And what are you going to do? Open a media outlet? Run for political office? Become a judge? Because aside from those options, there's no persuasion campaign that will work. Popular opinion, the only thing that matters to legislators, is against you. And the NRA (of which I am a member) is rapidly losing salience.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NOT Gun Control
- Thread starter Onward Allusion
- Start date
turkeestalker
New member
What I'm going to do is have your back as an American citizen and defend our constitutional right to keep and bear arms at every turn, in every way humanly possible, even though you obviously haven't got mine.
That was the intent of our forefathers who authored our constitution and founded our nation.
That was the intent of our forefathers who authored our constitution and founded our nation.
Unfortunately THE fore fathers (not mine actually my people immigrated) were not paragons of virtue (ie all had their flaws as we all do and the Constitution is a compromise document) . It was the best they could do and overall a huge accomplishment but it was no where near perfect.
In short it was like 13 cat fight. To affect a more perfect union, compromise was made to the Southern states on the slavery issue (which festered and got adjudicated (fought out) in the Civil War.
There was a major feeling that the recent war and the Tyranny of a man being or becoming King was best handled with Militia. That was a flawed idea, the Militia by en large had performed abysmally in the war.
But it was the on going school of thought.
Women were not allowed to vote, there were restriction to voting by others ad you had to have property. So it was Male Property Owners only.
Senators were elected by the legislatures.
Women could not vote.
Slaves were allowed and of course could not vote (though they counted as population for representatives)
In short it was like 13 cat fight. To affect a more perfect union, compromise was made to the Southern states on the slavery issue (which festered and got adjudicated (fought out) in the Civil War.
There was a major feeling that the recent war and the Tyranny of a man being or becoming King was best handled with Militia. That was a flawed idea, the Militia by en large had performed abysmally in the war.
But it was the on going school of thought.
Women were not allowed to vote, there were restriction to voting by others ad you had to have property. So it was Male Property Owners only.
Senators were elected by the legislatures.
Women could not vote.
Slaves were allowed and of course could not vote (though they counted as population for representatives)
The "other side" does not have any answers, just an agenda. They want to ban guns. If they get their way, the killings will continue as the evil ones will always find a way to kill, we just will not be able to protect our self.
The NRA and probably 5% of the US population also has an agenda.
I see the press being attacked on a regular basis (and no they are far from perfect)
A free press his what makes a functioning democracy than does gun ownership.
I can name a dozen countries that have functioning democracies that have severe gun restrictions.
When you have police who are trained in the use of force that then go off the track, that tells you a great deal about the impossibility of thinking a gun answers all the issue.
We had one officer that chased a man 20 miles (far outside his jurisdiction ), who ran into the woods after the guy and was shot him the back.
I missed the school name, but they had a policy of armed teacher (private likely) said school had a teacher do an ND and kill a student.
20,000 armed citizens would not stand a chance against the 1st Infantry division if it was ordered to an obeyed that order to take over their area. 200,000 would not stand a chance against them. China comes to mind.
Your protection from Tyranny is if those women and men believe in democracy and refused an order like that.
At least Half the shooters I see should not be allowed to have a gun. They are a danger to us, their families and themselves.
HisSoldier
New member
but non gun control people like myself think magazine limits are not a bad thing.
Because you haven't likely examined it from the point of view of the Constitution, many gun owners do not and never have understood that the SOLE purpose of the second amendment is so that The People can throw off massed tyrants, like our own government if it becomes power mad (A litte late for that).
Jefferson thought there would be bloody revolutions every twenty years enforcing the role of the people over their servant government instead of what it has become, our master.
So, under the BOR's the supposition is that the People have the means to overthrow said tyrants, which includes foreign invaders too. Do those invaders limit their magazine capacities? Heck no!
And I know some of you will say the armed citizens could never win a war against a modern military, well, 60 years ago a third world country threw the mighty United States Military out of their country! (And bought themselves communism, a very poor outcome for them.)
But even if it were not so that an armed people could fight a modern military (It clearly IS true) all that means is that we give up the entire second amendment, and all the rest soon follow.
As for me, I'd rather die fighting tyrants than giving my country all pristine and pretty over to them.
But please consider the truth about the reason behind the second amendment before you talk abouit giving up your rights to people who haven't got a clue about why we HAVE them!
If we don't have the right to own weapons Of any type we should just call our congressmen and tell them we want to become communist slaves, and throw the Bill of Rights out entirely!
Last edited:
Since the ban didn't accomplish anything in the past, why would it now?
