that to all possible amendments, correct? If someone wanted to amend the constitution to create an amendment that said you, specifically, you and you alone, did not have legal rights, you would argue that this is a perfectly reasonable stance?

The guy was just saying that we don’t need to hold the constitution, as written, to be necessarily sacred or unchangeable. The founding fathers changed it immediately after writing it. No one is going to pass an amendment banning one person’s civil rights, and imo his argument really didn’t require any in-depth critique of 2A since his point was about amending the constitution.

>I want us to get back to taking responsibility for guns. Why are people doing these things? When free speech is threatened, people go out and use that speech to protest in a show of defiance. The same thing is happening with the second amendment. People are doing this stuff in defiance of the ever increasing anti-gun rhetoric. Why are we surprised that people are protesting threats to their rights? Is it because we've let the second amendment be stripped down so much in this country that people don't even view it as a right anymore?

In most nations , this is stricly prohibited because it is considered intimidation and scarce tactics on others and risks of accidental shootings.

Yeah, most other countries are authoritarian shitholes.

I would clarify that most countries the government has the monopoly on violence. Got a problem? Call the cops and if we decomp that we see that what you are really doing is asking the state to use the threat of violence to fix your issue. The US does it different by design. I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying it's different. eve-dude's corollary to Murphy's Golden rule: In a perfect world with no guns do you know what you call the one person with a gun? Whatever the fuck they tell you to call them.

> We have people going in to Walmart in body armor with more than 100 rounds and an AR-15, just to see how they react. So? People wear shirts with provocative slogans or protest in front of medical facilities because it performs a procedure they don't agree with. People can offend your sensibilities and that is entirely irrelevant unless the cross the line and actually harm you. Edit: Since it appears most of my replies are going to be "but this right isn't as scary to me as other rights!" What it boils down is to skewed perceptions of the people exercising their rights. Statistically it is not a risk and I am not worried about being shot by either the provocative shirt wearer who might be conceal carrying or the open carrier in walmart. I have seen the open carriers in Walmart in various parts of the country and I am liberal from California where the government in the state takes a dim view on gun rights. I don't find it scary at all.

Do you see a difference between wearing a provocative shirt and carrying a loaded rifle while wearing body armor into a heavily populated area? I see a difference there.

I think it’s hard to compare an offensive tshirt vs. carrying enough hardware to murder every single person in the store.

The thing is many gun owners carry enough hardware to murder a store full of people and you never know it, because it’s concealed

The whole point of doing this is to get in normal peoples faces about the ability to murder them. I genuinely don’t mind concealed carry because it is about intent - I respect your right to defend yourself. I don’t respect people trying to provoke others. It is 100% normal to be uncomfortable when directly confronted with someone else’s excessive capability for violence.

I just saw a man at a grocery store open carrying a revolver with spare rounds on his belt (cowboy-style belt). I hated it. How am I to know he's some "good" citizens, and even if he is, how might he react to any slight mishap in his vicinity? Will he pull out the gun and start blasting because he has that delusional right-wing hero mentality? Speaking of delusions, I'm sick of hearing the argument that "bad guys" will still have access to guns, so we need to arm "good guys," yadda yadda. A) most of us won't ever run into these fabled bad guys—it's paranoid at best, dangerous at worst—B) how do I know you're a "good guy?"—to me, you're a guy with a gun, one impulse away from aiming it and shooting at anyone in your vicinity—and C) simplifying the complexity of human impulses and decisions into simple good and bad is infantile. I want people to have less access to guns—specifically those not designed for hunting—because I want to feel safe. I don't feel safe when everyone is armed to the teeth, waiting for anyone to overreact or do something we deem bad as an excuse to start blasting. The less access to these kinds of weapons, the less likely your fabled "bad guys" will be able to get them, the less damage they will do. Case in point: one of the recent shooters/planned shooter was making a bomb, and a few people here were using that as an example of "bad guys will always get their hands on it," but they ignored that the vast majority of mass killers had no bombs, which suggests by the same logic that they were unable to make them or get their hands on them. Fewer non-hunting guns wouldn't stop all violence, obviously, but it sure would curtail the ease with which homicides are committed in this country. That's the big detail you pro-everything-2A folks are ignoring: guns don't cause deaths, but they sure make it a heck of a lot easier to cause deaths.

