There’s no need for you guys to trouble yourselves over this, your government and elected Officials will take care of it for you, just go about your business...
- Thread starter Anchor Zero Six
- Start date
OP suggests a Federal Centralized Big Govt. burfeaucratic process for purchase and use of firearms, a big fat centralized database, only one place to go for your firearm...then guess what.?.the govt. closes down that avenue ,and you are SOL...not a good plan! The founders did NOT want such a strong Central Govt.
OK now back to the airport to return home, all of this I was first aware on Monday on my way out of town for a conference.
I posted the question in the first place because it was asked of me in what became a very heated group text.
Friendships have ended, been called a racist, accused of white privilege, nazi, redneck etc etc. Not too concerned about it good to know where some folks stand on things fuk them. Next family and friend gathering should be fun.
What I found surprising was the opinions of some who were LE and fmr mil. who were there. They have flipped 180 on the subject completely now that they are close to an event. Its very different when you are on duty in harms way with an elevated situational awareness and your family is safe at home. I wont pretend to understand what that would be like but I would like to think it wouldn't change my thoughts on guns so drastically. I would like to think that at least but without being in that situation who can say. Maybe as time passes they will come back around to the way they felt before this went down and it just needs some time to pass.
I started the conversation much like most of you have replied in advocating no additional laws but more strict penalties and supported that position with Chicago and the ineffective shit show that model has been. They dont want to hear it.
I was singled out and asked directly what I thought should be done because I was first to make the remark to the effect of guns or no guns this guy was going to hurt people. My first reply was nothing needs to be changed as far as laws were concerned, it would not change the fact people died and were hurt as another way would have been used (plane and or bomb). They dont want to hear it.
Day later (Tuesday) I was again singled out but the question was rephrased as I tried to in the first post in the context of "If you had to suggest something and nothing was not an option" what would it be. I put some thought into it knowing it had flaws but I took a stab to answer the question these are/were friends and family not random internet strangers so I answered the question best as I could without resorting to "fuck off see amendment number 2" I honestly wanted to get a conversation going in the hope that maybe some points would shake out along the way.
Now the reaction here on Hide was not surprising I could have taken bets the replies would be what they were. What did surprise me was the majority of those I was in the conversation with (group text) didnt think it was enough. They dont want to hear it.
I have had the Constitutional argument for years with many of these people and know I'm the "Militant Gun Guy" in the group. I have repeatedly pointed out the 2A has dick shit to do with hunting. They dont want to hear it.
I pointed out that he was a pilot had explosives etc. They dont want to hear it.
I pointed out places and events in history when an armed society would have prevented evil from prevailing, that one got me labeled as "Bible Beater" so add that to the list. They dont want to hear it.
For most of them I can sort of understand that they have no context, the revolution and civil war were history lessons to them. They have not seen what happens in the rest of the world as they have always lived under an umbrella of safety. An event such as this seems unimaginable to them and they want or rather expect actions to be taken. They are not thinking about the ability to resit a tyrannical government. I will quote one reply that they "want to bring my kids to a show and not worry about what could happen." Think we all want that but thats not the world we live in so do your part and think about where you are taking them was my response. After that the real colorful language started and the entire conversation imploded and far as I know ended. Could be continuing I donno I jumped ship. They dont want to hear it.
Why share this will all of you? I rarely ever post in this section of SH but have come to know some of you over the years and I mostly assume we have a high Mil/LEO presence and most members are level headed and have great perspectives on many subjects.
Here is the rub and perhaps we can change the conversation because I'm out of ideas on how to get the point across. For the most part I think in most respects the folks I was in that conversation with are smart people but when this subject is broached any sense of logic or reason goes out the window and it becomes completely emotional. I repeated "They dont want to hear it" several times because that is how each exchange ended.
Problem with all of this is these people vote, they mostly have positions of influence in their jobs and social circles, that is to say generally their opinions are respected if not agreed with. To make it worse many of them I would not consider on the left but rather in the center, leaning one way or the other depending on the subject. The few that I knew were pro gun as mentioned have changed that stance except for one who was pissed he didnt have a gun at the time although not sure that would have done anything aside from potentially get shot by a cop. He bailed on the conversation early which is what I should have done but would that have supported our side of the argument, no. Foolishly in hindsight I thought I could talk a few off the ledge.
So this is the mindset of people we are trying to argue with. Can any of you say you have convinced an anti gunner to change their position using the 2A shall not be infringed argument? I cant despite trying my damnedest. People simply can not fathom their leaders would turn on them despite the fact its been going on in all of history.
Sitting in USO at airport now as I type this, CNN and FOX are on and the device not the person or motive is whats being discussed on both.
Both Dems, GOP's and now NRA are talking about banning an accessory.
We can discuss among similar minded people that no new laws are needed (I agree BTW) and even that many should be repealed. This dosnt change the fact that the discussion is being had now with or without our input. I get what many of you were saying or implying by not giving an inch and yes thats the stance that should be taken but since the days of the first AWB has that played out how we expected, no.
