Jump to content
TheOldBarn

Change The Gun Laws And Gut The Nra

Recommended Posts

Stop all this crazy talk about supporting the 2nd Amendment. The other day I heard a governor say how important the 2nd Amendment is. Well, let me tell you something. If we were to be taken over by our own tyrannical government no law allowing the sale of semi-automatic weapons would stop them. See our government has weapons of mass destruction. They've got more than weapons, they've got control over airwaves, or any and all types of mass communication. That argument about the second Amendment is more than kind of dumb.

And nobody is talking about taking away someone's right to own a handgun or a rifle for hunting anyway.

The NRA is down right bogus. Why they have so much control over politicians - or why big banks and Wall Street does really illustrates why this country is in a stalemate over many fixable issues.

Gun trade is an explicit condition mandated by our government in such a way that is completely under-reported on. Whose the biggest seller of WMD - we are. We sell more than semiautomatic weapons too. We sell jets designed only for warfare, guided missiles, tanks, you name it and we do it all over the world.

When we talk about US pentagon military acquisitions we're really not just talking about military defense. We're also talking about the eventual sale of all of these WMD's on the open market.

And we are chiefly responsible.

We can change this. Here at home we can with good laws over time eliminate a lot of the illegal domestic trafficking of guns. We can do buy backs, control the sale of ammunition, and prosecute those who break the laws. We can also stop arms sales to other countries.

Now you might say that other countries have the right to protect themselves too. You might even say it's our right as a Super Power to put WMD's into the hands of our allies, whomever they are judged to be.

You might say, Iran, while they never explicitly attacked another sovereign has sold WMD's to known terrorist organizations, and you'd be right. But from where did all that originate?

Our government, our military, currently travels the world, demonstrating weapons to a host of nations - many of which in the end have no real control as to where these weapons might end up.

We don't even know any of this. It's not new, it's been going on for a long time. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

This true you know. And the fact is none of it makes people anywhere any safer.

That's why - A: the NRA needs to be crushed. And B: We need to really demand as citizens that we be told about all weapon sales conducted by our government in our name.

 

The real issues of Tyranny and injustice can maybe start to be addressed when we do this.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should really try to stay on your own topic. You start out with changing the gun laws and gut the NRA, then quickly transition to the proliferation of WMD by the U.S. ????

 

Why do you want to change the gun laws? Are the laws currently in effect being properly enforced? Is sentencing of those found guilty of violating current gun laws just and adequate? I'm assuming the recent mass shootings has you up in arms (pun intended) about gun control. These things are tragedies of highest magnitude, but they are after all the fault of our society. You see, you guys have for years placed individuals with abhorrent tendencies into a protected class. The few (read that miniscule) individuals that carry out these acts of grand violence are just "different", that's all. We can't let them be discriminated against just because they're different. We can't single them out for further evaluation because they may get their feelings hurt. Since they can't be evaluated, we have to wait until they do something like Aurora, or Columbine, or Newtown. THEN everyone starts coming out of the woodwork to say "Yeah, we knew he wasn't quite right." There is also a lack of parental acknowledgement that their child may have some "issues". Why? For the same reasons above, they don't want to be stigmatized.....either that or they just don't want to see that their child has a problem.

You've also weakend the ability of parents that want to do the right thing by raising their children to have proper manners and social skills. You have branded discipline as abuse. A child throwing a tantrum in a restaurant should get a smack on their behind or one back talking should get a slap across the cheek. We used to get that, but not anymore. Now, children grow into teenagers that you try to avoid when you see them in groups of three or more at the mall. If you don't see that at your mall, I suggest you venture out of your bubble a time or two. You reap what you sow.