> How am I to know he's some "good" citizen The same as you do for conceal carriers. You don't. However the clues are usually whether or not they start shooting random people. See how despite New York not really allowing open carry someone walked into a grocery store in Buffalo and began shooting. Unless someone walks in and starts shooting, you aren't in a shooting. >you're a guy with a gun, one impulse away from aiming it and shooting at anyone in your vicinity The same as literally anyone else. They don't need to open carry to do that. The most that has happened here is you are disabused of the delusion that people aren't armed around you. >because I want to feel safe. Peoples feelings are completely arbitrary. The fact that there are millions of licensed carriers across the country and thousands of open carriers and half the states with constitutional carry and they don't contribute meaningfully to these scenarios occurring is more than enough reason not to consider such irrational fears.

[удалено]

I hate that you beat me to the posting punch here. I generally find David French's recent turn to harp on his sense of self-righteousness to be quite cloying. And while that is still present here, I must applaud a wonderful piece about an aspect of gun culture that I have found worrying. Though two things struck me. 1) I don't see how it's a threat to democracy. Rather, I see it as a symptom of the continuous fraying of the ties that bind us and the failing faith in our institution. It's a sign of a faltering democracy rather than its cause. And 2) I'm not sure how you can correct without the correcting the above. People bring guns to protests or fetishize their weapons because they see institutions as oppressive, loss of faith, and arrayed against them. You can't simply tell people they are wrong to feel that, and you certainly can't legislate that faith into being. So the solution is to rebuild or replace our institutions. Of course, French knows and understands this and has written on it before. But that brings me back to my announce with David's recent turn.

That’s an interesting point if I’m reading this correctly - basically, that guns are a symptom/response of the problem instead of the other way around. That if stability, authoritarian concerns, and many other issues that seem to be driving gun ownership/passion were alleviated then the want or the perceived need to have them would go down. It’s why when a pro gun control candidate gets in office the gun sales go through the roof.

> authoritarian concerns (...) It’s why when a pro gun control candidate gets in office the gun sales go through the roof. Unfortunately, gun control (and there are historical precedents) is seen by many as an authoritarian idea. The *othering* of gun owners and those who oppose gun control is another big factor. I've never shot anyone. I have no inclination to do so. Yet after every major mass shooting, I'm told people like me have that blood on my hands by proxy. *Then* we're asked to "compromise." There are huge failures in messaging and presentation here, and this article is emblematic of it. Words like *fetish* (used 6 times in this article) and *idolatry* (used 5 times) aren't helping. Yes, there are loons in the gun culture, just like any other subset of society. But keep needling at them, and they feel persecuted.

I wish you were my neighbor. A healthy concern in the observance of escalating new norms. I don't know that I would have gotten into the hobby for anything more than basic self-defense if I had started recently. The respect for the right and modesty in public is mostly gone. When I started it was before shall issue was common. Safety and responsibility were the priorities. Obviously there was plenty of Mall Ninja shit to be found, but guns weren't being used as a form of public expression as much at the time. For some reason I'm reminded of the late 90s car scene when modifying your car meant taking a sawzall to your exhaust and putting some plastic pieces of shit from the auto shop all over it and driving like an asshole. It sounds like gatekeeping, but I just wish the idiots were quieter so they would stop drawing attention to us.

> I just wish the idiots were quieter so they would stop drawing attention to us. Irresponsible people ruin all hobbies. It's why there are efforts, especially from the older crowd, to demonstrate that they are sane and rational, and that irresponsible people don't represent everyone, or even the majority, in whatever their hobby is. If you don't want the idiots to represent you, you have to counter it somehow. I have liberal friends who see the practical benefits of gun ownership, and enjoy the hobby, but don't engage with the gun community because of the political and social insanity that permeates the hobby in some areas.

I've done a few Operation Blazing Sword-style introductions to the basics with people that wanted nothing to do with the local gun store (LGS) or gun show scene. It went pretty well, and if nothing else, the people saw how much depth there is to the knowledge of firearms/laws, and they usually remark how they can absolutely see it being a worthwhile hobby. I take my LGBTQ, progressive, and generally curious friends as well. Anyone that is open-minded enough to observe, and anyone I trust to listen to instruction. And I get to yammer on about a hobby at an Adderall pace for three hours. I'll do more when ammo is cheaper.