You could make that same argument for oil well regulations.
Except BP then went and violated them all and blew out the Madonda well.
You can't necessarily prove a negative but you can gather data and do some analysis.
Like breaking down regulating, high capacity magazines were overturned, they were not overturned based on they did not work, they were overturned because people wanted to sell high capacity magazine and hitched onto the gun movement to do so.
How many legal machine guns have been used in committing crimes?
They are severely restricted and people keep them under lock and key because they are worth big bucks.
The Vegas shooter could have bought as many as he wanted. He would also have attracted attention. So he went with the current alternative.
Any single item is not going to stop this. Combined they likely would reduce it.
But then of course someone says, well they got around it and X number of people died, so it doesn't work and everyone should be armed.
What if 66% of the population does not want to be armed?
When conscripts (your general and male population) were the military, about 10% of them were combat effective. The other 90% to varying degrees were not.
So if you are lucky, maybe 10% of the population would be capable of handling a gun in a crisis.
It may very well not be the ones that currently own or want to own a gun.
Because you haven't likely examined it from the point of view of the Constitution, many gun owners do not and never have understood that the SOLE purpose of the second amendment is so that The People can throw off massed tyrants, like our own government if it becomes power mad (A litte late for that).
Well I considered what Wall street did to us Tyranny and what the corporation are doing now the same but no one has done anything about it have they? We now have mandatory arbitration and can't do anything about it, our data is stolen and the agency that is supposed to address that will not prosecute. The press is under attack like I have never seen, but that is ok, its all fake news.
Jefferson thought there would be bloody revolutions every twenty years enforcing the role of the people over their servant government instead of what it has become, our master.
So, under the BOR's the supposition is that the People have the means to overthrow said tyrants, which includes foreign invaders too. Do those invaders limit their magazine capacities? Heck no!
We have been invaded twice. Once by Pauncha Via and once by the Japanese who took two desolate islands in the Aleutians.
In both cases it was the organized Army that Jefferson was so against that kicked them out.
So far all our wars have been fought by that Army that Jefferson so loathed.
And I know some of will say the armed citizens could never win a war against a modern military, well, 60 years ago a third world country threw the mighty United States Military out of their country! (And bought themselves communism, a very poor outcome for them.)
But even if it were not so that an armed people could fight a modern military (It clearly IS true) all that means is that we give up the entire second amendment, and all the rest soon follow.
As for me, I'd rather die fighting tyrants than giving my country all pristine and pretty over to them.
Whoops, it was the NVA that won the war, the Viet Kong did not.
But please consider the truth about the reason behind the second amendment before you talk about giving up your rights to people who haven't got a clue about why we HAVE them!
I do, I read history, I am familiar with how the country came to be and the plus and minuses of it all. You may disagree with my conclusions but you are badly mistaken that I don't know, understand it or know what I am talking about.
!If we don't have the right to own weapons Of any type we should just call our congressmen and tell them we want to become communist slaves, and throw the Bill of Rights out entirely
Well we don't. I can't buy a 20mm 6 barrel cannon, I can buy a mortar. I can't own a number of guns that were declared illegal back in the 30s (short barreled shotgun pistols)
RC20 said:It may be a shock, but non gun control people like myself think magazine limits are not a bad thing.
I understand that you may not conceive of yourself as a "gun control person". That may not be true.
RC20 said:At least Half the shooters I see should not be allowed to have a gun. They are a danger to us, their families and themselves.
You do write like a gun control proponent.
RC20 said:What if 66% of the population does not want to be armed?
Then permit them to remain unarmed.
Do you believe that the 2d Am. describes a valid and current individual right? If so, what is the scope of that right, i.e. who has the right and what does it guarantee him?
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
RC20 said:.It may be a shock, but non gun control people like myself think magazine limits are not a bad thing.
For a "non gun control person", you sure favor a lot of gun control intended to burden law-abiding gun owners instead of being directed at people who show they cannot responsibly own a firearm.
I always found the idea of magazine limits silly. Even with a 6 rounder and a few extra mags a nut job could easily kill eight or ten unarmed people. No one wants a school shooting with eight deaths either. Same could happen without a semi auto; with a six shot revolver and a few speedloaders.
It's amazing how short sighted some can be.
It's amazing how short sighted some can be.
I always found the idea of magazine limits silly. Even with a 6 rounder and a few extra mags a nut job could easily kill eight or ten unarmed people. No one wants a school shooting with eight deaths either. Same could happen without a semi auto; with a six shot revolver and a few speedloaders.