 

Let's talk about the 2nd Amendment and gun laws. I found it amusing when I went to the bradycenter.org website that nowhere did I see the 2nd Amendment in print. I guess it's not about the amendment, it's just about infriging on it. Let's say for a minute that I own guns. Let's say I own an AR-15, another semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol. Let's also say that I have several 30-round magazines for my AR and a few hundred rounds of ammunition for all of my weapons. Now, I know your next question will be "Why do you need all of those guns, and all of that ammunition, and those high-capacity magazines?" I don't "need" them right now. I want them in case I need them. Do you need your seat belt on your drive to the store and back home? Not likely, but you want it's protection if the need arises and you don't know when that might be. And, it's my right as a citizen of the United States of America to own them. Do I shoot my guns? Yes I do. It's important to me to be proficient in the handling and use of my firearms. It's important for my safety and those around me. Why would I own an AR-15? Because I'm familiar with it as it was the firearm in use during my military service. Why do I have 30-round magazines? Because they are plentiful. None of my magazines are filled with 30 rounds btw. Have I shot anyone with my guns? No, and I hope I don't have to. I haven't even pointed them at anyone. Would I shoot someone? Yes, if I or my family are threatened. I have killed a lot of people, many of them I had a lot more respect for than anyone I might need to shoot here. I know you may say I'm some whacked out vet with PTSD and it's only a matter of time before I blow. That's amusing, but if it makes you feel any better, I did go thru the standard psychological evaluation and was pronounced fit for return to society ;)

 

What is your problem with the NRA? Or any of the other pro-gun lobby organizations? You want to call them gun nuts ready to conduct mass murder at the drop of a hat? Most of the anti-gun groups are viewed the same way in that if they are successful, the average citizen will be deprived of a method of self defense. The NRA is one of the largest training organizations for the safe, responsible use of firearms for youth, law enforcement, the military and civilians. Yes, they advocate against any more useless gun laws that INFRINGE on the 2nd Amendment. You say you're not talking about taking away someone's right to own a handgun or rifle for hunting. I beg to differ. It's not just about self defense or hunting. I can use all of my weapons for self defense. Are you suggesting that I can ONLY have a handgun for self defense? Well, you can choose what ever you want for your own defense, but you do not get to choose for me or my family.

 

You see, Sen. Feinstein's new legislation is not the issue, it's a starting point. When you couple her stuff with Sen. Schumer's remarks about confiscation as a possibility, well you get a likely conspiracy. And that's just what they're saying in public. I don't have a problem with you folks banning what ever you want in your local area. I'm sure you live in a metropolitan area and you have police that will show up within moments of you needing them. I'm sure that when you ban guns in your area, then no one will have guns and you'll be safe. Good for you. Works in Chicago.

 

When we have senators talking about registration and confiscation of our weapons, that is where the line will be drawn. I wonder who you think will carry out these confiscations? Police? Less than 50% will comply I'll bet since an order like that would likely be against the state constitution. DHS? Have you been to an airport lately? National Guard? Those folks live here too and likely also own firearms. The military? I'll give you one guess. Besides, if it gets to the point where an attempt is made to try and use the military, you know the government has way over reached it's authority. Are you going to volunteer your services to assist in confiscation? Do you really think preparing for the "Zombie Apocolypse" has anything to do with zombies? Bless your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy......confiscations.....Sen. Feinstein......Sen. Schumer......Blah...... Blah........Blah.....

 

 

 

Mods.....another con infiltrator.....

Edited by Cadman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Mods.....another con infiltrator.....

I read it,

IMO there is nothing in his post branding him a con, except perhaps being pro gun. (so am I to a point)...he very well might be but since its his first post there is nothing else to go on

 

besides, I thought he presented his counter argument well, made some valid points and was respectful through the whole post

 

other mods might disagree, I do not

 

edit

after looking at his profile he does identify himself as a conservative. I asked him not to post in here any lionger

Edited by lostphoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it,

IMO there is nothing in his post branding him a con, except perhaps being pro gun. (so am I to a point)...he very well might be but since its his first post there is nothing else to go on

 

besides, I thought he presented his counter argument well, made some valid points and was respectful through the whole post

 

other mods might disagree, I do not

 

edit

after looking at his profile he does identify himself as a conservative. I asked him not to post in here any lionger

 

 

I did look at his profile before posting he was a con....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't define myself with a political tag (though I was forced to when joining the forum). I see the idea of in-groups and out-groups as part of the problem, though I am told I hold many liberal views (I got booted from the "Conservative Cave forum for espousing my views). Having said that I don't support gun bans, but I also see the NRA as part of the problem.