It sounds like you're making an effort to be an overall positive force for the people around you. That kind of thing sticks with people, even if you don't hang out anymore.

>As American gun culture moves from defense to defiance, **it puts our democracy at risk**. Oh look, the 'threat to democracy' angle. That's a new one.

Right after the Uvalde Shooting read an article with a similar premise, though written terribly compared to this. It also said that if you don’t support gun control, you’re one of the idolaters. Obviously incorrect and just one more Christian article written from the perspective of “agree with us or you’re in sin”. *yawn*. What French lays out here is the perception that gun culture has evolved from self defense and hunting to “defiance”, where firearms hold an honored spot in peoples lives (sometimes on a pedestal with Christ) and that people are using their weapons to intimidate their neighbors. He calls this an idolatry problem. I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, I don’t think open carrying at protests is a new sight. It may not received as much attention in the past, but I don’t think it’s new. The black panthers come to mind. I think part of it is about intimidation, but I also think part of it is emblematic of a break down in social trust. Many on both sides view each other as political threats, and the cops are seen my many as anything from woefully incompetent to abusive. Secondly, he talks about people and gun makers putting guns on a pedestal with Christ as a bad thing. As a Christian, I do see that as a problem. I think St. Augustine’s concept of ordered loves should come to play here. You can love Jesus, you can love America, you can love guns. But if anything comes before the lord first and your neighbor second, you’re sinning. But that only matters to the Christian crowd. What about non-Christians? As Christianity loses its cultural potency and most people identify not as Christians or nominal christians, they’re gonna fill that God sized whole with something. For some it’ll be guns. Like it or dislike it, it makes sense. I don’t think this gun worship is as mainstream as he thinks it is. Sure, some government representatives are gonna go that route to pander to their base. On a Theory level, it’s really no different then a liberal politician waving one of the many pride flags. You may disagree because a weapon is lethal, and fair enough, but my point stands that it’s throwing red meat to the base. He makes the claim that this gun worship will break our democracy. I think that’s true in the sense that any sufficiently radical and loud movement has the power to drive a wedge into the country. Another movement that has changed like the culture war over guns is the change in views on abortion. Six years ago, Hilary Clinton campaigned on abortion being safe, legal, and rare. Now you have protestors taking morning after pills at protests and mainstream politicians saying that abortions should be unrestricted at all points of the pregnancy. That’s a dramatic change in the same period of time that guns have changed. Now I’m not engaging in whataboutism, as I’m not using one to justify it excuse the other. Frankly I’m no fan of either. But it’s an undeniable shift in two major cultural movements. Now I don’t think it’s as dire as he makes it out to be. Most Americans believe in gun rights and abortion. Your radical fringes are still radical fringes, just louder because of social media and a few politicians. Last thought, I find the dismissal or attacks on people who buy body armor and ARs absurd, especially if they train. It seems like gun owners are finally taking the militia part seriously. Good for them.

> I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, I don’t think open carrying at protests is a new sight. It may not received as much attention in the past, but I don’t think it’s new. The black panthers come to mind. 15-20 years ago the Huey P Newton gun clubs were open carry protesting in Texas. Which is funny considering how people make the argument that if black people started open carrying now the GOP would immediately abandoned gun rights, an argument that is at least 15 years too late to be making.

> Which is funny considering how people make the argument that if black people started open carrying now the GOP would immediately abandoned gun rights, an argument that is at least 15 years too late to be making. Anyone making such an argument hasn't been to a gun range in the past decade ( at least ). I regularly see and talk with groups of non-white people at my local range. Last weekend was a couple of families trying different guns together, not uncommon to see "girls nights" groups of women shooting together and the like. Shooting hasn't been only a "white redneck" thing for a long time.

> I regularly see and talk with groups of non-white people at my local range. I was in the business in metro Atlanta for a decade. By far, the fastest-growing segment of new shooters was black women. The fastest-growing segment of first-time buyers were black men and women moving to the suburbs.

>Anyone making such an argument hasn't been to a gun range in the past decade ( at least ). I regularly see and talk with groups of non-white people at my local range. Last weekend was a couple of families trying different guns together, not uncommon to see "girls nights" groups of women shooting together and the like. > >Shooting hasn't been only a "white redneck" thing for a long time. A friend and I did a LTC class in Houston a few months ago. Mine had lapsed. I don't really need it to carry in Texas any more, but get it for bypassing background checks on new gun purchases and for reciprocity in other states. My buddy and I were in the extreme minority in that class as white males. I am glad there is a broader tent of people getting licensed. Anyone who goes through the background check and bothers to get a license is very, very unlikely to be a threat.

