I'm pro-Second Amendment, but

A lot of firearm collectors insist that the government is out to get them and everyone else and establish a nightmarish police state. They also think that disorganized and spread-out civilians with small arms can defeat such a tyrannical and ridiculously powerful government. The NRA is less an association of rifle owners than a lobby group that demands people only vote based on "gun rights". Needless to say, I don't trust such people.
 
I think both the Far Right and the Far Left do a great job of alienating the majority and keeping most people centrist

I tend to agree with the above. Plus, its the fanatics that make the news.

Regarding the OP's question: I'm a gun owner and pro-second amendment, but the type of person your talking about, I stay away from. Actually, any kind of far left/right about anything I stay away from.
 
From your profile I assume you're a young person, so you may just not be aware that we are in the later stages of societal conflict over gun ownership. The 1970's were the peak period, when "gun control" meant eliminating gun ownership altogether. It was during those years when many cities and some states enacted legislation banning or restricting possession of firearms. Since the 80's there has been a long, slow recovery of gun owner's rights.

So gun collectors are not entirely like collectors of cars, insects, coins, stamps, etc.
They are collectors who have been the victims of smear campaigns, ridicule ("gun nut") and denial of rights. So unlike a stamp collector, a gun collector is a bit defensive and somewhat bitter, and perhaps a little celebratory over recent court rulings and state laws that have finally gone his way.

This doesn't really make that much sense to me. What is it about being deprived of gun ownership rights that makes gun owners want to overcompensate in such hilariously excessive ways? I can't bring myself to believe that gun owners actually feel victimized and cling to their guns harder as a result.

EDIT:

A lot of firearm collectors insist that the government is out to get them and everyone else and establish a nightmarish police state.

Why? Why do they think this?
 
Flamethrowers wouldn't work well. Zombies don't feel pain so they just keep walking around setting things on fire which wouldn't bode well.

But they're also stupid so the other things they are setting on fire are other zombies.

Maybe I just like fire.

Why? Why do they think this?

Because of the systematic removal of individual rights over time? It's just a flat out truth that we have less rights now than we did when the US was set up, the government has more say in what we can and cannot do and injects itself into more aspects of our lives. For some that is okay, but for those who believe in individual liberty as the highest good it's a terrifying thought. I'm not ultra extreme about it by any means but I can see their point without a telescope from where I am. The government takes a little right here, imposes a little control there, and at the time it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it adds up, because once something is taken we historically almost never get it back. To some (not saying they're right, just describing their position) this is seen as an attack on their very beliefs, their personal freedom, and even the principles that the country was founded on.
 
One of the government's primary duties is to protect its people. An individual has the right to harm himself, but he does not have the right to harm other people or wider society. So-called ''rights'' are a balancing act between the individual and society, and it is right that some damaging or harmful behaviors are legislated against, and it is right that certain products are restricted or prohibitted.

People cannot be allowed to do whatever they please without a thought for the other people they are affecting.
 
So gun collectors are not entirely like collectors of cars, insects, coins, stamps, etc.
They are collectors who have been the victims of smear campaigns, ridicule ("gun nut") and denial of rights.
Yes, I'm sure Stamp Collectors have never had to put up with ridicule.
 
One of the government's primary duties is to protect its people. An individual has the right to harm himself, but he does not have the right to harm other people or wider society.

That's the idea, but the US government doesn't limit itself to that, it also feels it has the purview to protect us from ourselves, see for example prohibition of marijuana and other drugs. By the way, the "right to harm wider society" is a bad phrasing, who decides what harms wider society? For example, I believe that promoting superstitious magical thought over rationalism harms wider society, so religion should be banned? No. That phrase is much much too broad and has a different definition for every individual. The government's job should be to protect us from each other and that's it. I already have parents, I don't need Big Daddy Government being a third one.
 
