Time to put your thinking caps on.

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Baba Yaga, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,798
    814
    113
    Bunkers and forts are good defense. But counterattack is always better.

    Nemo
     
    Baba Yaga likes this.

  2. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    If we're going to have a background check system, I wouldn't mind having the option to a simple pass/fail database for it that is accessible to the public should one CHOOSE to use it for a private sale. I would like to be able to put in someone's full name, birthday, and last 4 of their social and get a simple green light/red light response. No personal details or reasons for rejection, just a yes/no answer to whether they would pass an NICS check or not. Too few people in the state have a GWCL for that to be a requirement when you're trying to sell something quickly.
     
  3. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,792
    316
    83
    Gun owners say "no" to gun control for very valid reasons:
    1) No matter what gun give into for new restrictions, anti-gunners will continue to come back and ask for more and more restrictions. Many have made it known that their ultimately goal is complete prohibition and confiscation (under friendly names like "mandatory buyback").
    2) Guns aren't the problem. I can walk into a daycare, theater, etc. with a couple of molotov cocktails and cause mass murder. It's a cultural issue - not a gun issue.
    3) Existing gun restrictions seem to have had little effect to curb violent crime, likely because of #2 above.

    Some gun owners that don't understand the issues above may try to appease anti-gun proponents, but as per #1 above, they do so at their own (and our) peril.
     
    TimBob, phantoms and DonT like this.
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    Until someone challenges the Constitutionality of the NICS background check for retail sales it's what we have to live with. A better (ie, less intrusive) system is the BIDS (Blind Identification Database System) background check. The problem with both of them is that they require government approval for buying private property.

    Once we get into the secondary (used) market for firearms, why should there be any government approval required at all? It's my personal private property. What other private property requires a federal permission slip to buy, sell or transfer? I've bought and sold firearms privately for decades using just wisdom and discernment and with no problems.

    As RDTM alluded to, it's completely irrelevant what "common sense" restrictions, laws or regulations we give in to because the gun grabbers just consider it another victory (small or large) and they march on to the next item on their list. It never stops. Never forget their end goal of complete civilian disarmament - except for their enforcers. We play nice. They never do. When are we going to wake up to reality?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
    TimBob likes this.
  5. atlsrt44

    atlsrt44 Well-Known Member

    3,495
    183
    63
    There is only 1 side that ever makes concessions. Why is that
     
    Schweisshund and TimBob like this.
  6. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,792
    316
    83
    Because, in the mind of the anti-gunners, the guns and gun owners are the cause of the problem. Thus, there is no reason (in their minds) for anti-gun people to do anything other than demand change.
     
  7. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,792
    316
    83
    Remember: all the anti-gunners are asking for is that assault rifles(1) be restricted(2) from dangerous people(3) for the safety of the public as a whole. They are not trying to infringe on anyone's rights(4) to own a firearm or defend themselves.

    With such reasonable ideals, anti-gunners fail to understand why any reasonable person would oppose such common sense safety laws(5).

    Notes:
    1) "assault rifle" is defined as any long gun that holds more than one round.
    2) "restricted" means prohibited by law with any existing firearms confiscated through mandatory buyback programs with the act of non-compliance being a felony violation.
    3) "dangerous people" means citizens
    4) "rights" includes the second amendment as originally intended by the founding fathers, being a right reserved for the military (a.k.a. regulated miailitia) to posses military weapons.
    5) "common sense safety laws" means prohibition of firearm possession or ownership by any non-military or law enforcement personnel.
     
  8. atlsrt44

    atlsrt44 Well-Known Member

    3,495
    183
    63
    You forgot that there's no way the founders could've envisioned such weapons of war
     
  9. Baba Yaga

    Baba Yaga Active Member

    288
    41
    28
    1) Well there goes my grandfathers 22LR semi-auto rifle from 1952
    2) Ain't got no money, going to be an Outlaw
    3) Wasn't dangerous until I got to the military. But now I am a citizen.
    4) Well I'm good then cause once in never out. Signed my life away!
    5) Whew! Good save, That was close.

    Once I Took an oath to protect America from Tyrannical government from both inside and out (loosely based phrasing), so would this be Tyrannical government? I mean that just makes common sense right?
     
  10. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
  11. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    Fixed it. Alway remember their long game.
     
  12. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Quote from Bearing Arms article in OP:

    "Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters aren’t just saying “no” to new gun control laws. They’re also coming up with new ideas that respect the Constitution and tackle issues like suicide and violent crime."

    Now, compare that to this quote from The Emory Lawyer magazine, about a symposium held at the University recently on the subject of gun control:

    "We hear the argument a lot, Stein said. [Jeremy Stein, attorney, law school class of 1994, and head of an anti-gun group in Connecticut].
    "[We hear that] it's gun owners vs. non-gun owners. That's not even the debate anymore. Most gun owners, and I have a permit, support background checks and safe storage. The debate really is between zealots and people who want to be safe in their communities."