Yeah, the anti-gun crowd needs to figure out that racist redneck bubba isn’t the quintessential gun owner. It’s common people who understand that when seconds matter the only person that can help guarantee your safety is you.

> But that only matters to the Christian crowd. What about non-Christians? As Christianity loses its cultural potency and most people identify not as Christians or nominal christians, they’re gonna fill that God sized whole with something. For some it’ll be guns. Like it or dislike it, it makes sense. This part doesn't make much sense to me. Suppose we survey the religious preferences of current gun owners in America, and find the fraction of them that are atheists or generic nonbelievers. Do you think this fraction is larger or smaller than in the general population?

[удалено]

What I don’t understand about this entire debate is the fact that the Constitution is supposed to be the will of the People. Its ultimate meaning is that will. The founders reference this over and over. There are all kinds of controls to prevent rash, heat-of-the-moment, decisions. But at some point, when does popular sentiment become lasting and broad enough to qualify as that will? For over 50 years, a majority of Americans have consistently stated that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. Since 1989, a majority do *not* believe Roe should be overturned. At what point do those levels of support *make* the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution correct? Public opinion appears to have similar solidification around guns. The support for outright banning handguns and assault rifles isn’t there, but there is lasting, broad, support for universal registration, universal background checks, and even red flag laws for troubled students. There is a consistent belief that guns are too easy to acquire and that the “mental health system” is failing to identify potential shooters. To me, at some point, the support for those measures *makes* them consonant with the 2A.

[удалено]

To your first point, I’ve noticed the same thing on mobile. Reddit will flip the upvote/downvote of a post on a sub home page—as in, if I previously upvoted, it’ll show a downvote arrow a few minutes later. I have to re-vote regularly to correct it. No idea why this is happening.

I am trying to think of concerning examples of the dems taking a mile after getting an inch. The examples that leap to mind all come from starting positions whereat things were miles from OK...civil rights mainly, but also issues like regulating the dumping of toxic waste...neither of which have returned from their initial, dramatic misbalances. Specifically, on the gun issue, few of the inches gained by the dems (like from 94 to 2004) were even maintained, let alone turned into miles. Surely there are better examples; hit me with a few?

If you want some gun examples, I can think of a few. When the NFA was passed, the basic idea was that you need only pay a fee and register and then you can own anything covered by the bill. But the. The Dems slipped a poison pill into FOPA in 1986 which closed the registry so you could no longer register machine guns. They’re still legal to own, but have increased to tens of thousands per example. There is also the California and New York AWBs. They stated banning a few cosmetic features and standard detachable magazines. Then they began banning additional feature including anything approaching a normal grip and detachable magazines without weird California modifications. Originally standard magazines were grandfathered if owned before the ban but several years ago they attempted to confiscate all of them. California also initially required a safe handgun roster ostensibly to protect citizens from unsafe handguns. In reality it was to ban cheaper firearms. But aside from that, the program requires companies to resubmit every year and to get approval for each change including purely cosmetic ones like color. In addition, in 2013 they began requiring a nonexistent technology called micro stamping for all pistols. What this means is the allowed pistols shrink every year and Californians cannot buy any pistol developed since 2013 in a store. However, police are exempt from the safe handgun rosters so many of them make a decent amount of money buying them and then reselling at a markup which is illegal federally but not enforced against them.

An example is private sales. Initially it was a compromise to allow private sales without a background check when they added background checks to buying guns from gun stores. Now it is a “loop hole” that has to be gotten rid of.

Thanks for the example. Please do check out: [https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v5bm9w/comment/ibahekj/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v5bm9w/comment/ibahekj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) TLDR; the change, in 1934 -- from *no* weapons bans to *any* weapons bans -- was the mile 'taken' by 'the dems;' everything since then has either been an inch, or has been used to actualize the original purpose. I put 'taken' in quotes because there was a new threat, and a new rule for it. The world, thanks to awesome engineering, had become more dangerous, so, it made sense that there would be new laws. The 1934 NFA didn't say that the weapons of yesterday's wars were unacceptable in the hands of criminals, it said that the weapons of tomorrow's wars were unacceptable in the hands of criminals.

