Ok fella's, lets see where everyone stands on gun control
- Thread starter Redneck with a 40
- Start date
Edward429451
Moderator
Ditto. I wouldn't have a problem with demonstration of proficiency to the community though. In fact, it should be taught in school like wood/metal shop. Qualification before graduation before being allowed to carry within the city limits. Just an extra endorsement on the DL is ok. Violation means they confiscate the gun and take it home to the Dad, and adult violaters get the gun back when they qualify the free course, or get escorted to the city limits with their gun. No BS charges though. There's more guns and more people now.
Government issue M-16 & sidearm to every household. Tax deduction for qualifying with them every year. Ammo subsidies at the local base. Supressors back in the hardware stores for $5.
Now thats gun control & national security combined.
Edward429451
Moderator
How about 9" (Rifle) at 100 yds, and 6" (Handgun) at 25 yds. Offhand. That's more realistic.
Just a couple of points I'd like to throw out in this discussion about where we stand.
1. Up until the GCA of 1968, any law that prevented a felon from obtaining and possessing a firearm were state laws. There was no federal law that prohibit a felon from leaving prison and buying a gun.
Has the idea that a felon has lost the right to keep and bear arms through an act of the federal legislature in 1968, made any difference in crime?
2. The word "liberal" is a much abused word nowadays. A liberal is one who believes in the autonomy of the individual and the protection of political and civil liberties. That hardly describes the majority of people who today, call themselves, Liberals. Nor does it describe todays Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, this is now called "classical liberalism" as opposed to the "progressive" thinking of the Dems today. A couple of quotes from a rather famous liberal Democrat would demonstrate my point:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Those who renounce the use of their arms against a corrupt political machine are the very people who make that violence inevitable. Passivity only encourages the machine to expand"
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
OK, one more, in case you haven't figured out who this is:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
For those who still don't know... John F. Kennedy. 35th President of the U.S. and a Liberal Democrat.
The point being, when a person calls him or herself a liberal, perhaps we should find out just what definition of liberal they are using?
1. Up until the GCA of 1968, any law that prevented a felon from obtaining and possessing a firearm were state laws. There was no federal law that prohibit a felon from leaving prison and buying a gun.
Has the idea that a felon has lost the right to keep and bear arms through an act of the federal legislature in 1968, made any difference in crime?
2. The word "liberal" is a much abused word nowadays. A liberal is one who believes in the autonomy of the individual and the protection of political and civil liberties. That hardly describes the majority of people who today, call themselves, Liberals. Nor does it describe todays Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, this is now called "classical liberalism" as opposed to the "progressive" thinking of the Dems today. A couple of quotes from a rather famous liberal Democrat would demonstrate my point:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Those who renounce the use of their arms against a corrupt political machine are the very people who make that violence inevitable. Passivity only encourages the machine to expand"
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
OK, one more, in case you haven't figured out who this is:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
For those who still don't know... John F. Kennedy. 35th President of the U.S. and a Liberal Democrat.
The point being, when a person calls him or herself a liberal, perhaps we should find out just what definition of liberal they are using?
Scott Conklin
New member
Socialists compromised the term "liberal" to lend respectability to their agenda sometime in the late 30's. Prior to that a "liberal" was one who favored greater freedom for the individual at the expense of government. The Founders were Liberals, or what we have called "Classical Liberals" for a while now. I've preached this to conservatives and libertarians for ages: Get that label right. Define the terms correctly and don't play the lefty game.
Modern Democrats are socialists. Leftist at best. They have destroyed the honor of the word liberal and that is why they now try to hide behind the term "progressive'. They are neither liberal nor progressive and never have been. They are, ground down to a fine point, Statists. In short, conservatives want to make money and control your bedroom. Leftists want to steal your money and control everything except your sex life, hoping that will keep you distracted while they bankrupt you.
As for gun control: I can't really define anything that I find acceptable. If you commit a violent crime that bars you from firearms ownership, you should be prosecuted and jailed. If you've served your time then you should be able to own arms again. If you can't be trusted then why are you not still in jail(which brings up the whole issue of "Sex Offender Lists", but nevermind that...)?
Otherwise, it's all laws and restrictions against what you might do and government has no authority to meddle in such a way.
Modern Democrats are socialists. Leftist at best. They have destroyed the honor of the word liberal and that is why they now try to hide behind the term "progressive'. They are neither liberal nor progressive and never have been. They are, ground down to a fine point, Statists. In short, conservatives want to make money and control your bedroom. Leftists want to steal your money and control everything except your sex life, hoping that will keep you distracted while they bankrupt you.
As for gun control: I can't really define anything that I find acceptable. If you commit a violent crime that bars you from firearms ownership, you should be prosecuted and jailed. If you've served your time then you should be able to own arms again. If you can't be trusted then why are you not still in jail(which brings up the whole issue of "Sex Offender Lists", but nevermind that...)?
Otherwise, it's all laws and restrictions against what you might do and government has no authority to meddle in such a way.
Edward said:
Um, 6" handgun at 25 yards... I'm proficient with a handgun or a rifle but I am nobody's expert hotshot marksman, and I'm not really sure I could qualify if that was the line. I don't get the time or the money to be out at the range constantly like some here; and I don't have the need to be able to shoot the same hole. I shoot recreationally once in a while, and I carry for personal defense.
What if a person planned to do nothing but carry a GLOCK 27, and that person was very effectively familiar with the safe and relatively accurate operation of that pistol? Why should he have to be able to fire a 6" group (how many rounds, by the way?) at 25 yards with a defensive "non-target" pistol? You would force him to have to qualify with a gun other than what he'll be using from day to day? What's the point of that? If he is proficient with the gun he will be using, and can accurately shoot what he ought to be able to accurately shoot at the distances he might have to shoot, why put a strict qualification in front of him.
