This doesn't bode well for the gun grabbers....

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by rebel100, Mar 14, 2016.

Loading...
  1. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

  2. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I'm unaware of anyone trying to "grab guns" from anyone who is deserving of having them. So far, the only proposals to "grab guns" have been to keep them out of the hands of people with an active protection from abuse order and to temporarily delay those on the no-fly watchlist from obtaining them (subject to judicial review).

    Some CCW holders are well trained and disciplined individuals. Many learned how to handle their firearms in the military and/or through decades of family training. Some CCW holders are wannabe cowboys who disregard gun safety. Then you get things like this, or this.

    Always happy to see a crime, with any weapon, stopped, by any lawful means, before further damage, injury or loss of life is incurred. And I'm always pleased to see someone handling their weapon appropriately. But just as upset and angry as you probably get when people show articles where people misuse guns to broadly paint all gun owners as trigger happy idiots I can't really see the wisdom in trying to do the opposite, either.
     
  3. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

    I think your not paying attention. The attempts to restrict access and deprive people of their essential right to self defense are widespread and include the government as well as private enterprise. There is also widespread attempts to restrict the utility of various weapons with ridiculous and virtually useless restrictions on capacity and system design.
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No one's grabbing guns.
     
  5. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

    Least of all the axe wielder. I expected you to respond with more passion...don't let me down Rich! :)
     
  6. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

  7. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Firstly, *you're. I try not to be a grammar nazi, but seriously, this is a forum on education.

    Please cite one that does not involve people who have been convicted of a crime or who have a documented history of mental illness, physical violence or suspected links to terrorism. A mainstream attempt, please, nothing that comes from a birther blog.

    I agree that magazine restrictions are dumb. However, dumb as they are, I fail to see how said restrictions actually impede your essential right to self defense. If you need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself you're either being attacked by a lot of people or you are a crappy shot.

    Further, there was one very sensible system design that the NRA threw an absolute fit over; smart guns. Wear a bracelet linked to your handgun. Only the wearer of the bracelet can fire the weapon. The safety implications would be broad. That means that an armed suspect who successfully wrestles a service weapon away from a police officer is left with a useless paperweight. But that didn't stop the NRA from throwing a massive temper tantrum because NJ wanted to make "smart guns" the only legally available guns once they hit the market. We see the same irrational stomping about when it comes to the mere thought of ammunition encoding.

    We have the right to possess and use firearms. Somehow that's been expanded to include the fight to keep guns in the hands of violent criminals, spousal and child abusers, the mentally ill and disregarding any sort of innovation which might improve overall firearm safety. The NRA firearm safety course teaches, at least it did when I took it years ago, that you should keep your firearm and ammunition separately locked up. Now, we have a presidential candidate saying he keeps a loaded handgun in his nightstand. The response to "gun grabbing" (despite the fact that no one is grabbing any guns) has been swift and irrational and has now normalized the unsafe sort of behaviors that get people hurt and killed.
     
  8. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

    I always love when the self avowed Nazi's (grammar), begin with a personal attack. :)
     
  9. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Well, aren't we being sensitive . . .

    And the word is Nazis, without the apostrophe. Nazi's (with the apostrophe) is the possessive form for an individual Nazi.

    And I don't wish to insult anyone, except to say that you're all a bunch of gun nuts. Each and every one of you.

    There. I said it. And I'm glad I did. Like it really matters. (Really, you people take yourselves far too seriously. Each and every one of you. So there.)

    (Seriously, I wish there were an anti-gun contingent involved in this conversation, except that I have no intrinsic interest in the subject at all. But at least if there were, these threads wouldn't look like such a Second Amendment mutual masturbation session.)
     
  10. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

    We have a word for you too. :) I'm just too polite to say it on such a wholesome venue.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

  12. rebel100

    rebel100 New Member

    Just the one that popped up today. I didn't have to go looking for it.
     
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    The first 2 things that every dictatorial regime goes after; organized religion, and private ownership of firearms.

    Firearms are used daily by American citizens to protect themselves & others and to prevent/deter crime, that's not even worth arguing about.

    American Rifleman | The Armed Citizen®
     
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    They're also used to kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, far beyond any other modern country. But those slaughtered victims aren't worth arguing about either, it seems.

    There's nothing unique about America that requires this level of carnage year after bloody year. Except our massive gun fetish, of course.
     
  15. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    That;s factually incorrect. The first two things that dictatorial regimes "go after" are control of the media and transportation. Read the accounts of any coup and you'll see that those two are far more important.

    If gun ownership really thwarted dictators then Africa should be the most stable place in the world. Militias roam with impunity in Congo. In Somalia, open carry is the norm. Heading over to the Sudan? You'll probably be the only one unarmed. And things are going just swell there.

    But I digress.

    Can you please, and with a straight face, explain how keeping weapons out of the hands of persons treated for mental illness who have a documented history of mental illness is an affront to your civil rights? Alternatively, perhaps you can explain why it is necessary for someone under a PFA to be able to keep their guns in order to repel the tyrannical hordes? Are the wife beaters the first wave of protection against the guvmint oppressors?

    Because that's really the biggest issue; every attempt to impose even a common sense measure to protect the populace is met with this completely irrational slippery slope argument. And it's the same argument that people spouted when the courts upheld the restrictions on felons possessing firearms. And, indeed, there are a number of people who think THAT is unjust.
     
  16. Davewill

    Davewill Member

    Any successful intervention in a crime that's reported is absolutely DWARFED by the number of people whose kids tragically get hold of their weapons, or by the idiots who start shooting in crowded parking lots because they think someone has shoplifted a carton of milk, or the ones that end up putting a round through their neighbor's houses because they think that they can have target practice in their backyards, or the HORDES who end up killing or maiming their wife/brother/best friend/themselves while "cleaning" their gun. There's a guy who writes a series, and he has no problem coming up with a double dozen or more of those EVERY F'IN' WEEK. He even semi-regularly finds stories about trained peace officers who accidentally discharge their weapons in the wrong setting. Almost none of them face any consequences for their negligence.

    And those are the only the ones that make the paper. Yet, people expect me to be fine with every Tom, Dick or Marsha carrying in public. I assure you that I will NEVER support gun rights. The whole idea is idiotic, and the founding fathers should have been ashamed of themselves.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2016
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No. They got it right. The 2nd Amendment was about maintaining a well-regulated militia. It's the perversion of that concept by gun fetishists over the past 40 years--and a friendly GOP-dominated SCOTUS--that has turned our country into a quagmire of weaponry.
     
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    The elephant in the living room that seemingly no one except the NRA wants to point out is a ridiculously lenient judiciary. There was a program started in Richmond, Virginia (funded by the NRA) called Project Exile, where criminals arrested with illegal guns were prosecuted Federally, with the resulting harsh sentences and no parole. Surprise, surprise, gun violence dropped dramatically.

    Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

    I guess we have a massive freedom of speech fetish, and a massive freedom of religion fetish, also?
     
  19. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Those areas are totally lawless, "dictatorships" in name only.

    How many private citizens own guns in North Korea?

    Exactly,

    Can you please, and with a straight face, point out any instance where I said anything of the kind?

    HINT: You can't.

    The slippery slope concept is not at all irrational, it's quite rational.
     
  20. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Really?

    Can you cite some sources for these bold proclamations? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
     

Share This Page