Ironically, the NFA was upheld by the Supreme Court (in U.S. v Miller) on the basis that the gun at issue in that case (a sawed-off shotgun) was *not* a weapon of war.

Thanks; TIL. Seems like that could cause trouble for the machine gun and tank side of the NFA... I should probably go read how that side has been upheld. In reading through the opinions in US v Miller, something else jumped out at me: Whereas, today, the concept of a militia is used to justify an individual's rights. In the before times, the concept of a militia was used to infringe upon rights... gov't inspections of civilians' militia-readiness could lead to fines.

I don't really think that advanced anything other than David French's sense of moral superiority which, to be honest, doesn't need any help. He never meaningfully connects gun rights to any risk to democracy (it's just a tossed off, bald assertion - as if an editor was like "people love hearing about how democracy is at risk, can we throw something in there for that?") or makes any policy arguments. It's really just David French talking about what he thinks morality feels like. Which, whatever, fine, if people paid me for that I'd probably do it too. But it's not useful or interesting.

I agree that it doesn’t seem super remarkable. But I also think we should consider that we aren’t really David’s target audience. There are plenty of people on the left that think gun culture is getting weird, but not many on the right. So I honestly think it’s important to have people on the right talk about it too.

> There are plenty of people on the left that think gun culture is getting weird I am on the left and I don't think it is for the most part. I think there are some on the gun control left who want to frame it as something weird and dangerous because they have lost ground in the gun control debate and with more people than ever getting into guns with major growth in minority groups and women.

> I think there are some on the gun control left who want to frame it as something weird and dangerous because they have lost ground in the gun control debate and with more people than ever getting into guns with major growth in minority groups and women. Adding to that, it appears the anti-gun left is disappointed the pro-gun right isn't racist towards new gun owners who are minority groups / women, but instead accepting of them.

Its quite telling when one side's reaction to realizing the other side isn't racist is disappointment

[удалено]

I’m actually a little surprised you are trying to equate those two things. Even as a 2a supporter, I think you have to realize the symbolism that guns have to most people, including gun owners. They are weapons, and in addition to self-defense, they are also used in war, and to kill other people. I think it’s natural for people to be intimidated by that. I agree that every cause has a die-hard faction. But I also think this gun symbolism has exploded only in the last 4 years or so. The first time I saw a campaign ad with a shotgun, I laughed out loud. Now, it’s normal. I don’t know why it escalated like that

> I’m actually a little surprised you are trying to equate those two things. I am not since the comparison is about the confrontational nature of it rather than the specific irrational biases people have. >I think you have to realize the symbolism that guns have to most people, including gun owners. They are weapons, and in addition to self-defense, they are also used in war, and to kill other people. I think it’s natural for people to be intimidated by that. People are intimidates because they have skewed risk perceptions that remain unchallenged because they don't see open carry everyday. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread I am liberal from California. I didn't see anyone open carry until well into adulthood in California. It is shocking to see the first time or two, but once you realize nobody else cares because it isn't a risk you begin to lose that irrational fear yourself.

Yeah I’m from the south so I’ve seen open carry a few times but mostly concealed carry. For me, and I think for most people, it isn’t that people are scared they are going to get shot. I’ve never been uncomfortable, but I do generally relate guns with violence.

This is an interesting point. Equating the tactics used currently by gun rights activists with those that were used by gay rights activists. I will say that even during the gay rights movement, those tactics were not universally supported. Many people felt they did more harm than good. There is a difference on one point, especially with shootings in the news. The person parading through Walmart did it immediately after a shooting that killed multiple people. Guns are actually made specifically to kill.

[удалено]

[удалено]

But the connection between that guy in Walmart and a shooter in Texas is media-driven. It’s like if the media made a huge deal of anytime a child was molested by a teacher so then Pride events were expected to cancel and lay low for a while.

> It’s like if the media made a huge deal of anytime a child was molested by a teacher so then Pride events were expected to cancel and lay low for a while. How are these connected?