 

My question to anyone in this thread that supports "gun bans" is what is that you hope to accomplish, plainly stated, what would your goal be? Once you've told me, I'll tell you why it won't work, or I'll concede and change my position on the matter.

 

I wrote another post here that probably would have been more appropriate in this thread, but it's too late. Please feel free to read for a little more insight into my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah so what if he was a conservative. I am not wiling to shut people out of this debate just because of their political ideology. It does not offend me when a conservative posts in a liberal only forum or the other way around. The guy had some points. I am a libertarian myself and not a conservative especially on social issues.

 

I am just curious. How exactly do you gut an organization that has over a 100 years of history and millions of members?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah so what if he was a conservative. I am not wiling to shut people out of this debate just because of their political ideology. It does not offend me when a conservative posts in a liberal only forum or the other way around. The guy had some points. I am a libertarian myself and not a conservative especially on social issues.

 

I am just curious. How exactly do you gut an organization that has over a 100 years of history and millions of members?

sounds like the KKK about 100 years ago

 

how are they doing these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sounds like the KKK. I'm sorry was there anything about hating minorities i missed in my own post. I am hoping I am just dense and that was sarcasm



Sorry must be tired just re read what you said makes sense now. I don't think though that the KKK is a fair example. We know why they crumbled. 90 million gun owners in this country not all in the NRA but many agree with them even without direct membership. I don't think we ever had 90 million slave owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sounds like the KKK. I'm sorry was there anything about hating minorities i missed in my own post. I am hoping I am just dense and that was sarcasm

 

Sorry must be tired just re read what you said makes sense now. I don't think though that the KKK is a fair example. We know why they crumbled. 90 million gun owners in this country not all in the NRA but many agree with them even without direct membership. I don't think we ever had 90 million slave owners.

perhaps not...there were not 90 million americans not all that long ago.

 

and they crumbled because the blatant discrimination was slowly phased out over time.

 

there was huge resistance to giving blacks freedom...huge!...much in the same way as there is huge resistance to giving up the tools that so often are used to kill.

 

however you cannot wave a magic pen and expect the reasons so many own guns to just vanish....crime is a big problem especially uin urban areas.

 

poverty breeds crime

 

thats where the gun control needs to start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there were 90 million americans that long ago only a small amount were ever slaveholders. That argument is just silly. Just as silly as saying the second amendment is about hunting or personal defense.Poverty does breed crime. Yet our war to help the poor seems to have not helped much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there were 90 million americans that long ago only a small amount were ever slaveholders. That argument is just silly. Just as silly as saying the second amendment is about hunting or personal defense.Poverty does breed crime. Yet our war to help the poor seems to have not helped much.

maybe 1% were slave owners...much like the 1% of today.

 

it was expensive to keep slaves, so not many at all had them

 

however there was a deep discrimination even in most northerners...it lives on to this day but is nothing like times past