I would prefer knowing that he diligently follows the 4 major rule of gun safety, and is adept at bringing his gun into use, and knows when he should or should not shoot, than if he could shoot 3" groups!
-azurefly
2nd Amendment said:
Very good points. I agree.
As far as "sex offender lists," these offend ME. They are the government's transparent attempt to distract us from the fact that the offenders were not initially sentenced to adequate prison time.
They don't sentence them long enough, then they let them out, and they put them under all kinds of restrictions, and they hope that we don't notice and ask, "Um, why didn't you just sentence him to 40 years, instead?!"
And I, as a 34-year-old male, am not threatened by sex offenders and pedophiles. I AM, however, threatened by gang-bangers, carjackers, home-invaders and other violent criminals and robbers. Why are THEY not stigmatized and ostracized and forced to register where they live and where they work and told they can't live within 1000 feet of this or that?!
-azurefly
Antipitas, 2nd Amendment:
I feel the same way about the hijacking of the term "liberal" by those who are anything but that. If you'll note, I have ceased referring to those who are now referring to themselves "progressives" (and are yet not progressive at all, unless you are referring to the progressive assimilation of all power and authority into the all-encompassing State) as either liberals, or progressives. I have, based on the audience, been referring to them as "The (far) Left", "leftists", "left-liberals", or "socialists". Leftist and socialist are the more correct terms, but to a general audience I use left-liberal to tie together the more common, incorrectly hijacked use of the term "liberal" with the correct identification as them being leftists.
I feel the same way about the hijacking of the term "liberal" by those who are anything but that. If you'll note, I have ceased referring to those who are now referring to themselves "progressives" (and are yet not progressive at all, unless you are referring to the progressive assimilation of all power and authority into the all-encompassing State) as either liberals, or progressives. I have, based on the audience, been referring to them as "The (far) Left", "leftists", "left-liberals", or "socialists". Leftist and socialist are the more correct terms, but to a general audience I use left-liberal to tie together the more common, incorrectly hijacked use of the term "liberal" with the correct identification as them being leftists.
machine guns no longer pay a special tax,yellow forms to be destroyed immediatly after so called background check.
remove sound suppressors from any special cvatagory,they save hearing and prevent unwanted noise from irritating the daytime sleepers.
everybody knows that gun control doesnt affect criminals right?
my aspect of gun control? free shooting and safty classes for anyone,education for the sheeple and voting out hipocracy of antigunners.
remove sound suppressors from any special cvatagory,they save hearing and prevent unwanted noise from irritating the daytime sleepers.
everybody knows that gun control doesnt affect criminals right?
my aspect of gun control? free shooting and safty classes for anyone,education for the sheeple and voting out hipocracy of antigunners.
Edward429451
Moderator
Hey now, that was a rough draft. You make a good point. Revisions / suggestions from the community welcome. How bout we make it like the hunter safety course where all you really have to do is to not shoot anyone (violate safety rules) and you pass? A qualification of your peers or some such. No gestapo here man, that was the old system.
More realistic courses could be designed for different weapons classes. If you do manage to qualify in your class, then you get free ammo for a year or something like that.
Only problem with that is -- who is going to do the teaching? Unfortunately, if you leave it to the current so-called "Public Education System", then what you'll end up getting is so much out of context "living language" twisting of the meaning of the document that what will happen is not a more constitutionally literate population, but instead a continuation of the current brainwashing that occurs there now. In other words, while that is a good suggestion, it would ultimately backfire.
What is needed isn't so much more "courses" on such, but a general reform of the education system to get rid of the "living language" types who pervert the meaning of the document to support their own ends -- a much more difficult task to accomplish, short of privatization of the school system giving the parents more choice in the matter.
Tyme, do you really agree with tethering one thing to an unrelated thing?
It seems these days that the government is using Driver's Licenses as the bludgeon with which to coerce conformity with other laws or requirements.
Do this or we take away your driver's license...
Do that or we take away your driver's license...
Pay your child support or we take away your driver's license...
Trim your grass or we take away your driver's license...
I understand that it can be an effective tool to urge people to comply with what they're supposed to do, but I don't think it is proper.
A punitive measure should have some relationship to what it is punishing. Driver's license suspension or revocation should be something that follows a driving-related infraction, not some other random crime or offense.
-azurefly
It seems these days that the government is using Driver's Licenses as the bludgeon with which to coerce conformity with other laws or requirements.
Do this or we take away your driver's license...
Do that or we take away your driver's license...
Pay your child support or we take away your driver's license...
Trim your grass or we take away your driver's license...
I understand that it can be an effective tool to urge people to comply with what they're supposed to do, but I don't think it is proper.
A punitive measure should have some relationship to what it is punishing. Driver's license suspension or revocation should be something that follows a driving-related infraction, not some other random crime or offense.
-azurefly
For motivation, yes. It wouldn't have to be a requirement for an adult to get a DL, only for a minor to get one. If someone didn't want to take and pass the gun class, they could wait until they're 18 to drive just like people who don't take/pass driver's ed.
It wouldn't have to be tied to driver's licenses. Students who didn't pass the course of fire quickly could be stuck in remedial shooting classes on weekends. I think there would need to be something to motivate kids who might have been conditioned by their parents to hate guns.
gunslinger555
New member
That would be me. The instructor comes and bam bam bam "I cant hit the target teacher I think I need more practice and more ammo"