CRSIII
NES Member
Libs are color blind.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
What gun control would you actually support?
- Thread starter zbrod
- Start date
- Status
Then most people are wrong and what 2A was intended to do was prevent the tyranny of the majority from oppressing the minority.
_Most_ people could arguably have said to not support the revolution against the King of England when this nation was founded as well.
I will agree with you that a large segment of our population has a very distorted view of reality from TV and school that leaves them unable to objectively think about what it is reasonable for a person to "have." The answer is that having something should never be a crime. Allowing or causing the things that you have to bring harm to others should be.
If you would not trust your neighbor with it, you most certainly should not let government have it. They have a proven track record of racism, oppression, murder, medical experimentation, forced sterilization, etc...
You want to talk about the "reasonableness" of preventing a convicted felon from ever owning a gun again, I suggest you look at government's "criminal record" and ask that question again.
Oh and BarryCare was not a "modest reform," it was a profound invasion of my fundamental right to decide what is best for me - and that's just the start of it. You guys crossed a bright line with that one.
Not really, they are far more racist than conservatives, they just do it passive aggressively (so as not to get their hands dirty).
Myself and many liberals had no illusions that he was the messiah. Most politicians are pieces of shit; as many of you have mentioned, they are only really good at getting elected, which often requires one to be a sociopath. I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, because he's actually proven himself. But Obama won the primaries, and it was him or McCain.
They saw "red" flags and thought it was a good thing... [sad2]
kimmie1911
NES Member
Take Boston for example, in regards to the 'proficiency' requirement. (Brookline does it too, but at least allows you to do it indoors with an approved instructor and a decent revolver) Not only do you have to take the safety course and be able to afford the $100+ fee for the course, plus the license fee (that's a lot of money for some folks - milk for the kids or self-defense, hmmm), but you also have to take a range proficiency test. Shoot 30 rounds, 12 of them with 1 hand, double action at 21(?) feet, the rest at 45(?) feet, 2 hands, single or double action. You have to do this with an antiquated .38sp revolver that is old and dirty and has a gritty, sticky 13 pound trigger pull. You have to do this outdoors on the police range at Moon Island. I take my test in the middle of the winter. Freezing cold, wind gusts like today coming off the water. I've done it in snow and I've done it in freezing rain. I start stressing and practicing for this a year in advance. Despite the fact that I'm an instructor and shoot on a weekly basis and can hold my own in USPSA competition, I have to prove that I can shoot a f'd up revolver to get my license. I would never own a revolver like that. So why should I have to prove that I can shoot one and how does that make me 'proficient'? This makes sense how????? Kinda like making me take a driving test every 6 years with a beat up, manual 'whooptie' with no power steering and no brakes. And then making me parallel park it in a 5 foot spot during a blizzard. But, at least I still get to keep my car if I flunk.
And the older I get, I realize how discriminatory that requirement is. I am slowly developing osteoarthritis in some of my fingers. No real problem with my own gun because I shoot a well maintained, single action semi with a 1.5pound trigger on a regular basis. My self-defense guns (semi and revolver) are all well-maintained with good triggers and I practice with them on a regular basis too. I buy what I can shoot well. But in a few years when my hands gets worse, a 13 pound trigger revolver????? I don't pass, I lose my license and my right to self-defense. I have a friend who is facing surgery on her hands because of severe cartilage damage and can probably not do the range test with their revolver. So, she loses her license? She loses her right to self-defense? Even though she is incredibly proficient with her own gun. What about someone who has had a stroke but is still functional but can't shoot a revolver? Or had an injury to their hands and can't handle a revolver? What about the 80 year old that's been shooting for 60 years but just doesn't have the strength or stability to stand out there and shoot a revolver to get a certain score? But is still dead on with his own gun? What about someone who is house-bound and just can't get to Moon Island? And the list goes on. And why do you have to shoot 30 rounds? You only have to be able to put ONE where you want it to go. I have women come through my class that just don't have the hand strength or hand size to allow them to shoot a full sized revolver. But they can shoot a small revolver or a semi-auto with a decent trigger just fine. And that's what they would buy. I know of more than one that gave up on going for their license just because of their fear of the range test. If I took this test when I first got my license and was proficient then, why am I not now, 15 years later? How does this 'test' prove anything and how is it not discriminatory? So in effect, Boston is disarming those that need to be able to protect themselves the most and that are the easiest prey.
But, this 'requirement' seems to be working really well here in Boston. Hardly ever hear about shootings anymore here in the city. And even less so, since 'mumbles' cracked down on the motorbikes![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
. I'm feeling incredibly safer. And that's (one of) the problem with 'gun control'.
