New member & firearms owner

Thanks to anyone who is trying to teach me something. I join forums to educate myself, which I am doing so now:


1. I was ignorant to the fact that "bad guys" will get guns regardless
2. I have been watching too much nutnfancy saying sheeple lol
3. This forum is a dedicated 2a supporters

1. how? they get stolen cars, drugs, etc. they don't care about the law, it means nothing to them.
2. yeah, you need to quit that. less nutnfancy in the future for you.
3. yes, yes we are.

a few things I don't understand:


1. Why no one is willing to teach instead of saying troll
2. Why does it have to be all or nothing with 2a
3. Age is a factor, we don't allow 15yr olds to drive, 17yr olds to smoke and 20yr olds to drink. Does anyone have a problem with that? If so is it because of government infringing on our personal lives?
4. Why does everyone here act like the first time they owned a gun they were a 2a supporting, center of the target shooting, all knowing wise man?


i am specifically asking to be taught and would love to be but only a select few are doing so.

1. with how incongruous your views are (they didn't change within an hour) what did you expect from a bunch of die-hard 2A supporters?
2. because there's no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" for example. give an inch, the government will take a mile. go look up what happened with the NFA, then GCA, then FOPA.
3. age is not a factor. you may harbor insecurities or trust issues with yourself but you can get over it. i have a co-worker that drove a school bus as a teenager, like 14 or 15 if i remember correctly. (spoiler: no one died)
4. we don't. but we didn't bust into this community with the attitude you did.

does this help?
 
Thanks to anyone who is trying to teach me something. I join forums to educate myself, which I am doing so now:


1. I was ignorant to the fact that "bad guys" will get guns regardless
2. I have been watching too much nutnfancy saying sheeple lol
3. This forum is a dedicated 2a supporters


a few things I don't understand:


1. Why no one is willing to teach instead of saying troll - there have been a lot of people joining this forum only to cleverly (or not-so) rile up members with contradictory "gotcha-type" banter, or just idiot commentary. Your posts started off in a very similar fashion as some of those trolls do.

2. Why does it have to be all or nothing with 2a - this is a little difficult to answer in a few lines. Think of it this way - the more you concede on a god given right, the more you have essentially written it off as lost. Since a lot of what governs our 2A right is legislature, the allowance of legislative regulation either leads to more regulation through "it already is regulated" justification. Essentially, if you allow your rights to be regulated in a reducing way, you are essentially losing your rights. It's kind of like a Yes or No answer. You either have the right to bear arms or you don't.


3. Age is a factor, we don't allow 15yr olds to drive, 17yr olds to smoke and 20yr olds to drink. Does anyone have a problem with that? If so is it because of government infringing on our personal lives? - here is my take, and it doesn't mean that I think it's solid, because it's based on the classification of "citizens" between age groups... not sure if I agree with it - 17 year olds are classified as children, dependents on their parents. By this definition, they are not held liable for their actions in the court of law, thus aren't liable to have the same rights.

Here's where some of it comes full circle- the reason why a 17 year old doesn't have the same rights is because they aren't able to be held liable for their actions.

In order to be given rights, you must be able to lose yours for infringing others'. The government has defined that under a certain age, people shouldn't be held responsible to lose their rights due to a lack of developmental maturity.

And this is why people should be naturally allowed to have rights- even those that you personally deem "irresponsible" or unfit to have them. Have they otherwise proven that they are incapable? No? Then they should be allowed to have and own their God given rights. If they do something reprehensible, then they can lose them. Taking away their rights before they have proven otherwise unfit is essentially setting a precedent that you don't have them in the first place, thus they are privileges.

This leads me to question age classification, etc. I don't think that it's the government's place to regulate children, but rather, the parent's job to do so.


4. Why does everyone here act like the first time they owned a gun they were a 2a supporting, center of the target shooting, all knowing wise man? - truth is, they weren't. I've learned a lot here. I used to think differently, got "dog piled on" and learned a few things along the way. I knew what I wanted, I just didn't know how I wanted to get there, so I have been "outed" in the past. But I chose to read, comprehend, and learn. I still have a lot of learning to do


i am specifically asking to be taught and would love to be but only a select few are doing so.


replied as best as I could. I might not be clear enough in some of the responses because they go a lot deeper than what I am broaching.

thanks for hanging in there. And I apologize for the flaming from some of the people here. I do a lot of that to trolls, also. But it appears you aren't one.
 