Getting frustrated with my inability to convey my thoughts effectively because I know people are not reading this as intended. Sorry about that I'm not a writer by any stretch. Much of the replies the last few days were pecked out on a phone.
If you do not interact in your daily lives with people of opposing views thats great good on you. I cant make that claim and I desperately want to effectively be able to support my position to non gun people in a manner they understand without simply trying to explain the 2A and why it exists or spewing some bumper sticker, Guns and Coffee-Cold Dead Hands type shit. People simply dont get the reason we have it.
Smart people. People who do and have served. People who go to church and volunteer. People who are generally good people.
Many in the discussion were not male and of those many are mothers of small children so the dont be a f-ing panty waste twat response wouldn't be as effective. Its a different level of conversation entirely when debating with mama bears. And here I was in the middle talking about the Constitution and tyranny. How do you think that played out when several of them were there and one couple almost brought their toddler but didnt because he was sick. I dont care how I looked at the end of it but frustrated that the total picture is not clear. Again they have my empathy as I know it was traumatizing but I was attempting to point out that the object was not at fault. It was like debating the past as an argument for the future when everybody is only focused on the now.
Getting ready to board soon. Maybe I didnt find the pearl of wisdom slam dunk I was looking for when I started the thread is so far as what gun owners would consider to be "sensible controls". I suspect soon we will see anything but sensible controls and be further away from the goal of zero restrictions. I mean hells bells I watched the vid of Charlie Rangal in 86 for the first time on Tuesday, I was like 11 years old and had no clue thats how that went down.
I know what the right answer is in the context of the constitution, that has not changed. I do appreciate the replies some valid points were made but nothing that I see as supporting a debate or discussion in our favor to win over those currently in opposition.
Going to stop the yodeling lessons for the dog, not productive.
Take Care and thanks
A06
I posted the question in the first place because it was asked of me in what became a very heated group text.
Friendships have ended, been called a racist, accused of white privilege, nazi, redneck etc etc. Not too concerned about it good to know where some folks stand on things fuk them. Next family and friend gathering should be fun.
What I found surprising was the opinions of some who were LE and fmr mil. who were there. They have flipped 180 on the subject completely now that they are close to an event. Its very different when you are on duty in harms way with an elevated situational awareness and your family is safe at home. I wont pretend to understand what that would be like but I would like to think it wouldn't change my thoughts on guns so drastically. I would like to think that at least but without being in that situation who can say. Maybe as time passes they will come back around to the way they felt before this went down and it just needs some time to pass.
I started the conversation much like most of you have replied in advocating no additional laws but more strict penalties and supported that position with Chicago and the ineffective shit show that model has been. They dont want to hear it.
I was singled out and asked directly what I thought should be done because I was first to make the remark to the effect of guns or no guns this guy was going to hurt people. My first reply was nothing needs to be changed as far as laws were concerned, it would not change the fact people died and were hurt as another way would have been used (plane and or bomb). They dont want to hear it.
Day later (Tuesday) I was again singled out but the question was rephrased as I tried to in the first post in the context of "If you had to suggest something and nothing was not an option" what would it be. I put some thought into it knowing it had flaws but I took a stab to answer the question these are/were friends and family not random internet strangers so I answered the question best as I could without resorting to "fuck off see amendment number 2" I honestly wanted to get a conversation going in the hope that maybe some points would shake out along the way.
Now the reaction here on Hide was not surprising I could have taken bets the replies would be what they were. What did surprise me was the majority of those I was in the conversation with (group text) didnt think it was enough. They dont want to hear it.
I have had the Constitutional argument for years with many of these people and know I'm the "Militant Gun Guy" in the group. I have repeatedly pointed out the 2A has dick shit to do with hunting. They dont want to hear it.
I pointed out that he was a pilot had explosives etc. They dont want to hear it.
I pointed out places and events in history when an armed society would have prevented evil from prevailing, that one got me labeled as "Bible Beater" so add that to the list. They dont want to hear it.
For most of them I can sort of understand that they have no context, the revolution and civil war were history lessons to them. They have not seen what happens in the rest of the world as they have always lived under an umbrella of safety. An event such as this seems unimaginable to them and they want or rather expect actions to be taken. They are not thinking about the ability to resit a tyrannical government. I will quote one reply that they "want to bring my kids to a show and not worry about what could happen." Think we all want that but thats not the world we live in so do your part and think about where you are taking them was my response. After that the real colorful language started and the entire conversation imploded and far as I know ended. Could be continuing I donno I jumped ship. They dont want to hear it.
Why share this will all of you? I rarely ever post in this section of SH but have come to know some of you over the years and I mostly assume we have a high Mil/LEO presence and most members are level headed and have great perspectives on many subjects.
Here is the rub and perhaps we can change the conversation because I'm out of ideas on how to get the point across. For the most part I think in most respects the folks I was in that conversation with are smart people but when this subject is broached any sense of logic or reason goes out the window and it becomes completely emotional. I repeated "They dont want to hear it" several times because that is how each exchange ended.