It's amazing how short sighted some can be.
The caveat of this argument is that the assumption is being made that the shooter is trained to efficiently and effectively use the weapon, and reload it.
Some nut job like in Florida, who I highly doubt was ever trained in optimizing the effective firing rate of an AR is always going to run for a higher capacity mag.
I'd say if you were thoroughly trained in the use of an AR and had developed muscle memory then to your point it wouldn't matter if it were 10,20, or 30 round mags, either way a lot of lead is coming down the barrel.
I'm not advocating for restrictions, not at all. Just fleshing out two different sides to a point of view.
The issue at hand, mass shootings is far more complex than just guns, or just mental illness. It's not black and white unfortunately, if it were we'd have had a solution in place long ago. Obviously I think we can all agree that we want ourselves and our loved ones to come home every night.
Until this country can boil down the issues and discuss things in a civil manner, on both sides of the aisle we'll continue to see these things pop up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RC20 you use tactics that are very popular with anti-gun folks. You claim to support the right to arms, while advocating for changes that would gut our 2A. You dismiss our Founding Fathers, Constitution and our system of government as the flawed and imperfect compromise of a different time. You rail against the tyranny of Wall Street and big corporations. You assert that most of us who carry guns are incompetent and too dangerous to ourselves and others to have them.
You are confident that a standing army makes any talk of protection from tyranny by armed citizens nonsense, while at the same time claiming that you know and understand history.
You can claim to be pro-gun, but your rhetoric doesn't support your claim.
You are confident that a standing army makes any talk of protection from tyranny by armed citizens nonsense, while at the same time claiming that you know and understand history.
You can claim to be pro-gun, but your rhetoric doesn't support your claim.
Why does this have to start to boil down into finger pointing? People are beginning to throw around the title of anti-gunner like "witch" and "communist."
There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.
There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.
Nate Kirk said:Why does this have to start to boil down into finger pointing? People are beginning to throw around the title of anti-gunner like "witch" and "communist."
There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.
Your diagnosis is incorrect. RC20 made an assertion about his position that appears to contradict his own writing.
No one painted him as a traitor.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
True.BBarn said:I always found the idea of magazine limits silly. Even with a 6 rounder and a few extra mags a nut job could easily kill eight or ten unarmed people. No one wants a school shooting with eight deaths either. Same could happen without a semi auto; with a six shot revolver and a few speedloaders.
It's amazing how short sighted some can be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgdq1FBYTUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d2VdaiIodo
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
NateKirk said:There's a broad spectrum of beliefs when it comes to the subject of guns and the second amendment, and different reasons for those beliefs. Lets not paint those with differing opinions as traitors.
You're pro-gun control. You've repeatedly said so in this thread and others. So is RC20. So is Colorado Redneck. It's a little late to be bashful about it now.
I'm still waitng to hear of any proposal that somehow will at least slow down these maniacs from attacking our kids!
Not may....
Not might...
WILL
Until then, I'll entertain ways to fix what is so obviously broken. A fix, might I remind you, that will not add more red tape or other silly complexity to the current laws.
No amount of fist pounding, screaming or hand-wringing will convince me that something has already been proposed in this thread that meets the criteria above.
Not may....
Not might...
WILL
Until then, I'll entertain ways to fix what is so obviously broken. A fix, might I remind you, that will not add more red tape or other silly complexity to the current laws.
No amount of fist pounding, screaming or hand-wringing will convince me that something has already been proposed in this thread that meets the criteria above.
You're pro-gun control. You've repeatedly said so in this thread and others. So is RC20. So is Colorado Redneck. It's a little late to be bashful about it now.
I'm not bashful about it at all. I thought it was clear by voicing the measures I supported, that I approved of certain aspects of gun control legislation. It's not an all or nothing thing though and a few of the latest posts seem to be devoted to pointing fingers, and discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion.
I'm still waitng to hear of any proposal that somehow will at least slow down these maniacs from attacking our kids!
Not may....
Not might...
WILL
Until then, I'll entertain ways to fix what is so obviously broken. A fix, might I remind you, that will not add more red tape or other silly complexity to the current laws.
This is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee that a positive outcome will be reached. Not increased background checks, not magazine restrictions, not bans... Nothing is certain.
However you can also turn this around.
There is no proposal that is going to be a 100% guarantee that a positive outcome will be reached. Not arming teachers, not increased training, not GVRO's, not improving mental health care, not fixing the NICS system... Nothing is certain.