Last edited:
Thats pretty messed up bro, outting someone's real name. That's cool tho, I have done nothing wrong and am still trying to learn.

You make a great point wiskie, I am starting to see the bigger picture. Who am I to designate who should or should not do anything, especially rights. Same goes for the government.

I am still having trouble with handing out LTCs to 13yr olds or the mentally ill though, anyone care to chime in?
 
if the "mentally ill" were that ill they would be in an insitution. if they were prone to violent actions they'd already be in prison or they would have screwed with the wrong mofo and possible come down with a case of lead poisoning.

kids used to take rifles to school, schools had shooting teams, etc. did i see it in my lifetime? no, unfortunately--but nothing happened. the kinds of kids you are most likely imagining are going to be the kids that will obtain a firearm regardless of legal status. otherwise i am not sure what argument you're trying to make.
 
Thats pretty messed up bro, outting someone's real name. That's cool tho, I have done nothing wrong and am still trying to learn.

You make a great point wiskie, I am starting to see the bigger picture. Who am I to designate who should or should not do anything, especially rights. Same goes for the government.

I am still having trouble with handing out LTCs to 13yr olds or the mentally ill though, anyone care to chime in?

in Massachusetts you need to be 15 for an Fid with parental consent. I plan to teach my daughter Basic safety long before that age. look up Eddie eagle,its a safety program for children. if we educate people properly why cant they. ever been to a range where a dad brings their children to shoot.
 
I am still having trouble with handing out LTCs to 13yr olds or the mentally ill though, anyone care to chime in?

have they proven that they shouldn't be allowed to have their god given rights? By this, I mean- by having their god given rights as individuals, will it harm or hamper your rights and a pursuit of a happy life? The answer is that "you don't know."

when they violate your rights, or do something terrible by exercising them, then it's proof that they can't have them. And then you can take them away. Until then, if you take their rights away, then you, by definition, could and should have your rights taken away as an individual.

Now, age restrictions are a slippery slope to argue on.
 
Mentally ill can be very subjective. The left thinks anyone who owns an AR15 as being mentally ill. Some people think because you went through one tough time in your life and needed some help to get back on course, is grounds for permanent bans on your 2A rights. I would err on the side of liberty.
 
Thanks to anyone who is trying to teach me something. I join forums to educate myself, which I am doing so now:


1. I was ignorant to the fact that "bad guys" will get guns regardless
2. I have been watching too much nutnfancy saying sheeple lol
3. This forum is a dedicated 2a supporters


a few things I don't understand:


1. Why no one is willing to teach instead of saying troll
2. Why does it have to be all or nothing with 2a
3. Age is a factor, we don't allow 15yr olds to drive, 17yr olds to smoke and 20yr olds to drink. Does anyone have a problem with that? If so is it because of government infringing on our personal lives?
4. Why does everyone here act like the first time they owned a gun they were a 2a supporting, center of the target shooting, all knowing wise man?


i am specifically asking to be taught and would love to be but only a select few are doing so.

eby, I'll take you at your word, and I'll welcome you to the forum. You're correct, everyone is new to something at some point, and there is a learning curve.

One of the reasons you're getting so much hostility is that we've had a series of trolls here. Many folks here are passionate about their rights and freedoms. Some of your posts indicate a certain amount of "fuddism." Many of your questions could be answered by lurking and reading, hence the reason for one of my earlier posts. Not putting you down, just a general observation.

As gun owners, particularly in the PRM, our rights are already severely restricted. We're fighting a constant battle just to hold on to what we have left. I'll admit to being hypersensitive when it comes to the the 2A. I take offense when people want to further encroach on my rights, or when I get the sense that they're okay with the present encroachments. I'm not okay with the status quo, and it pisses me off on a daily basis.

If you're sincere about your 2A rights, by all means, stick around, read, and ask questions.
 