Problem with all of this is these people vote, they mostly have positions of influence in their jobs and social circles, that is to say generally their opinions are respected if not agreed with. To make it worse many of them I would not consider on the left but rather in the center, leaning one way or the other depending on the subject. The few that I knew were pro gun as mentioned have changed that stance except for one who was pissed he didnt have a gun at the time although not sure that would have done anything aside from potentially get shot by a cop. He bailed on the conversation early which is what I should have done but would that have supported our side of the argument, no. Foolishly in hindsight I thought I could talk a few off the ledge.
So this is the mindset of people we are trying to argue with. Can any of you say you have convinced an anti gunner to change their position using the 2A shall not be infringed argument? I cant despite trying my damnedest. People simply can not fathom their leaders would turn on them despite the fact its been going on in all of history.
Sitting in USO at airport now as I type this, CNN and FOX are on and the device not the person or motive is whats being discussed on both.
Both Dems, GOP's and now NRA are talking about banning an accessory.
We can discuss among similar minded people that no new laws are needed (I agree BTW) and even that many should be repealed. This dosnt change the fact that the discussion is being had now with or without our input. I get what many of you were saying or implying by not giving an inch and yes thats the stance that should be taken but since the days of the first AWB has that played out how we expected, no.
Getting frustrated with my inability to convey my thoughts effectively because I know people are not reading this as intended. Sorry about that I'm not a writer by any stretch. Much of the replies the last few days were pecked out on a phone.
If you do not interact in your daily lives with people of opposing views thats great good on you. I cant make that claim and I desperately want to effectively be able to support my position to non gun people in a manner they understand without simply trying to explain the 2A and why it exists or spewing some bumper sticker, Guns and Coffee-Cold Dead Hands type shit. People simply dont get the reason we have it.
Smart people. People who do and have served. People who go to church and volunteer. People who are generally good people.
Many in the discussion were not male and of those many are mothers of small children so the dont be a f-ing panty waste twat response wouldn't be as effective. Its a different level of conversation entirely when debating with mama bears. And here I was in the middle talking about the Constitution and tyranny. How do you think that played out when several of them were there and one couple almost brought their toddler but didnt because he was sick. I dont care how I looked at the end of it but frustrated that the total picture is not clear. Again they have my empathy as I know it was traumatizing but I was attempting to point out that the object was not at fault. It was like debating the past as an argument for the future when everybody is only focused on the now.
Getting ready to board soon. Maybe I didnt find the pearl of wisdom slam dunk I was looking for when I started the thread is so far as what gun owners would consider to be "sensible controls". I suspect soon we will see anything but sensible controls and be further away from the goal of zero restrictions. I mean hells bells I watched the vid of Charlie Rangal in 86 for the first time on Tuesday, I was like 11 years old and had no clue thats how that went down.
I know what the right answer is in the context of the constitution, that has not changed. I do appreciate the replies some valid points were made but nothing that I see as supporting a debate or discussion in our favor to win over those currently in opposition.
Going to stop the yodeling lessons for the dog, not productive.
Take Care and thanks
A06
Good job on that one. I deal with the same brick walls, including my own son's momma bear.
I mostly refuse to address these topics directly because they seem to me, at some level, to be weaponized subjects designed to divide us.
I don't believe we should be having conversations about how much we're willing to sacrifice in order to do next to nothing to actually prevent the things we're sacrificing for. I do get a buzz going from time to time, and indulge in these fruitless endeavors.
With non-realistic folks I, instead, speak plainly about the state of the world in a way that makes the reasoning behind the 2A obvious.
"So, world's pretty fucked up, huh? Got these commies waging war on us, destroying our history, got the government, media, educators, etc backing them, gang violence like you wouldn't believe, crazy drug addicts breaking into houses during broad daylight with people in them, got folks stalking single mothers with children in grocery stores presumably trying to find an opportunity to steal the little kiddo, always run the risk of having some looney bin run into a restaurant with the intent to gun down some people for reasons we don't understand... Got charities everywhere making out like bandits, got criminals in all the best offices, sophisticated pedophiles doing their thing unabated... It's just a big damn mess that's getting bigger every day, and may even be past the point of being feasible to clean up. I mean, what the hell would you even do if a man wanted to steal your child? You're out there, just you and him, and he's obviously not worried about hurting you or your child, are you just going to give up your child and hope for the best? You can't call the cops, and even if you did they wouldn't get there for a while. Maybe God would bless you, and a nice citizen would intervene, but you can't count on that. You've seen the videos of people filming while women are getting beat all to hell on the side of the road by crowds of muslims, and totally ignoring dying people on sidewalks in new york. What the hell do you even do in that situation?"
I wish like hell I was a VeerG grade linguist, hell even Sirh would be a huge upgrade. There's a lot of information in my brain that I have a hard time expressing in a way that doesn't crush the hopes and dreams of those around me.