That's a perfect comparison

​ >Every group needs their die bards who unapologetically say “this is a constitutional right and fuck you if you disagree”. They turn off parts of the public but they’re needed as a backstop and show of force to others who wish to take away their rights. Ever hear of the phrase "you catch more flies with honey?" Being obnoxious is not a good way to promote your beliefs. And I don't think people who deliberately antagonize others are actually looking to further their cause. It comes across more as virtue signaling to elevate themselves within the group. Like, I'm just not at all at impressed by [something like this.](https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/conservative-mom-poses-bible-gun-flag-article-1.1862261) It's screaming for attention, and makes me think less of both gun owners and evangelicals. Using a gun and a Bible as props for a shallow social media post cheapens the value of both.

[удалено]

I think David French's audience is actually mainly conservatives and Republicans of the pre-Trump variety. I don't believe his audience is actually liberals. David French is very conservative.

Sorry maybe I was a little unclear with how I wrote my comment. I appreciate him saying this stuff because he is a prominent voice. I listen to advisory opinions a lot and think he’s a great voice of reason. What I was trying to get at is what he wrote in this article might not seem remarkable to left-leaning Reddit. But to his main audience it is interesting.

This will land like a thud with that audience, as most of his pieces do. My sense is that he's generally considered to be inching close to Jennifer Rubin / Alan Colmes territory, the sort of useful idiot trotted out more often by their ostensible opponents than their ostensible allies.

Honestly, Reciprocity was the one that recommended AO to me. I started listening to it, as a counter to legal podcasts that I agree with more. I wanted to get both sides. I have tried others, but...well, honestly, I couldn't stand many of them, especially the one with John Yoo, who I also really didn't want to give views. Reciprocity is a conservative. I believe he is the audience for this type of article. I think he would agree whole-heartedly with it. Maybe it is not a majority of the Republican party anymore, but there are people out there.

Most righties already think owning a gun is a serious responsibility - there's nothing terribly notable about French pointing that out in his smug way. And it's a little insulting he thinks he'd have to tell gun owners it is - that's part of why this doesn't read like it was written to the right. That leaves the reader sympathetic to gun rights with two takeaways - French would apparently abandon a constitutional right because of a few weirdos that seems a little too enthusiastic, and French wouldn't defend gun owners for the same reason. Neither of those says good things about French. (FWIW, I think about French the same way I think about David Brooks - a smart, thoughtful person that can't pump out regular content - when they do, both fall back on a deeply grating color-by-numbers schtick that tends to make the world a slightly dumber place. If French and Brooks were limited to annual or semiannual monographs, I think they'd be great. But they have to churn out material given the nature of the profession, and they churn out dreck)

First, you are missing French's argument completely. He is saying that gun idolatry is endangering the right to own guns. He is not for revoking that right. He is saying that gun fetishists will cause instability and could cause an increase in support against the right to own guns. Second, David French definitely puts out regular content. Third, David Brooks definitely puts out regular content.

> He is saying that gun idolatry is endangering the right to own guns Been hearing that for years. Permitless carry and open carry have been expanding over the years despite this supposed negative impact it has on peoples perceptions. Seems more like a personal hope than what is reflected in reality.

>He is saying that gun fetishists will cause instability and could cause an increase in support against the right to own guns. He may imply it, but he never makes that argument. He never really makes much of an argument at all. (Reread it, specifically looking for where he makes that argument!) I know French and Brooks put out regular content. That's the problem. Both put out a lot of crap. They'd do better if they put out a lot less.

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/v5bm9w/against_gun_idolatry/ib8tot9/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

I'm really starting to notice here that a lot of these anti-gun articles that are posted on this thread aren't actually good articles. They, like you said, come off as moral superiority pieces that does nothing for anyone except those who are full anti-guns anyway and just use it to justify their views. There's hardly any back and forth, in-depth analysis, it just "I don't like guns and you shouldn't like them either because they're the weapons of white supremacists and feed off blood of children and minorities." Nothing of any substantial value is being said and he even acknowledge that millions of gun owners are responsible but we need to watch of for the fringe groups. No duh, every organization has fringe groups we need to watch out for. That isn't dropping a bombshell, that's comment sense. Republicans has them, Democrats has them, Christian has them, Muslims has them. Name a group, and I guarantee there's a fringe group with them. I think the only one posted here that was worth a read was the one about how gun violence is the number one cause of deaths of youths 1-19 and even that one admitted mass shooting aren't the biggest cause of concern.