And the older I get, I realize how discriminatory that requirement is. I am slowly developing osteoarthritis in some of my fingers. No real problem with my own gun because I shoot a well maintained, single action semi with a 1.5pound trigger on a regular basis. My self-defense guns (semi and revolver) are all well-maintained with good triggers and I practice with them on a regular basis too. I buy what I can shoot well. But in a few years when my hands gets worse, a 13 pound trigger revolver????? I don't pass, I lose my license and my right to self-defense. I have a friend who is facing surgery on her hands because of severe cartilage damage and can probably not do the range test with their revolver. So, she loses her license? She loses her right to self-defense? Even though she is incredibly proficient with her own gun. What about someone who has had a stroke but is still functional but can't shoot a revolver? Or had an injury to their hands and can't handle a revolver? What about the 80 year old that's been shooting for 60 years but just doesn't have the strength or stability to stand out there and shoot a revolver to get a certain score? But is still dead on with his own gun? What about someone who is house-bound and just can't get to Moon Island? And the list goes on. And why do you have to shoot 30 rounds? You only have to be able to put ONE where you want it to go. I have women come through my class that just don't have the hand strength or hand size to allow them to shoot a full sized revolver. But they can shoot a small revolver or a semi-auto with a decent trigger just fine. And that's what they would buy. I know of more than one that gave up on going for their license just because of their fear of the range test. If I took this test when I first got my license and was proficient then, why am I not now, 15 years later? How does this 'test' prove anything and how is it not discriminatory? So in effect, Boston is disarming those that need to be able to protect themselves the most and that are the easiest prey.
But, this 'requirement' seems to be working really well here in Boston. Hardly ever hear about shootings anymore here in the city. And even less so, since 'mumbles' cracked down on the motorbikes
. I'm feeling incredibly safer. And that's (one of) the problem with 'gun control'.
If you understand this, then why on earth would entrust this group of people with your healthcare?
Or, to the topic of this thread, deciding what "arms" you can own?
You have an organization that throughout human history and the history of this nation has demonstrated its propensity for abuse of power full of "sociopaths," yet you want to give them the power to decide who is "suitable" from amongst law abiding citizens to own what gun(s)?
That just makes no sense to me...
The lesson of poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and history generally is that government is not capable of making "value judgments" about people without severe and onerous checks and balances on government (DUE PROCESS OF LAW). Even there, look at the innocence project and you should recognize that even with all of these checks and balances, the process was STILL abused and innocent people were put in prison or on death row.
This is the fundamental violation of our rights that is your "gun control," it violate due process because "I" have not had my day in court where the state had the burden of proof to demonstrate that I should not have full exercise of my fundamental rights.
Zbrod, the "bad guys" thing really rubs me the wrong way because reading through laws of the past century, the "bad guys" have been defined at various times - by even the letter of the law as:
Irish
Italian
Black
Jew
Chinese
Mexican
and so on... I find this deeply offensive not only for my place on that list, but for anyone discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their family name, religion or nationality.
This is the legacy of allowing government to make this decision and you should be ashamed to want to be a part of it.
Bad guys should mean one and one one thing - convicted after due process of law with all the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Anyone else is innocent.
Irish
Italian
Black
Jew
Chinese
Mexican
and so on... I find this deeply offensive not only for my place on that list, but for anyone discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their family name, religion or nationality.
This is the legacy of allowing government to make this decision and you should be ashamed to want to be a part of it.
Bad guys should mean one and one one thing - convicted after due process of law with all the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Anyone else is innocent.
Last edited:
Wow.
On your topic of acceptable gun control, limiting the power of the individual, etc., read Timber's posts again. In reality, law is subservient to force. That's true in a dark alley surrounded by thugs or on a roadside surrounded by police. What happens in real time is much more a factor of individual preferences than of legal attempts to limit expression of those preferences. Later, if you live, law might get you a few dollars or the satisfaction of punishment of the law breaker. In real time, you are on your own. Nothing can change that.
You mentioned Timothy McVeigh. There is a great example of how limits on firearms and explosives had no impact on reality. A truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel was all it took to overcome the efforts of the BATFE, and much of the federal law enforcement effort aimed at preventing events like the Oklahoma City bombing. Some see that and want to increase law enforcement efforts and legal prohibitions. Others realize that you can't stop one man, and all you can do is harass a populace pointlessly. The lesson of Oklahoma City is not that we all need to endure more government control, that if we see something we need to say something (the Orwellian preference of Homeland Security), or that we should live in fear of such attacks. Rather, the lesson is that no amount of government can control the desire of a single individual to destroy. All any society can do is realize that freedom comes with risk, and that you should be prepared to defend yourself.
Last edited:
Mike S
NES Member
Thank you for bringing this up.
Depending on your definition of skyscraper, McVeigh did just what you said. So, tell me, how did the federal ban on citizens owning explosives prevent this from happening?