Last edited:
That's kind of the point, and the stance we need to take and condition anyone with 'gun control' on their mind to. Answer is no.
I'll admit, I didnt make it through 1/3 of your post. Why? Answer is no.
Gun control? No. Have a conversation about sensible gun control? No. Something needs to happen?!/?!/111 No.
It's that simple. Why? Because 'gun control' compromises have been the equivalent of a random person knocking on your door and demanding you give them your house, only to negotiate that they can have your car instead.
I'm not giving up shit because some middle aged limp wrist faggot with a beer gut decided to try and act like a gangster and then be a total bitch pussy when it was time to do gangster stuff, just like a typical liberal.
Last edited:
A06, reread the German's last post. Your family & friends have some issues they need to work out, such as lacking a spine. So, let me ask you this question; you, they & everyone else give up all their guns. All of them. Criminals, who we know by their very nature don't follow laws, will always have guns, then commit a mass shooting or engage in an active shooter scenario. What then? You still have mass shootings even w/ all the guns gone. What have you gained? Nothing. People are still dead and lives are still shattered. They would do well to listen to Thomas Jefferson: "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" & Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The road that your friends & family have chosen will only lead to serfdom.
Last edited:
Hey, I like A06 
But answer is no.
But answer is no.
I wish "the other side" would recognize that every "common sense" conversation on gun laws has lead to restrictions for law abiding gun owners.
The only "allowances" for freedom ownership have come through the courts when imposed "common sense" regulation was considered unconstitutional.
A big part of the intractability over the topic comes from not understanding the Second Amendment.
I heard a "historian" on Fox state yesterday that the Founders included the Second because our frontier was unsettled and Americans needed to "protect" themselves from Indians and wild animals.
Hillary knows absolutely the reason for the 2A and it is why she wants to crush it.
Remind the antis that in the last 100 years government is second only to disease in killing humans
A. Solzhenitsen sums up the mind set of the Founders if you substitute British soldiers for Stalins agents.....
"“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Anyone not chilled by that and incensed or who doesn't look at pictures of people being rounded up in the Holocaust and doesn't think "if only" is without a heart and lacks humanity.
We are fortunate to live in the peaceful rich country we do but we are a thin line away from things changing for the worse and there is no excuse for lacking awareness of what "the real situation" can become.
The only "allowances" for freedom ownership have come through the courts when imposed "common sense" regulation was considered unconstitutional.
A big part of the intractability over the topic comes from not understanding the Second Amendment.
I heard a "historian" on Fox state yesterday that the Founders included the Second because our frontier was unsettled and Americans needed to "protect" themselves from Indians and wild animals.
Hillary knows absolutely the reason for the 2A and it is why she wants to crush it.
Remind the antis that in the last 100 years government is second only to disease in killing humans
A. Solzhenitsen sums up the mind set of the Founders if you substitute British soldiers for Stalins agents.....
"“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
Anyone not chilled by that and incensed or who doesn't look at pictures of people being rounded up in the Holocaust and doesn't think "if only" is without a heart and lacks humanity.
We are fortunate to live in the peaceful rich country we do but we are a thin line away from things changing for the worse and there is no excuse for lacking awareness of what "the real situation" can become.
Last edited:
Right, sure.
Make all these explosive claims, never offer any proof. It's getting old.
You know what? The quoted post is nothing but bullshit.
Last edited:
Gun laws are worthless. Criminals don't follow laws so all they do is limit the law abiding citizen. "shall not be infringed" is very plain.
It would be hard to maintain a secret conspiracy of 2-3 people. A conspiracy requiring hundreds would be impossible. Conspiracy theories always seem to have everything but proof. But they always require that you disprove them. How do you prove something did not happen?
As a contrast -
Here is what my ultra lib, totally useless junior senator from MA is going to be putting forward in response to Vegas....
There have been 273 mass shootings in this country in 2017 -- nearly as many mass shootings as days in the year. The recent shooting in Las Vegas was the worst in U.S. history.
Enough is enough. Join me and demand Republicans in Congress get to work to stop gun violence in America.
Republicans under the thumb of the NRA would have you believe we're powerless. They want you to think that all we can do is send thoughts and prayers, mourn those lost, and do nothing else.
Here's the truth: We. Are. Not. Powerless. There are plenty of steps we can take to reduce gun violence in this country and put commonsense safety measures in place.
We have to show them they're wrong.
Join me and demand Republicans in Congress act now to reduce gun violence in America.
I've taken on the NRA before. I fought them on importing weapons from China, and won. Working together, there is no reason we can't make "NRA" stand for "Not Relevant Anymore.
Here is what my ultra lib, totally useless junior senator from MA is going to be putting forward in response to Vegas....
There have been 273 mass shootings in this country in 2017 -- nearly as many mass shootings as days in the year. The recent shooting in Las Vegas was the worst in U.S. history.
Enough is enough. Join me and demand Republicans in Congress get to work to stop gun violence in America.