    And the author of the article went on to add: "Gun policy is a complicated, multilayered, nuanced subject that is most often discussed using easy slogans and bloviating."
     
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    The other day I had a conversation with a fellow gun owner and carry permit holder.
    He thought it would be perfectly fine for package delivery services to leave modern working handguns on your doorstep, unattended. No adult signature required. No need to pick them up at the UPS or FedEx facility if you're not home when the driver comes to your house. I disagreed-- I think that would be irresponsible and make the community unsafe, to make guns (particularly modern defensive handguns) so easily available to thieves, who are known to drive around looking for unattended packages to steal from people's front porches and decks.
     
    Baba Yaga likes this.
  14. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Here's what I think.
    The biggest problem with going along with reasonable gun control is that while many ordinary Americans want that and would be willing to stop there, the rabid gun-haters who lead all the anti-gun groups won't. To them, any concession is one more step toward total disarmament. They say right now, they want to ban 30 round magazines for your AR's and AK's. But when they have the support of a clear Democrat majority in Congress, they'll ban .22 rifles with 16-round tubular magazines. They say today that they want to ban all "armor piercing" steel-core or tungsten-core ammo, even in rifle-only calibers (handgun caliber AP ammo was banned from commercial sales 20 years ago). But then they'll say that all military caliber cartridges must be banned, even lead core, copper-jacket types. Then they'll say that there's no point in banning the .223 if gun companies can rebarrel their guns in very similar calibers like the .222 Remington, the .22-250, or the .17 Remington (simply a necked-town .223). So, the gun grabbers will say THEY need to banned next. Along with any other rifle round that has similar performance to any military sniper or machinegun round, too. So, there goes your .308, your .30-06, your .270, your 7mm-08...

    The gun grabbers might accept that you could have a straight-walled rifle cartridge with a muzzle velocity not exceeding 2400 feet per second, for big game hunting. So, you can keep your .45-70, your .444 Marlin. Maybe the .351 Winchester Self-Loading will make a comeback!

    There are extremists on BOTH sides of this issue, whose ability to think has been destroyed by hatred and groupthink, and the "political correctness" of their side's propaganda. It's not just the gun rights people, as this article about the Emory symposium suggests.

    Hearing an anti-gun activist say "I just want to ban semi-auto machineguns to keep our kids safe" is like hearing a Ku Klux Klansman saying "I just want blacks to have their own separate drinking fountains so that white girls can walk to school without getting abducted and raped."
     
    Baba Yaga likes this.
  15. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,253
    521
    113
    I'm all for the government regulating the militia since they took it over anyway. However the second part prohibits the government from infringing on the rights of the people at large. They can blame mass shooting on movies, violent video games or what ever social ill the want. The truth is mass shooting have been going on since the gun was first invented. Wyatt Earp did some mass shooting on his own once he turned Tombstone into his own private shooting gallery. During the 60 even the government took to mass shooting at a university. So it is not limited to just a few nut cases. The Government also went into mass shooting mode after the "Civil War" attempting to totally wipe out the native tribes. If anyone here thinks it can't happen again once the government has total control of the firearms just look south to Venezuela. Once the socialist took over the country the first thing was to round up all the guns. So now the people are fighting for survival with rocks and bottles against gun.
     
    Baba Yaga likes this.
  16. Baba Yaga

    Baba Yaga Active Member

    288
    41
    28
    PARADIGM SHIFT : Change in fundamental theory's and rules from current beliefs.

    Scary for most, unacceptable to others. No emotions, just rules based upon proven facts within given state of parameters. Does either side promote a qualifying statement for change in the rules? If no, then the rules should not change just because they feel like it. If a change is forced without rules there is chaos. Forcing change based upon emotional states is not scientific resolution. To much tidal variation like waves on a beach. A rock has no variations except change over vast amounts of time. It can be moved somewhat by tidal variations, but it is still a rock. the rocks rules don't change at the whim of tidal waves. I believe our for-fathers had some inclination as to these scientific bases when creating these bill of rights. Rules that should not be changed by emotional change but only by the passing of time.
     
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    As soon as a gun grabber qualifies his bona fides with any form of "and I have a gun" I write him off as a liar and hypocrite. Nothing he espouses is planned to apply to him and his fellow travelers. It's only for the dirt people. No different than all those white people that vehemently hate their own race. Nothing they advocate for will apply to them.

    If they really want to be "safe" why do they spend so much time pontificating on the tool when the real problem is the person wielding it? Where's all the hysteria over cars that kill tens of thousands each year? Or medical errors that kill hundreds of thousands each year? Or Kool-Aid? Jim Jones murdered over 900 people with it some 40 years ago.

    It's not about guns. It never has been. It's about controlling the population as Wegahe alluded to. As Orwell pointed out, not all animals are equal.
     
    atlsrt44 likes this.
  18. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    Article about daily deaths from other than a firearm (rifles specifically). Be careful crossing the street or if your doctor starts yawning during a procedure.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/06/18-daily-causes-death-americans/#