What? It was already illegal for him to possess the explosives?? It was already illegal to commit battery, attempted murder and murder? Then tell me, just how exactly was he able to do what he did?!?
WE NEED MORE LAWS
George D
NES Member
Ok, go change your thread settings and change the display to 40 posts per page so you don't have to go through 20 pages to read a good thread.
For those that want instruction, it should be offered for free when you purchase a firearm. If you want it, great, if not, no problem.
If by too dangerous you mean that they have raped, murdered or committed some other horrible act then I agree but the unfortunate part is that we do not have the beds to keep everyone that may be "deserving" in prison, nor should we. If there was no hope of ever getting out most criminals would fight to the death knowing they were about to be executed / put away for life IMO. Parole, probation and supervised release are all parts of our system, and I do not see that changing anytime soon.
Mental health conditions are even worse in this country with many of the state hospitals having been shut down and many of the truly mentally ill now residing in jails and prisons due to not being able to comport with the rules of society after being off their meds or not in a controlled environment.
I totally disagree with limiting firearms ownership to "non criminals". Even prior felons have the right to justifiable self defense. Even some 45 year old man who got a DUI 10 years ago deserves the right to possess any firearm he damn well pleases as long as he doesnt use it in the comission of a crime. Someone who committed larceny over $250 over 20 years ago has the right to defend themselves, thats why it is a basic human right, not some "by your leave" given by the government. As posted before, Jews, Blacks, Irish and plenty of other groups have been listed as undesirable and "criminal" by governments in power.
A serious thank you to many here who have posted positive, articulate points.
Believe it or not, we actually agree
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Either someone is so dangerous that they need to be in jail, or they've been reformed/paid their debt etc., and they should have ALL their rights restored.
Less restrictions on firearms possession and the use of deadly force against someone committing a violent crime, combined with sending folks to jail for an amount of time proportional to their crime (ie, sentenced to 20 years...you ACTUALLY SPEND 20 years in jail) would thin out prison populations and drop crime rates, IMO.
It would be a more manageable problem without the war on drugs and with a willingness to put to death those who deserve it in a timely fashion.
I don't mean railroad them without due process, I mean harsh (as in death) penalties for malicious prosecutorial or judicial misconduct, get much of the drug and family non-sense out of the courts and let's get to filtering out those who are incompatible with free society.
We've got a lot of work to do in this arena to. Our system is not "just" as it stands... It takes too long for for the innocent to get their lives back (if they ever do), too many people are being put in prison for things which should be legal (though ill advised). We are creating a violent, insurgent subculture of people who have no hope or expectation of succeeding in "our system" and as such are content to exist outside it at best - at worst they are working to destroy our system.
Ok, let's try this again. The simple fact that "most people wouldn't support x" is IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. You really need to read about what the social proof is. If we are discussing whether something is right or not it doesn't matter if a million people think it is right. We could have polled the south before the civil war and slavery would have overwhelmingly won a majority vote on that topic. That didn't make it "right". All it takes is for one individual to pose a rational argument to say that slavery was was wrong because it deprived an individual of their right to be free, their right to personal property, their right of movement, their right to their life, liberty, etc. Or if everyone voted that the sky was purple, would that make the sky instantly purple?
Are there people on this board that also think that the concept of "reasonable restrictions" exist? Sure. Again, that doesn't make the argument "right". Once you use the social proof in your argument it immediately collapses.
I don't support personal attacks. Personal attacks are irrelevant in the context of the discussion and can be ignored. Whenever a person resorts to a personal attack they lose credibility. Do people who are pro-gun lodge personal attacks against those espousing their anti-gun agenda? Of course, but I didn't so using that as your defense against my points is irrelevant and a diversion. Notice that I didn't respond to you using a personal attack, even though I was grouped in to your insults?
When your arguments are grounded in reality you don't need personal attacks. I don't need to call you "stupid" or a "libtard" to make my point even if someone else calls me stupid or says I should go back to the woods. If the goal of the discussion is to find the right answer to a question all I need to do is take your arguments and deconstruct them. If they are logically sound, then whether they are correct or not will be obvious. If they implode, I don't need to help them on the way down since they will collapse under their own irrational weight.
I also have a degree from a university. Guess what? What I am typing today would be factually the same as when I was a freshman in college. Just because someone goes to college doesn't automatically give them the ability to form a rational argument, just as it is equally wrong to say that someone who never went to college must be stupid.
As for the know it all comment, I have already shown in your own words that you imply that you DO in fact somehow "know better" than other people here and then proceeded to show how some of your arguments are factually incorrect.