Republicans under the thumb of the NRA would have you believe we're powerless. They want you to think that all we can do is send thoughts and prayers, mourn those lost, and do nothing else.
Here's the truth: We. Are. Not. Powerless. There are plenty of steps we can take to reduce gun violence in this country and put commonsense safety measures in place.
- Let's pass my bill to require smart gun technology and make guns more secure.
- Let's ban assault weapons meant to be used in combat, not in communities.
- Let's close loopholes in our laws that allow guns to make it into the wrong hands.
- Let's expand and strengthen background checks. Let's remove gun manufacturers' immunity from civil liability.
- Let's pass my bill to study gun violence as the epidemic it is, and find the most effective ways to stop it.
We have to show them they're wrong.
Join me and demand Republicans in Congress act now to reduce gun violence in America.
I've taken on the NRA before. I fought them on importing weapons from China, and won. Working together, there is no reason we can't make "NRA" stand for "Not Relevant Anymore.
That far away unpleasantness that was Lexington and Concord happened because some aristocrats somewhere far away decided that the commoners here must no longer have access to effective firearms.
"Bang, bang" was those commoners' answer.
They say that first shot was heard 'round the world.
The Second Amendment was worded clearly enough to emphasize that the keeping and bearing of firearms of the owners' choosing was never meant to be within the domain of government. It was framed very clearly, very succinctly, very deliberately as a direct response to a distant governments action intended to disarm the citizenry.
No law intended to stop gun crime will work reliably, because the criminals have always made it their life's work to circumvent the law. Only the law abiding citizen will pay the sacrifices ordained by the well meaning people who think that principles must be reinvented whenever they become inconvenient.
Perk up your ears, world. It's getting loud again. Please explain again about how that's never going to be a possibility.
Greg
"Bang, bang" was those commoners' answer.
They say that first shot was heard 'round the world.
The Second Amendment was worded clearly enough to emphasize that the keeping and bearing of firearms of the owners' choosing was never meant to be within the domain of government. It was framed very clearly, very succinctly, very deliberately as a direct response to a distant governments action intended to disarm the citizenry.
No law intended to stop gun crime will work reliably, because the criminals have always made it their life's work to circumvent the law. Only the law abiding citizen will pay the sacrifices ordained by the well meaning people who think that principles must be reinvented whenever they become inconvenient.
Perk up your ears, world. It's getting loud again. Please explain again about how that's never going to be a possibility.
Greg
Last edited:
I wish we could all agree on a few basics before we sit down to talk about gun control.
- Let’s all acknowledge that for the past 104 years Congress sets the budget, the Treasury instructs the FED to create money and loan it back to the USA at interest, and both the interest and the principal are the responsibility of the Tax Payer.
- Let’s all acknowledge that for the past 104 years we have been giving the FED (a private entity) free money to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars.
- Let’s all acknowledge that this is a scam
- Let’s also acknowledge that since it is a scam, the only way to keep the scam going is the exercise of power. Part of that means dividing the people and pitting them against one another so they will not come together for their mutual benefit (imagine creating a true Federal Bank - by, of and for the People - with no interest paid to private entities)
- Let’s also acknowledge that those that seek to control need to remove firearms from the hands of the masses, and that the only way to get the middle of the road folks to turn them in, is to do something so grotesque, that only the heartless would not concede.
IT IS ALL A SCAM
IT IS ALL A PLAN
- Let’s all acknowledge that for the past 104 years Congress sets the budget, the Treasury instructs the FED to create money and loan it back to the USA at interest, and both the interest and the principal are the responsibility of the Tax Payer.
- Let’s all acknowledge that for the past 104 years we have been giving the FED (a private entity) free money to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars.
- Let’s all acknowledge that this is a scam
- Let’s also acknowledge that since it is a scam, the only way to keep the scam going is the exercise of power. Part of that means dividing the people and pitting them against one another so they will not come together for their mutual benefit (imagine creating a true Federal Bank - by, of and for the People - with no interest paid to private entities)
- Let’s also acknowledge that those that seek to control need to remove firearms from the hands of the masses, and that the only way to get the middle of the road folks to turn them in, is to do something so grotesque, that only the heartless would not concede.
IT IS ALL A SCAM
IT IS ALL A PLAN
First just to clarify I never suggested giving up or turning in guns not once. Personally I went to a lot of trouble to maintain residence and income streams in two states. This allows me to pretty much ignore the CA gun laws and have my vote counted in a state where it has an impact (sort of, WA is getting just as bad).
Yes they need to work through some issues PTSD for sure. Sadly those that are Mil and First Responders will need to get their shit wired back correctly to perform their duties effectively.
I took what is currently in place good bad or otherwise and tried to re-brand it so we got something out of the deal without giving up ANYMORE than what is largely in place.
So why do it?
Theater of politics can either turn the masses against us or we propose something that the left thinks is a measure but really isnt much different from whats currently in place and expands carry laws and eases the process of purchasing handguns, AOW, Suppressors and SBR's. Smoke and mirrors give the lemmings something to feel good about, possibly gain some kudos from those on the fence in the center to sway their opinions to our side.
