Having a CCW and carrying a gun does NOT make me a "rugged individualist."

[GreenStormCloud]

In general, progressive tend to favor taking problem to the collective for aid in solving the problem. Conservatives tend to favor solving all your problems youself, without regard to how your solution impacts others. Because one of the basic functions of government, which I call the collective, is the safety of the members of the group, many progressives fear that when a person gets a gun for self-defense that they have abandoned the group in favor of Individualism. But a closer look shows that this is often not the case at all.

I have a Concealed Handgun License, and carry all the time, and am a progressive. The difference is that I do so with the blessings of the collective. The Individualist would simply put on his gun and give not thought to the law. But I actively sought the blessing of the collective and sough permission to go armed. To do that I had to do several things:

Demonstrate that for my life I have been a good citizen of the collective. I had to allow our highest police agency to investigate my background. I was found to have never in my life committed any anti-social acts of even minor proportions.

Take classes in the laws of the collective for when lethal-force may be used in self-defense.

Have my identity verified by photograph and fingerprinting by the collective.

Demonstrate proficiency with a handgun to an agent of the collective. That is so that other members will not be harmed by my shots.

Pay a fee to the collective for their efforts in education me and maintaining the records.

Wherever I go, my guns serve the collective. I am not an LEO, but I am still a member of the collective. I assist in making it dangerous for ultra-extremist individualists (Commonly called street criminals.) to attack members of the collective because there is the chance that they might select me instead of a helpless member. I have not become a conservative. I do seek to educate fellow progressives that personal gun ownership and self-defense serves the collective.

[patrice]

1. Pleased to meet you. K&R

[Atypical Liberal]

2. "All it takes is one gun carrier to ignore the collective."

This will be the argument used against you. That all it takes is one gun owner who doesn't consider the collective, and that is sufficient excuse to disarm all the ones who do.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Some don't. They are often called "stret criminals". N/T

[KansasVoter]

3. Is this a parody of CCW people or are you serious?

[GreenStormCloud]

7. I have had a CHL for years.

Have you been to that CCW class yet that you said you were going to take? How did it go?

[KansasVoter]

8. I moved it to spring. And for some reason that pissed off people here.

[cleanhippie]

31. No one was pissed off at you. Most thought pewhaps you had made it up, considering...

you posted about it repeatedly, then went silent for some time, then when active, you ignored the questions, and now you say you post-poned it.
No one is/was "pissed" at you.

[Kolesar]

4. "many progressives fear that when a person gets a gun for self-defense that they have abandoned ..."

"... the group in favor of Individualism"

Well, that's news to me! Does anybody here know anything about that?

[spin]

5. The question might well be, "Can the group protect me in case I am attacked?"

If the answer is, "No", then owning and even carrying a firearm for self defense is a valid choice.

That in no way means everyone should own a firearm for self defense. That's a choice that deserves careful thought.

[Kolesar]

10. No, that not what OP GreenCloud said

Nothing like that

[GreenStormCloud]

26. "spin" was kind of close.

He has read a lot of my posts and fairly well knows how I think on guns. I was trying to be a bit more general than he was.

Back in the early 1980s I was trying to figure out why so many other liberals were anti-gun. In fact, at the time some liberal states and cities were outlawing personal defense sprays. I could not understand why it should be illegal for a person to carry Mace. Then I realized that they were viewing self-defense, especially with guns as a gateway to becoming a conservative. A person was undertaking to do for themselves what other liberals though the government should do. If a person felt that the government could not be relied up on to protect them and that they must do that vital function for themselves, then what else might they decide to do for themselves? As I though about it more I realized that personal self-defense is a supplement to, and strengthens, society.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. You see it often in items written against guns.

The most common expression of it is the advise:

"Call the police. Aren't they there to protect you?" No, they aren't.

"Don't take the law into your own hands." Self-defense is not about that.

"It is against the law to be a vigilante." Self-defense is not about vigilantism.

At the root of all of those is the fear that guns are a gateway drug to becomeing a conservative.

[Kolesar]

11. "the fear that guns are a gateway drug to becoming a conservative."

Well, that's news to me! Does anybody here know anything about that?

[shadowrider]

16. Spend enough time on this board and you'll see how pro-2A

dems are told they're conservative or at the least RW.

Happens all the time.

[Kolesar]

20. gateway drug?

lol

[spin]

12. Owning a firearm is a very liberal and progressive idea ...

Power to the people!