Originally Posted by bill as proposed
Privacy of Firearm Owners: Provides that licensed practitioner or facility may not record firearm ownership information in patient's medical record; provides exception; provides that unless information is relevant to patient's medical care or safety or safety of others, inquiries regarding firearm ownership or possession should not be made; provides exception for EMTS & paramedics; provides that patient may decline to provide information regarding ownership or possession of firearms; clarifies that physician's authority to choose patients is not altered; prohibits discrimination by licensed practitioners or facilities based solely on patient's firearm ownership or possession; prohibits harassment of patient regarding firearm ownership during examination; prohibits denial of insurance coverage, increased premiums, or other discrimination by insurance companies issuing policies on basis of insured's or applicant's ownership, possession, or storage of firearms or ammunition; clarifies that insurer is not prohibited from considering value of firearms or ammunition in setting personal property premiums; provides for disciplinary action.

In their fervor to protect the second amendment they are still arguably running afoul of the first. Isn't one of the wacko slogans "we need the second to protect the first" or something? Is this some sort of insane perversion of this principle that will cause a libertarian gun owner's head to collapse in on itself in a space time logic paradox-vortex?

Also I wonder how many other completely irrelevant or horrible things insurers can increase your premium over, or just outright deny you for, in Florida? I think that is a completely twisted set of priorities.

This law is an excellent example of taking gun ownership to crazy, wacky levels.
 
Levitt wrote about this in Freakonomics. The pool has 100:1 odds on killing your kid compared to the gun.

Indeed, and the interesting thing is that the mitigation is essentially the same for both - lock up the danger and only allow access under adult supervision until you've educated your child about the dangers and taught them to swim/shoot safely.
 
Levitt wrote about this in Freakonomics. The pool has 100:1 odds on killing your kid compared to the gun.
Indeed, and the interesting thing is that the mitigation is essentially the same for both - lock up the danger and only allow access under adult supervision until you've educated your child about the dangers and taught them to swim/shoot safely.
You're making my point for me. They can and do. They are ALLOWED to discuss this because its common sense to do so. Same w/ gun safety as a child health concern.
 
But what has it to do with medical care? I physician is there to provide medical care, not be a nanny.
 
My dad "collects" guns. It's not because he likes the way they look, or their names, or their history (though they do factor it.) It's because they are fun to shoot.

He recently bought a Taurus Judge for me, and I gotta say, its versatility and power makes it extremely fun to shoot.

I will admit, we did start buying more when Obama became President, but so far that hasn't been a real big issue.
 
I will admit, we did start buying more when Obama became President, but so far that hasn't been a real big issue.

That's interesting. You've gotta give it up for the firearms manufacturers - they know a savvy marketing opportunity when they see one, and have no problem taking advantage of (or even intentionally contributing to) their customers' fear and anxiety.
 
One of the government's primary duties is to protect its people. An individual has the right to harm himself, but he does not have the right to harm other people or wider society. So-called ''rights'' are a balancing act between the individual and society, and it is right that some damaging or harmful behaviors are legislated against, and it is right that certain products are restricted or prohibitted.

People cannot be allowed to do whatever they please without a thought for the other people they are affecting.

Owning a gun does not harm anyone. In fact, it helps reduce crime. Next!
 
That's interesting. You've gotta give it up for the firearms manufacturers - they know a savvy marketing opportunity when they see one, and have no problem taking advantage of (or even intentionally contributing to) their customers' fear and anxiety.
Hey now, that's not being fair to the NRA!
 
Indeed, and the interesting thing is that the mitigation is essentially the same for both - lock up the danger and only allow access under adult supervision until you've educated your child about the dangers and taught them to swim/shoot safely.

You're making my point for me. They can and do. They are ALLOWED to discuss this because its common sense to do so. Same w/ gun safety as a child health concern.

Well, making our points for us, given that I'm in agreement regarding pediatricians being allowed to talk to their patients' parents or guardians about this topic. :)
 
Well, making our points for us, given that I'm in agreement regarding pediatricians being allowed to talk to their patients' parents or guardians about this topic. :)
Sorry, was speaking more to Ama as I'd wager he supports the FLA law.
 
Owning a gun does not harm anyone. In fact, it helps reduce crime. Next!

re this post (and the Ekolite post in that you quoted): That's not what I'm trying to discuss in this thread.
 
Top Bottom