Thats pretty messed up bro, outting someone's real name. That's cool tho, I have done nothing wrong and am still trying to learn.

You make a great point wiskie, I am starting to see the bigger picture. Who am I to designate who should or should not do anything, especially rights. Same goes for the government.

I am still having trouble with handing out LTCs to 13yr olds or the mentally ill though, anyone care to chime in?

Sorry I went back and edited that post. The size of your wallet should be the only thing that limits what type of firearms you can own.
 
Thats pretty messed up bro, outting someone's real name. That's cool tho, I have done nothing wrong and am still trying to learn.

You make a great point wiskie, I am starting to see the bigger picture. Who am I to designate who should or should not do anything, especially rights. Same goes for the government.

I am still having trouble with handing out LTCs to 13yr olds or the mentally ill though, anyone care to chime in?

As long as you're really trying to learn and you keep an open mind, you shouldn't have problems.

To a lot of people on here, it would seem that you came out swinging the gun control bat when you talk about a rite as a privilege, the reason why I made the reference earlier to the "privilege of free speech".. to most people that would sound pretty ridiculous because we all know it as a rite, one of which we use everyday, which is why you got the reaction you did about 2a on a shooters forum... even if that wasn't your intention.

When it comes to perspective, just be willing to see the other side. You might think your reasoning is sound, but so do the people who think that personal ownership of firearms is archaic. As for 13 year olds, I can say that at 13 I wasn't ready to carry a firearm, but it would be wrong of me to assume everyone else was/is in the same boat as me and that laws should be written to reflect my personal experience.

As for mental illness, again we can talk about perception, I have several friends who have been "institutionalize" due to combat related trauma, while serving their country... to some, they could be seen as mentally ill... to me, they went through something most people will never know and to refuse them a rite they fought to defend is a grave injustice.

I've been reading/lurking NES for years, my post count is still low, because I do more reading than I do posting. I'll be honest with you, I'm not that much older than you, seen a lot of stuff... and if I know anything, it's that I know nothing. Again, welcome to NES.
 
Thank you atilla, hillie, center and flintoid for realizing that you can do more with great points than bashing. And thank you FNHFAL for taking that down.

I definitely understand that I struck a nerve that I was not intending to, and I had no idea there were "trolls" on here just attempting to sway you guys or get gun rights taken away.

I am not going to lie and say I changed my opinion in a day. I still believe there is some sort of dream world where we can all have some sort of compromise, but I do also hate the government intruding in my life and telling me what I can or cannot do. I have learned that when it comes to guns, giving the government an inch will ultimately lead to a mile sadly...

I think that a lot of my points before were from a narrow scope of view, whereas now I am starting to see a bigger picture:

Points that really hit home for me by hillie:

"When it comes to perspective, just be willing to see the other side. You might think your reasoning is sound, but so do the people who think that personal ownership of firearms is archaic. As for 13 year olds, I can say that at 13 I wasn't ready to carry a firearm, but it would be wrong of me to assume everyone else was/is in the same boat as me and that laws should be written to reflect my personal experience.

As for mental illness, again we can talk about perception, I have several friends who have been "institutionalize" due to combat related trauma, while serving their country... to some, they could be seen as mentally ill... to me, they went through something most people will never know and to refuse them a rite they fought to defend is a grave injustice."


I am no doubt a 2a supporter, that is why I am an NRA member :). I just also think that SOME restrictions are put in place for good purpose and preventative measure. I think of it somewhat as the wild west vs a properly policed state.


I am obviously not perfect, nor are my opinions lol. But I am trying to learn and I thank you all for being understanding, helpful and informative.

Btw I think we have all have some common ground too other than guns and strong viewpoints lol. atilla im a big fan of stouts too, sam smith oatmeal is my jam. And Flintoid nice metalocalypse pic lol

Thanks again guys and I promise I will keep and open mind and continue to learn.

(this should be a sticky of what not to do as a new cat or just how to change someone's opinion lol)

 
I'm all for gun rights. I believe qualified people should be able to own fully-automatic machine-guns and I want one oh so badly..But I also know I am not preparing to mow down a theater full of innocent people.