[X_Digger]

13. When we have posters saying that an individual should rely on the police for protection..

.. is that not the perfect example of such thinking?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

15. Here in NH...

our new legislature has decided to appease the TPers in lots and lots of ways

One is to allow guns into the State House. The State House where children visit, where tempers flair...
Nothing will do for these people who demand their right to be un"infringed" upon but total freedom to carry.
No training, no fingerprinting, no photo... and as far as I can tell no one is denied a license for any reason.
People who've had standoff with police even get their guns back!


These people are not thinking of the collective, many have said they will not shoot to defend anyone other than themselves.

As a thoughtful gun owner - can you help us - what's the solution?

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Your post brings two questions to mind:

1. Can you explain why next-door Vermont is not awash in blood?

They in fact do have exactly what you are so afraid of:

total freedom to carry.
No training, no fingerprinting, no photo... and as far as I can tell no one is denied a license for any reason.

.

2. Why do you believe that gun owners have some sort of duty to defend others?:

These people are not thinking of the collective, many have said they will not shoot to defend anyone other than themselves.

Even COPS have no legal duty to protect anyone (save persons in custody).

[Tesha]

33. that you have to ask...

tells me loads.

Vermont is a very - very different from NH.
NH is famous for that iconoclastic image of a man with a gun strapped to his leg during a visit by Obama.
The nuts have seized control of the state because of the huge dump of money from corporations last fall.
We HAD equal marriage - that's going soon.
The legislature is trying to de-fund schools and remove the arts and foreign languages from schools.
They are trying to remove from their pledge any reference to the federal government.

We're being turned over to the fundie TPers and the violence and aggression is evident everywhere.
Think AZ - the atmosphere here is poisonous.

So why do you think I want to keep some places gun free?

[PavePusher]

36. I was open carrying at one of Rep. Giffords events two years ago.

What's the problem here?

[Tesha]

37. I don't understand your question n/t

[PavePusher]

39. You wrote:

"NH is famous for that iconoclastic image of a man with a gun strapped to his leg during a visit by Obama."

...which seemed to be implying that a Citizen peacefully bearing arms anywhere in the vicinity of a pol is somehow ungood, without regard to inention.

I was trying to demonstrate that it is not really a problem when done by the vast majority of people.

Perhaps I misread your statements?

[Tesha]

41. No, you misread NH

Many of the folks that work in the State House are seeing that the change is an attempt at intimidation,
and from some of the comments on the local boards, there is much anger and hate... violent stuff.

Shoot 'em up - the local pol is calling Dems "vermin" -

[oneshooter]

42. And Dems have said worse, about other Dems. n/t

[Tesha]

43. Its one thing

to have a disagreement with one person...
to react to a situation,

but any person who self-identifies as Dem is considered a "target" and is "vermin".


We've seen the real crazies elected this year - real crazies...

[PavePusher]

44. I was born there (Hanover).

And I've lived there and in Vermont of and on over the last 40-odd years.

I'm not up-to-date on the current politics there, can you point to some articles/cites demonstrating your assertions? TIA.

[Tesha]

46. If all you knew was

that the Tea Party has taken control - you would know everything you need to know about how bad it is here...

Go look at some of the bills proposed.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/Default.aspx


The previous legislature gave us Marriage Equality
this one repeals the law against carrying a cocked crossbow in your vehicle.

[PavePusher]

47. Yep, HB 0437 is stupid and mean, no argument there.

The crossbow "issue"... who cares?

The stove polish law... stuff like that does need to be repealed, the sad part is that silly shit like that was ever passed in the first place.

Laws should be about actual important stuff. When you pass laws on stupid issues, you merely diminish the good ones.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. "So why do you think I want to keep some places gun free?" It's obvious.

You don't like the politics of many of your fellow Granite Staters. Apparently, they can't be trusted with the same rights that

those nice people in Vermont have.


I doubt you could have made a more blatant call for a political test to be able to carry a gun.

[Tesha]

45. now, why didn't I think of that?

good grief! this is serious and you play at children's taunts.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. It is a non-problem. You are hand-wringing over nothing.

Here in Texas we have been able to bring guns into the statehouse ever since we adopted concealed carry in 1995. Nothing has happened. Some other states also allow it, and it hasn't been a problem for them either.

[Tesha]

32. gosh... thanks for your help n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

17. The individual is dead. Long live the collective.

Can't say as I go for the term "collective." One of the changes I noticed after we emigrated here in 1954, while my English was poor, the teachers here never told me it was my duty to the State to inform on my parents like they had back in East Germany.