So what would we be giving up?
Background checks are already in place and required so no change there from current state.
Required proof of training. Mil and LEO would count towards this. Most states require hunter safety to teach basic firearm safety before getting a hunting licence. How many of us have suggested to a novice shooter to take a class and get some training, comes up often. Others suggest it should be taught in school like it use to be and I would agree with that as well. More to the point put a formal training requirement into the equation to stop the argument that just anybody can have a gun with no training. If thats the complaint here is a solution. What is the impact to the majority of us with this? Little to nothing as most have checked one or more of those boxes already. To a person who dosnt have a box checked wouldnt most of us tell them to do so anyway?
The matter of a fee, that one I'm luke warm on more I think about it. I was using the logic as it applied to tax stamps and there is currently fees for DROS and NICS etc so more of an admin offset but we should not be paying fees for a right so lets red line that out of it.
Prints and pics probably a touchy subject as well but again currently required for Conceal Carry Permit and NFA items. Many state require for a DL or ID. This would be a departure and more than whats in place as it applies to rifles. Handguns I believe some places require a CCW permit to purchase a handgun not 100% about all 50 states current laws. Right or wrong there is so much data gathering going on currently I dont see this as impactful but rather a principal item if the left wants pic and prints who cares had to do it for CCW anyway. I am in the ID to vote camp so the two arguments could be intertwined in regards to rights. Maybe exclude this from the process entirely as proof of ID would be tied to your permit anyway?
What would be gained is removal of waiting periods since purchaser is already vetted, 50 state carry reciprocity, remove hurdles of NFA items.
I see 3 pros for us in this with nothing given up as compared to current laws in place just repackaging it and rebranding.
I get what most of you are saying which I believe is what is currently in place is too much and an infringement. I wouldn't disagree. Not saying stop pursuing the fight to revoke these existing laws either. I support with my time, money and vote many to include NRA, CalGuns, 2A Foundation and JPFO. Not Jewish either but I think they have a better understanding than most organizations as to what happens to a disarmed society.
Honest question how many gun laws have been revoked due to the actions of the lobby organizations? I can think of examples where AWB reached sunset and we were able to convince the gov not to reinstate. I can think of instances where state laws were deemed to be unconstitutional and revoked on that ground but those laws had not reached their dates to actually go into effect. Has there been any major piece of legislation overturned?
One good outcome is this has sparked my interest to do research into how we came to have the current regulations in place. Its been informative. Surprised by the GOP support on the Brady Bill.
German=No! Figured I would just say it for you.
Lets also recognize the founding fathers made no provision for a two party system to become the ruling factions. They also I assume did not envision people would become wealthy from their time in government. Many of the members of the first congress did so at great personal sacrifice even going broke while representing on behalf of their countrymen.
Anybody consider that neither side wants to ban guns? Both parties get massive money from lobby groups arguing their side of the issue. If the libs all of a sudden got guns banned completely they would loose a revenue stream, nothing left to argue about.
Yes its a scam.
Can only really drain the swamp with term limits or it will simply fill up again.
All you have to ask when you consider 'gun control' is ask 2 questions:
- How many laws did the LV shooter, or the Newton retard or whoever shot people in public, break? 20? 30? 40? More?
Ok, so wait, your idea is to add more laws because they broke, 30 or 40 laws already, but wait, holy shit, had you had 41 laws...it would have worked! Why not just ban murder? Oh thats right.......
- Whatever restrictions on bump stocks or whatever shit they want to be knee jerk reactive about because of the LV faggot, litmus test: If you made bump stocks or whatever else a regulated item, would he have passed the background check for them and gotten them anyways? Answer is yes.
Let's not even get into what can be done with 50$ in parts and a drill press.
- How many laws did the LV shooter, or the Newton retard or whoever shot people in public, break? 20? 30? 40? More?
Ok, so wait, your idea is to add more laws because they broke, 30 or 40 laws already, but wait, holy shit, had you had 41 laws...it would have worked! Why not just ban murder? Oh thats right.......
- Whatever restrictions on bump stocks or whatever shit they want to be knee jerk reactive about because of the LV faggot, litmus test: If you made bump stocks or whatever else a regulated item, would he have passed the background check for them and gotten them anyways? Answer is yes.
Let's not even get into what can be done with 50$ in parts and a drill press.
Last edited:
Repeal the Right to Assemble. No more concerts. No more movies. No more sporting events.If there are no large groups of people to shoot at ......no more mass killing.