A few well-placed Molotov cocktails would have the same end effect. Will you advocate 'reasonable' restrictions on gasoline purchase?
 
Welcome Eby.

I think this thread can be a lesson for everyone on NES. A new user came on, had some "controversial" views on gun control, and after some initial yelling of "TROLL!" actually got some helpful responses and learned some stuff. I think every new poster should get a brief "free pass" where we assume they are not a troll and politely explain the flaws in their viewpoint instead of crapping all over them. When I first got into shooting I had some misguided views about guns and gun control. I didn't know they were misguided because I had been brought up in a culture that thought guns were evil and scary. When someone comes in with viewpoints brought about by that culture, the best way to deal with it is to educate them, not insult them.

Of course, if they start multiple threads of crap and continually derail conversations into gun control BS, then they're probably a troll.
 
Can anyone justify why irresponsible people should have the right to bear arms other than: "the second amendment says so", or "it's a slippery slope". Has anyone here ever been part of a shooting or violent altercation?

I'm all for gun rights. I believe qualified people should be able to own fully-automatic machine-guns and I want one oh so badly..But I also know I am not preparing to mow down a theater full of innocent people.

Haha I don't know why I start because people get all butt-hurt thinking I am some Democratic Liberal trying to get the assault weapons ban back.

Haha I should have just been another mindless robot and just said "I love the second amendment."

I'm a federal agent, I've been involved (partner either shot or shot at, I've heard gunfire but they didn't hit me so I don't know for sure if I was the target) in multiple shootings, I've had multiple people try to run me down in a vehicle does that count?

That said, I think anyone should be able to buy anything they want up to and including military heavy grade hardware (tanks/fighter jets) if they can afford it. I rub people here wrong when I say that when someone has demonstrated a lack of responsibility with firearms being a reason to limit or restrict firearm ownership. That demonstrated event being something like murder, rape, and other violent capital crimes. I am talking convictions, not just arrest or investigation. Even this stance targets me for flamethrowers around here, so when you openly state that there should be some prerequisite to owning a firearm, it's not going to go over well.
 
I'm a federal agent, I've been involved (partner either shot or shot at, I've heard gunfire but they didn't hit me so I don't know for sure if I was the target) in multiple shootings, I've had multiple people try to run me down in a vehicle does that count?

That said, I think anyone should be able to buy anything they want up to and including military heavy grade hardware (tanks/fighter jets) if they can afford it. I rub people here wrong when I say that when someone has demonstrated a lack of responsibility with firearms being a reason to limit or restrict firearm ownership. That demonstrated event being something like murder, rape, and other violent capital crimes. I am talking convictions, not just arrest or investigation. Even this stance targets me for flamethrowers around here, so when you openly state that there should be some prerequisite to owning a firearm, it's not going to go over well.

Yea I learned that lesson the hard way lol. I guess it was more the way I approached it than anything else.
 
Hey everyone,

I must say since joining a range, purchasing my first firearm (M&P 40c) and immersing myself in the gun community, ...
-BR

That should have been everyone's first clue. Nothing good comes of a fotay. [rofl]

Eby132409;2637212[FONT=Verdana said:
I am not going to lie and say I changed my opinion in a day. I still believe there is some sort of dream world where we can all have some sort of compromise, but I do also hate the government intruding in my life and telling me what I can or cannot do. I have learned that when it comes to guns, giving the government an inch will ultimately lead to a mile sadly... [/FONT]


I am no doubt a 2a supporter, that is why I am an NRA member :). I just also think that SOME restrictions are put in place for good purpose and preventative measure. I think of it somewhat as the wild west vs a properly policed state.




We still have some work to do here guys. [rolleyes]
 
I do not believe in the notion of "a properly policed state."

A properly policed state is minimally policed.

When our laws were simple, and everything wasn't made to be illegal, there were much fewer things that made us lawbreakers, therefore the need for large police forces didn't exist. If you minded your own business, didn't steal, or kill, the need for a police state didn't exist. People in those times defended themselves, and used the law for those things that 2 people couldn't work out themselves.

I love this quote from Atlas Shrugged:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
 
Back
Top Bottom