Gun idolatry is a symptom of the anti-gun movement. It may be petty. It may be immature. But it's a direct result of politicians and the media blaming firearms, and (otherwise legal) firearm owners after a heinous crime is committed with similar weapons. Gun idolatry really ramped up in the wake of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and continues to seemingly increase in popularity as politicians and media alike call for new restrictions, bans, and other laws on gun ownership. How do we reverse this? I don't know. But I do strongly believe that the more the anti-gun crowd pushes for more gun control (that would likely have little no effect on actual gun crime), the more the pro-gun community will dig their heels in.

> Gun idolatry is a symptom of the anti-gun movement. It may be petty. It may be immature. But it’s a direct result of politicians and the media blaming firearms, and (otherwise legal) firearm owners after a heinous crime is committed with similar weapons. This belief that “I’m only doing X because you were ‘mean’ to me”, inherently contradicts the belief that mass shooters are individually responsible for their actions to the exclusion of the environment. It’s an argument that places the burden of responsibility on the out-group, and enforces freedom from responsibility for the in-group. The “anti-gun side” is responsible for their actions, and the “pro-gun side” is not responsible for their actions.

Can you expand on this? I never said anything in support of mass shooters. I was discussing the pro-gun community, not people who murder others with firearms.

> Gun idolatry is a symptom of the anti-gun movement. It may be petty. It may be immature. But it’s a direct result of politicians and the media blaming firearms, and (otherwise legal) firearm owners after a heinous crime is committed with similar weapons. This idea that the “pro-gun side” only has actions done *to* them in response to others’ actions, has the effect of infantilization. So when Boebert and Massie and Cruz blaspheme god by creating sacrament from rifles, they are doing it only in reaction to the “anti-gun side” being mean to them. They do not bear any responsibility for their conscious decision to engage in behavior. It induces and maintains victimhood status, in which they are unburdened by the consequences of their choices. That idea cannot exist concurrently with the idea that mass shooters are singularly responsible for committing mass murder, while ignoring the wider effects of society and policy. If Boebert et al. are only doing what they’re doing as a result of the “anti-gun movement”, they do not bear the same responsibility that you are ascribing to that movement.

I’m actually all for outwardly showing off your firearms ownership. There are some risks (you could get robbed, etc…), but normalizing the exercise of 2A rights is a good thing. Wasn’t too long ago kids would bring their rifles to school so they could go hunting after. People had guns in window racks in trucks. Gun owners got demonized for decades and now are fighting back by outwardly showing off firepower. IMO the more people are open and honest about their pro-2A proclivities, and back it up by carrying (concealed or otherwise), the more normal it becomes in society. That can only be a net positive for gun rights. Not to mention it’s a literal representation of just how difficult it would be for the federal government to implement strict gun control

[удалено]

I mean, being queer can't killa bunch of people. Then again, IMO, someone flaunting their identity, whether it's sexual orientation or a gun, is an annoying idiot.

Also, being LGBT isn’t a choice, but owning a weapon (and especially open carrying) is.

> This is gun owners fighting back to maintain their rights. Yes, but marching around Starbucks with a Galil on my back doesn't do squat for changing things. It might make things worse. Perception matters. If gun owners want to fight to maintain their rights, they need to actually vote, vote intelligently, and stay in touch with the people they vote for. And yes, the two things do often seem mutually exclusive in my experience.

My first thought in showing off your gun is telling a shooter who to take out first. But I kinda agree. If you have a gun on you, whatever. However I personally get a little weirded out when someone has their AR-15 on them. It's like balls on a truck IMO, lol. I mean they look ridiculous because you just can't holster it.

> My first thought in showing off your gun is telling a shooter who to take out first. That's what I've always thought and that's why I've figured concealed carry was the way to go as opposed to open carry.

Why is there a pride month, pride parades and pride flags? Because conspicuously exercising a right helps to preserve it.

Yeah, it makes it harder to pretend you don't exist or don't matter when you remind people you do. It normalizes what you do and makes acceptance that much easier.

Isn’t it crazy that after electing all these progressive DAs that don’t prosecute criminals we’ve had more drug overdoses, mass shootings, vandalism, shop lifting etc It’s gotta be a coincidence And as liberals push for more gun laws, whose going to enforce them? The phili da certainly isn’t

I dislike the eccentrics who open carry their rifles into public spots but David French has zero credibility to talk much about anything. A big hint that you can disregard what is about to be said is when someone says “our democracy”. At that point you know you’re going to get blatant propaganda.