So let me get this straight some crazed lunatic with obvious evil afoot can get congress to act where I don't know some 200+ million Americans can't get them to act on healthcare or taxes or even the SHARE act? A lot of suffering and even dying going on there. Did I state that right ? This is idiocy on the highest scale. There is no negotiating of freedoms as the very act implies the government has control over said freedoms and that is not how this country is supposed to or intended to work. Instead we need to focus on the heros of this tragic event and celebrate them. I mean have a parade for the first responders and police and ordinary citizens that came out of this horrendous act. A lot more could have died had not the police acted as they did. Probably had another 1000 rounds in mags on the floor that he never got too. Let's not waste our time discussing the rate of fire of a bump stock. Bump fire is a method and you don't need a stock. Someone call Jerry Miculek as the ATF may confiscate his finger. With practice just about anyone can shoot fast. And as far as accuracy you had a crowd of 22,000 herded together with limited egress points and surrounded by tall buildings. Let's outlaw tall buildings too while we are at it for all the good it will do. Crowd a bunch of people together like that and accuracy is not of paramount concern. All we do by allowing these laws to pass is to set ourselves up for next time some crazy pops a gasket. What that law didn't stop it? Guess we need a stricter tougher law. It will not end. Evil is evil. Advertised gun free zones, disarming of the people, large crowds and limited ways out and the wolves come a calling.
I am with German:
Just say "No!"
If the threat of Capital Punishment for premeditated mass murder wasn't enough to dissuade his actions, who the hell can actually believe that a new law with significantly less of a punishment would dissuade him?
Just listen to Nancy Pelosi's comment on slippery slope and it should all come clear to even the most dense amongst us.
Just say "No!"
If the threat of Capital Punishment for premeditated mass murder wasn't enough to dissuade his actions, who the hell can actually believe that a new law with significantly less of a punishment would dissuade him?
Just listen to Nancy Pelosi's comment on slippery slope and it should all come clear to even the most dense amongst us.
Last edited:
Terrorists despise our freedoms, but they cannot take them away. No terrorist has ever rescinded any of our freedoms.
It's their willing accomplices who do all the actual heavy lifting, in Congress; as they have been systematically doing since 1968.
I think it's about time that the elephant in the room got some serious mention, about how Congress has been committed to working hand in hand with the terrorists since at least 9/11 to curtail American freedoms.
We used to call such activists Fellow Travelers, back when being a Communist was still actually supposed to be a bad thing.
Greg
It's their willing accomplices who do all the actual heavy lifting, in Congress; as they have been systematically doing since 1968.
I think it's about time that the elephant in the room got some serious mention, about how Congress has been committed to working hand in hand with the terrorists since at least 9/11 to curtail American freedoms.
We used to call such activists Fellow Travelers, back when being a Communist was still actually supposed to be a bad thing.
Greg
I vote PMcLaine for president!
I get so wound up about this stuff. It was/is a tragedy but as has been stated six ways from Sunday already, law abiding citizens suffer for the criminals. More laws won't help.
And as tragic as this event was, lets us not loose sight of the fact that firearms of all sort (legal or otherwise) do not account for the majority of deaths each year. If we really want to preserve life, lets sharpen our focus on what is actually killing the most people, and fix that problem first.
I for one do not want to be left holding my dick if (when?) the shit hits the fan here. The second amendment mentions guns, yes, but it's not about guns per se. It represents the ability of the people being governed being stronger than the government. That is the whole point of the amendment. The couple history lessons (and great quotations!) prior to my worthless post here say it well.
But think about it- the Government, and their "militia" are far stronger than Joe Six-Pack already. By a LOOOONG shot.
Let's keep our heads Gentlemen (and Ladies?), as well as our firearms.
I get so wound up about this stuff. It was/is a tragedy but as has been stated six ways from Sunday already, law abiding citizens suffer for the criminals. More laws won't help.
And as tragic as this event was, lets us not loose sight of the fact that firearms of all sort (legal or otherwise) do not account for the majority of deaths each year. If we really want to preserve life, lets sharpen our focus on what is actually killing the most people, and fix that problem first.
I for one do not want to be left holding my dick if (when?) the shit hits the fan here. The second amendment mentions guns, yes, but it's not about guns per se. It represents the ability of the people being governed being stronger than the government. That is the whole point of the amendment. The couple history lessons (and great quotations!) prior to my worthless post here say it well.
But think about it- the Government, and their "militia" are far stronger than Joe Six-Pack already. By a LOOOONG shot.
Let's keep our heads Gentlemen (and Ladies?), as well as our firearms.
Man, I am selling a motorcycle to buy more ammo, I figure about 10% of you fuckers actually have the balls to fight to the death to avoid serfdom and slavery, the rest of you will join the mutha fuckers enslaving you. And you fuckers are the core of the freedom lovers, only 10% would take care of business max.
Been away for a few days the state is on fire.
When I first posted the thread I would have bet the farm we were in for another round of full on ban talk.
I am very surprised and relieved that so many libs are now on record stating nothing would have prevented this. Even further Feinstein even stated he (Vegas shooter) had the ability and means to kill without a gun, thought I heard it wrong till I heard it again later in the day.
While there seems to be no serious talk of further gun restrictions or bans there is talk of banning accessories sadly with some GOP support.
I have always opposed any law (or bill) that restricted gun rights.