You can pick any one of these ideas and it's still going to be trial and error. What's important is that we at least try one of them.
I've already made my arguments for what I think needs to be done and why some things shouldn't be done, so I'm not going to reiterate. I think most of them were on page 4 and 5.
I will say though that I think it's a bad idea to arm teachers, which is the current thing the leadership seems to be harping on. On paper it would work, but it assumes the teachers would ensure that they are trained and remain trained well enough to accurately exercise force around crowds of panicking people. Someone also made a point at the CNN debate last night that introducing another person with a weapon, could confuse SWAT teams. Teachers too as a group are more often liberal or Democratic leaning than not so many wouldn't take advantage of the ability to be armed even if they could. Also, didn't the school already have an armed patrolman? Didn't seem to matter. That is evidence.
Another point is that a productive society cannot be centered around and worry about the preservation of their own lives. Arming schools, proposing that kids be issued body armor, metal detectors, armed guards, increased patrols... All of this skews the center of daily life towards violent conflict which I think is perverted; this isn't a third world country. We carry guns to deal with outlier negative situations when they arise but they're not a solution to the problem, they are a temporary salve to help remedy specific problems. They don't solve an issue, they resolve a conflict. The focus shouldn't be on escalation.
What was it that Montesquieu thought, "government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another?" I think that's a good case idea against escalation.
Last edited:
HisSoldier
New member
Well I considered what Wall street did to us Tyranny and what the corporation are doing now the same but no one has done anything about it have they?
Hmm, sounds like the existence of one set of bad apples has you discarding all baskets. The structure of this nation rests on the Constitution.
Frankly I doubt that many of the founding fathers would have agreed with the liberals imposition of the FED in 1913 and the fiat currency we have now, but that's a Whole different matter! Having said that I personally know in my bones that socialism is based on envy and theft, while true marketpace capitalism is based on industry and saving, and competition that benefits everyone.
The press is under attack like I have never seen, but that is ok, its all fake news.
It does appear to me that leftist "news" organizations spin every story, they need to be corrected.
But are you implying that liars on CNN deserve our attention or sympathy? I know who is under attack sir, the Patriotic America gun owner, that's who! Did any of the readers here murder a school full of kids? No? Then Why are we being punished?
So far all our wars have been fought by that Army that Jefferson so loathed.
So since you have so little respect for our Bill of Rights change it. You may have considerable opposition however. BTW, Yamamoto disagreed with Japan's war plans because he reasoned that no invasion of our lower 48 would succeed, because so many Americans were armed, he wasn't as concerned about the military in that. So it could be argued that our second amendment has already deferred an invasion.
Whoops, it was the NVA that won the war, the Viet Kong did not.
Would the NVA have come had not the VC first acted? How many wars were started by a few brave men who died and won the sympathy of other nations? If you are afraid of our military then that in itself is a an argument for more weapons of all kinds in civilian hands, not less. I don't believe we have much to fear from our military, most of them are good people, it's just people who listen to fake news like CNN who attack us, and most of them hate America anyway.
Well we don't. I can't buy a 20mm 6 barrel cannon, I can buy a mortar. I can't own a number of guns that were declared illegal back in the 30s (short barreled shotgun pistols)
And that is because Someone in the system either didn't understand the Constitution or didn't care about it, someone a lot like people today who want to disarm Americans right now. There should be no infringement on any good citizen's right to own any arms, that is what the second amendment implies. How can an army of volunteers be mustered when we don't have the weapons we need to fight?
But it sounds to me like you have no respect for the second amendment. Why not be honest and admit that?
HisSoldier
New member
I think it's a bad idea to arm teachers, which is the current thing the leadership seems to be harping on.
Another example of how people automatically bash president Trump. He's not proposing, to you, he's "Harping".
All a kid who carefully plans ways around safety measures to enter a school and murder kids deserves is a body full of bullets. That is the correct result, and that is what Mr. Trump is proposing. That little beast should have had to pass a background check to buy a rifle,,,,,oh, yeah, he did! It didn't stop him, How about we fix That? The little beast should have been taken into a mental facility, but again, it didn't happen, so I should lose my rights?
That piece of garbage shouldn't have been able to get into the school with a backpack, but he did! The police had to go to his house 39 times, shouldn't that have had some effect on his purchase of a firearm?
We need as many armed good guys as it takes inside schools to stop these outrageous. I don't understand what the objection is to that. Depriving the many of their rights for the violations of a few is not right! And it's not the answer.