I am not preoccupied by the left's issues with Obama. The direct question (twice) was what YOUR issues were with Obama, not about some nebulous group of people. If you disagree with Obama from the left I am willing to bet that it will be loaded with contradictions, and right on cue, you said below basically what I expected:
Assuming that when you make this statement you are speaking as if you are describing your own personal issues with Obama:
"He has not held Wall Street accountable, he has expanded our wars abroad rather than withdrawn, he has continued the excesses of executive power that Bush started (Patriot Act, etc), he did not go far enough on health care; the list goes on."
The point of my question was to show the inherent contradiction in yet another of your arguments. You state that you are pro-gun (or rather through the inverse way of stating that argument in a previous post):
"1. How many times do I have to state I'm not in favor of gun control before anyone believes me?"
I have already shown that you have put forth an anti-gun argument in my last post.
To really put the point home, if you really were pro-gun, you would be for defending individual rights. Philosophically you can't be for an individual right in one context and then turn around and be ok with another individual right being infringed in another context. For example, you say "he didn't go far enough with healthcare". I have a right to my private property(my money) and forcing me to pay for a healthcare plan I may not want is an infringment of my right to be left alone with my private property.
I am willing to guess at this point that you are saying "Guns and healthcare are totally different!". On the surface paying a doctor and defending my life with a firearm are different actions. The part that you are missing is in the context of individual rights (in this case the right to life and the right to personal property) they are exactly the same. You are implying that somehow my rights are not important and that you know better, ergo you should be able to tell me what to do and my rights be damned.
Today it is healthcare, tomorrow it could be speech deemed offensive according to some arbitrary standard, and any other right that you and many others feel strongly about. The net result is the same, you know better according to some arbitrary standard and that somehow trumps another individual's rights. Another great example of this is a O/U shotgun owner saying they are for the 2nd Amendment and would be horrified if someone wanted to take their duck gun away but not batting an eyelash in protest if someone else wants a class 3 machine gun.
To defend one individual right, you must defend them all.
Last edited:
J
Jose
You're a coward. Plain and simple.
There are people who will shed anyone's blood in order to reverse what your side has done and there is nothing you can do about it.
Zaphod,
I've been in more conversations like this than I can possible remember. I'm not even going to bother. Instead, some advice:
First, know your audience. If you had been on the forum long enough, you'd already know how folks would respond to your question. So either you're trolling, or you seriously don't understand the NES culture.
Second, you haven't been in the shooting community long enough to know what you don't know. Truly understanding how pivotal 2A is in our history, politics, and culture is not something one figures out overnight. Furthermore, if you really stick with it, you'll start to get into the legal history of gun control and federal/state firearms law. You will quickly learn what EC pointed out: laws don't prevent bad behavior.
If you really want to have this discussion, put your time in first. Go to some shoots. Spend several months reading this forum religiously. Do some research on firearms history and law. Then ask your question.
I've been in more conversations like this than I can possible remember. I'm not even going to bother. Instead, some advice:
First, know your audience. If you had been on the forum long enough, you'd already know how folks would respond to your question. So either you're trolling, or you seriously don't understand the NES culture.
Second, you haven't been in the shooting community long enough to know what you don't know. Truly understanding how pivotal 2A is in our history, politics, and culture is not something one figures out overnight. Furthermore, if you really stick with it, you'll start to get into the legal history of gun control and federal/state firearms law. You will quickly learn what EC pointed out: laws don't prevent bad behavior.
If you really want to have this discussion, put your time in first. Go to some shoots. Spend several months reading this forum religiously. Do some research on firearms history and law. Then ask your question.
Mass-diver
NES Member
I say this without hyperbole or sarcasm, I am continually amazed at the ignorance or indifference to suffering caused socialism displayed by so many people who can talk open about their "inner socialist."
Socialism in its various forms as murdered 115M+ innocent people in the past 100 years. Everywhere it goes, mass graves, oppression, torture and injustice follow.
When I hear this, it sounds the same as if someone had said "the murderer in me," or "the racist in me."
Zbrod, you really need to think more about what your socialism has done and whether you want to be associated with that? Maintaining the supremacy of the individual and prohibiting the tyranny of the majority is a requirement for freedom - there is no "right size" government, only small government as a lesser evil to chaos/anarchy.
You are defined by the company you keep and your chosen company of socialists are dripping in the blood of the millions they have killed and showing no sign of changing their ways (as mechanized murder is inevitable with that system as the needs of the state ultimately must find that those who dissent are too expensive to leave alive).
Last edited:
P-14
NES Member
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What I don't understand is why lib-tards think the "people" stated in the First Amendment are different than the "people" in the Second.
We, the people, shall not have our RKBA rights infringed. End of story.
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What I don't understand is why lib-tards think the "people" stated in the First Amendment are different than the "people" in the Second.
We, the people, shall not have our RKBA rights infringed. End of story.
They're sensible (no gun control) except when it comes to suppressors.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 617
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 617
Very good point!
- Status