Where I realized I failed was that the laws currently in place I accepted as the status quo as they have simply been there most of my adult life. Its not an excuse but I assumed if these laws were unconstitutional they would have been challenged by now so they must be legitimate.
As I dug further into some of this such as the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, Brady Bill etc things didnt add up. The cause and effect dont correlate which is to say as I read the justification as compared to the measures of these laws they are complete nonsense.
What I have come to realize is that unlike our founders who faced overt tyranny we are suffering death by a thousand paper cuts.
Its easier to picture a scenario where people take to arms to resist door to door confiscation of arms for example or the government seizing personal property such as your farm to quarter troops in. Those are rather overt actions that most people would not hesitate to take up arms against. What we are seeing now is much more subtle its the small things here in there that are not noticeable until you compare the current state against 100 years ago. To use a current term its microagressions which go largely unnoticed by the majority of the population, perhaps not unnoticed but not worth risking everything for. Bitch about the rising taxes but most still pay them.
So what next? I cant say for sure but I doubt there will be a shot fired around the world to put things back on course. We see things happen on the news and while we have our own thoughts and opinions on these events I dont see any one instance that inspired a nationwide call to arms. The Malheur Standoff comes to mind and no not looking to start a conversation about it but the point being a handful of people showed up in support of them while many more stayed at home agreeing with what they were doing but not willing to join in on what was easy to predict would be a bad outcome.
I think much more than 10% would take care of business when the time comes. But I also think that .000001% are willing to be the one to set the match to the powder keg.
When I first posted the thread I would have bet the farm we were in for another round of full on ban talk.
I am very surprised and relieved that so many libs are now on record stating nothing would have prevented this. Even further Feinstein even stated he (Vegas shooter) had the ability and means to kill without a gun, thought I heard it wrong till I heard it again later in the day.
While there seems to be no serious talk of further gun restrictions or bans there is talk of banning accessories sadly with some GOP support.
I have always opposed any law (or bill) that restricted gun rights.
Where I realized I failed was that the laws currently in place I accepted as the status quo as they have simply been there most of my adult life. Its not an excuse but I assumed if these laws were unconstitutional they would have been challenged by now so they must be legitimate.
As I dug further into some of this such as the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, Brady Bill etc things didnt add up. The cause and effect dont correlate which is to say as I read the justification as compared to the measures of these laws they are complete nonsense.
What I have come to realize is that unlike our founders who faced overt tyranny we are suffering death by a thousand paper cuts.
Its easier to picture a scenario where people take to arms to resist door to door confiscation of arms for example or the government seizing personal property such as your farm to quarter troops in. Those are rather overt actions that most people would not hesitate to take up arms against. What we are seeing now is much more subtle its the small things here in there that are not noticeable until you compare the current state against 100 years ago. To use a current term its microagressions which go largely unnoticed by the majority of the population, perhaps not unnoticed but not worth risking everything for. Bitch about the rising taxes but most still pay them.
So what next? I cant say for sure but I doubt there will be a shot fired around the world to put things back on course. We see things happen on the news and while we have our own thoughts and opinions on these events I dont see any one instance that inspired a nationwide call to arms. The Malheur Standoff comes to mind and no not looking to start a conversation about it but the point being a handful of people showed up in support of them while many more stayed at home agreeing with what they were doing but not willing to join in on what was easy to predict would be a bad outcome.
I think much more than 10% would take care of business when the time comes. But I also think that .000001% are willing to be the one to set the match to the powder keg.
Our freedoms won't be safeguarded by 3% or 10% just yet.
This battle is in appointing textualists to the courts, regaining an education system that educates and having a media that reports not propagandizes.
Thats a big hurdle, draining the swamp will get us along the right path.
This battle is in appointing textualists to the courts, regaining an education system that educates and having a media that reports not propagandizes.
Thats a big hurdle, draining the swamp will get us along the right path.
Trump has been counting some coup this passed week.
Insurance across state lines, he beat the NFL, fake news and putting the media on notice their freedom to report does not include out right lying (slippery slope here though we don't need govt censorship but certainly outright lying voids the special place the media is supposed to hold in our Republic). Hostages released from Afghanistan without trading terrorists. Even the Weinstein story despite the horror to the victims exposes more the hypocrisy of the "moral" left.
I think he is doing good regards Iran and Nork.
The more he Tweets or goes outside normal channels of communication the swamp dies a little bit.
What is the sentiment towards term limits in the discussion to get our politicians back into their appropriate roles as servants of the people?
I would back term limits completely.
The framers of our Republic never had in mind professional politicians.
The framers of our Republic never had in mind professional politicians.
I've never supported term limits until now. I also don't think politicians should earn a dime while in office.
You can NOT stop a crazy person with LAWS.... Whatever TOOL they decide to use, they are going to find a way to use. The tool being a gun, knife, bus, airplane...ETC So I still hold my same position, the laws we have now are plenty enough to stop the people who follow them.
Similar threads