[guitar man]

18. Me either

I wouldn't call myself a "rugged individualist" but I am a pretty damn rugged individual. I get that from my Dad, who was also a rugged individual and a progressive who belonged to a collective called the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

I also see the rights of responsible gun owners as a progressive value. :hi:

[flamin lib]

19. Gee, someone who can embrace the laws about gun and gun owner

regulation is a rare find here--or on any gun forum. Glad to meet you and I'd happily share public space with you without fear.

Moderation is such a rare thing here . . .

[benEzra]

21. Not so rare here on DU, methinks.

Probably not as rare elsewhere as is commonly portrayed, either.

My own experience is similar to the OP's. I hold a NC carry license, which involves Federal and state background checks, a mental health records check, an FBI fingerprint check, an 8-hour class on self-defense law using a state-developed curriculum taught by a state-licensed instructor, and a demonstration of live-fire proficiency with a handgun on a shooting range. I've also passed background checks when I purchased pretty much every gun I've ever bought.

I have repeated ad nauseaum on DU all the gun control regulation I do support, so I won't repeat that here. The executive summary is that I mostly support focused regulations aimed at criminal misuse, rather than regulations intended primarily to harass the lawful and responsible.

"Gun owner" as "wild eyed redneck" is primarily a media construct, rather than a reflection of reality.

[guitar man]

23. +1000

I have owned and enjoyed guns since I got my Daisy Red Ryder at age 8. Over the years I have owned a lot of them. I've hunted and shot targets for almost 40 years now and I've never killed anybody, never had an accident or injured anybody, threatened anybody or anything else. I have a child in the home and the guns stay locked up with trigger locks out of her reach.

I am for throwing the book at the criminals and the negligent and all for everything we can do to keep them away from the mentally unstable but dammit I'm none if those and neither are you, and there's nothing right about taking punitive measures against us when we've done nothing wrong.

[flamin lib]

24. Too bad the dozen or so "outspoken" RKBA born-agains drown

out those who have a more agnostic approach to gun ownership. I know you guys are out there, hell I'm one of you, but it's hard to speak past all the heat that produces no light.

Would that it were different . . .

[benEzra]

34. Well, support for reasonable restrictions goes only as far as *reasonable* restrictions.

Most of the new restrictions that have been proposed in the last several years (banning rifle and shotgun handgrips that stick out, 1860's-era capacity limits) are neither reasonable nor helpful, IMO.

[lawodevolution]

22. the collective itself doesn't want to issue CCWs

Because governments are jealous of power in the hands of the people. We the people forced our state governments to give us shall issue CCW, but if left up to the ruling class they'd all go back to may-discriminate CCW or no CCW or CCW only for politicians and rich people.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. I am using "collective" in a sort of idealized sense.

I use it to mean a government that is, with respect to guns, responsive to the will of the people as expressed by elections. IOW - I was using it to mean "society". But I wanted to avoid getting to specific as to which state because I didn't want to bring in other issues.

[Callisto32]

29. Hmmm.

An interesting way to define "individualist." I consider myself an individualist, but that doesn't mean that I count myself as a lone entity wandering the Earth only to my own advancement. I offer help when I can, and seek it when I need it. I do not initiate aggression against others, and expect them to do the same. I consider myself an individualist not because I consider myself separate from the rest of society, but because I try to be prepared to deal with things on my own, should the need arise. I believe that I cannot count on help being there when I need it, not that it is totally unavailable. The simple truth is that you often WON'T have support when you need it most. The problem comes not when society expects people to be productive contributors, but when "the collective" seeks to remove from its individual members the ability to provide for their own needs/desires. The collective is made up of individuals, and I think we get the best society when everyone is PREPARED to deal with their own issues, but WILLING to work with others.

[rrneck]

30. Well said. You just raised the bar here.

It will be interesting to see who is able to meet it.

[old mark]

35. Wish I could Rec this, but I'm late...thanks for the OP anyway!!! nt

[beevul]

40. Some folks have to be "rugged individualists"...

Some folks have to be "rugged individualists", due to where they're located.

That doesn't mean they don't acknowledge the collective.

My own example - Police and Fire are 30 minutes minimum. If its been raining all day, or snowing all day?

Not at all. School busses end up in ditches, and often, on their sides. Roads become impassible to all but those with 4 wheel drive, an iron will, and white knuckles.

Nearest neighbor? The close one moved to town, and now the closest is 2.5 miles.

We've gone without power for weeks at a time.

That doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the collective.

It does however, make clear, that sometimes, one size really doesn't fit all. Sometimes, you can't rely on the collective, and you HAVE to solve your problems yourself.

I agree with the premise of your post though.