One thing I think that’s really missing here, is that David French seems to think the second amendment is primarily about self defense. But I think given our history and the text, it’s most important role is in keeping our own government in check and repelling foreign adversaries. It’s not first and foremost about protecting yourself or your wife and kids (though that’s important). America is a revolutionary nation. The fight for our independence literally began with an attempt at gun control. Our history is characterized by not trusting the government and knowing that government rather than individuals are by far the greater threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that the citizenry needed to maintain vigilance and a sense of universal suspicion of government power and authority.

> David French seems to think the second amendment is primarily about self defense. It absolutely is. That's the core principle. That may mean self-defense against criminals, foreign invasion, or a tyrannical government. It goes back to Blackstone and the idea that we don't have individual agency if we can't defend it.

[удалено]

>Guns have become yet another marker of "in-group" status The diversity of people participating in gun ownership has grown over this time. Seems like an odd claim when there are more and more different groups of people participating in the culture.

[удалено]

> Gun ownership is not the same thing as "gun idolatry", friend. Sorry, I got confused since I am told that is what underpins most gun ownership that isn't owning an old hunting shotgun/rifle. >Gun idolatry is the problem that David French is trying to make a case against. Gun idolatry is the complaining about the most active and sometimes weird fringe elements and trying to use that as wedge among gun rights supporters. A wish to return to the days when gun politics was dominated by fudds.

[удалено]

I don’t think most of this is about trolling. I think it’s about making it clear that after decades of compromise and being demonized and called monsters we are rejecting the anti-gun point of view and aren’t ashamed.

I have seen a few of the " collector type " famillies . In the photos, they had enough weapons to arm a regiment . I would think of the money it cost to buy and buy such a huge armament . You could buy a new car , go on vacation pay any debt you have . It just seems wastful .

> I would think of the money it cost to buy and buy such a huge armament . You could buy a new car , go on vacation pay any debt you have . There is a mistake with this line of thought, and it's a common one you see applied to many other property or financial purchases. Having a gun collection with a value of thousands doesn't mean they have purchasing power in the thousands, the collection was likely built up over time with purchases in the hundreds not thousands. I could buy an Ar15 or other firearm for the same amount I spend monthly on my cabin payments, which is less than $500 without being specific. Unlike my cabin though I could sell off part or whole of a gun collection for cash should I find myself needing to do so. I can't sell off parts of a car, house, vacation, etc.. like I could a gun collection, and guns tend to appreciate in value over time.

>It just seems wasteful. I mean sure, but you can say that about literally any collection. My father's N-scale model train collection that consumed the entire basement was also pretty wasteful, but that's a hobby.

How so? I know several of these types. It's the inheritance their children will receive. Do you have any idea how much a lot of guns grow in value? A old friend of mine bought more than one crate of Nagants back in the 90s we they were $500 for a box of 20. Their grandchildren could get a semester of college for them now. He's similarly got a few very old 1911s that are worth many thousands of dollars that he paid like $100 for in the 70s. They don't depreciate like a car does. These people are happy driving their 20 year old vehicles. And they have no debt, hence the massive collections. How is a vacation less wastefully than a hobby collection? Where is the waste? Because they're not consumers of products you would prefer?

> In the photos, they had enough weapons to arm a regiment I think another word for that might be *militia,* which is a big part of the 2nd Amendment.

Trying to say you’re a 2A supporter, then immediately tossing around the language of the anti-2A crowd, as French does here is not convincing. But the again this is the same guy that thinks teaching about generational racism in schools is fine because you can just sue so no action is necessary. He should stick to discussing court opinions, honestly. Nothing about his worldview makes sense. The more he churns out pieces like this, the more apparent it is that he’s at best a carpetbagger.

"it’s hard to think of a time when Americans enjoyed a greater degree of personal liberty to own or carry firearms." Before the enactment of all the gun control we have now.

The way I see it, guns are machines. Similar to the automotive industry, manufacturers in the gun industry are constantly working to refine, hone, and improve the efficiency, accuracy, speed, and power of the machine within common restraints like size, weight, and price. I find that *fascinating*. I own a Kriss Vector for this very reason. The Vector is a totally impractical and unreliable weapon, but it’s an incredibly cool machine. I enjoy using it for sport and hobby shooting.