 

the 13th amendment only passed by 2 votes in the house!...2 votes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? None of that has to do with the fact that 90 million gun owners exist, have arms. Don't want to give them up, and are hurting nobody by owning them. You can say that the vast majority of slave holders [in fact all of them] were hurting their slaves simply by owning them. Not by beating them, torturing them, or raping them all of that was horrible but just OWNING a slave was something provably unjust. Owning an ar-15 and owning a human being are different issues and certainly shouldn't be compared together. Making a comparison about gun owners and the KKK is just silly on it's face. So unless the NRA advocates for the ownership of other human beings. I don't really care about the whole KKK thing. I am asking how you gut an organization that obviously has tons of public support from a LAW ABIDING non violent public? Much easier to convince a man that owning another man is wrong. Much more difficult to convince somebody who own's an AR-15 and has never used it in a violent capacity [you know the vast majority of ar-15 owners] that they should disarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? None of that has to do with the fact that 90 million gun owners exist, have arms. Don't want to give them up, and are hurting nobody by owning them. You can say that the vast majority of slave holders [in fact all of them] were hurting their slaves simply by owning them. Not by beating them, torturing them, or raping them all of that was horrible but just OWNING a slave was something provably unjust. Owning an ar-15 and owning a human being are different issues and certainly shouldn't be compared together. Making a comparison about gun owners and the KKK is just silly on it's face. So unless the NRA advocates for the ownership of other human beings. I don't really care about the whole KKK thing. I am asking how you gut an organization that obviously has tons of public support from a LAW ABIDING non violent public? Much easier to convince a man that owning another man is wrong. Much more difficult to convince somebody who own's an AR-15 and has never used it in a violent capacity [you know the vast majority of ar-15 owners] that they should disarm.

you asked how to gut a 100 year old org with millions of members. with tons of public support..I sited the KKK.

 

and I am NOT saying that owning a gun is in any way a connection to owning a human being.

 

I have to admit after that last school shooting I was pretty fed up. its like one of these things a month now. now that the initial knee jerk reaction I am enough of a realist t know that the guns will not vanish. nor is there really a need for them to for 99.99% of the owners

 

what needs to vanish is the perception of a need for these weapons, and the biggest one I cited was crime....(that may be wrong after all there are millions of hunters too but crime is a big one.)

 

I know guns by themselves dont kill...I know that there are already 100's of millions of them in circulation right now....and I also know that any attempt by this congress to make better gun laws will end up making it much worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think this perception to own a weapon exists?

depends...

 

but the only ones we all have to worry about are the people who have an over-abundance of fear inside them,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop all this crazy talk about supporting the 2nd Amendment. The other day I heard a governor say how important the 2nd Amendment is. Well, let me tell you something. If we were to be taken over by our own tyrannical government no law allowing the sale of semi-automatic weapons would stop them. See our government has weapons of mass destruction. They've got more than weapons, they've got control over airwaves, or any and all types of mass communication. That argument about the second Amendment is more than kind of dumb.

And nobody is talking about taking away someone's right to own a handgun or a rifle for hunting anyway.

 

The NRA is down right bogus. Why they have so much control over politicians - or why big banks and Wall Street does really illustrates why this country is in a stalemate over many fixable issues.

Gun trade is an explicit condition mandated by our government in such a way that is completely under-reported on. Whose the biggest seller of WMD - we are. We sell more than semiautomatic weapons too. We sell jets designed only for warfare, guided missiles, tanks, you name it and we do it all over the world.

When we talk about US pentagon military acquisitions we're really not just talking about military defense. We're also talking about the eventual sale of all of these WMD's on the open market.

And we are chiefly responsible.

We can change this. Here at home we can with good laws over time eliminate a lot of the illegal domestic trafficking of guns. We can do buy backs, control the sale of ammunition, and prosecute those who break the laws. We can also stop arms sales to other countries.

Now you might say that other countries have the right to protect themselves too. You might even say it's our right as a Super Power to put WMD's into the hands of our allies, whomever they are judged to be.

You might say, Iran, while they never explicitly attacked another sovereign has sold WMD's to known terrorist organizations, and you'd be right. But from where did all that originate?

Our government, our military, currently travels the world, demonstrating weapons to a host of nations - many of which in the end have no real control as to where these weapons might end up.

We don't even know any of this. It's not new, it's been going on for a long time. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

This true you know. And the fact is none of it makes people anywhere any safer.

That's why - A: the NRA needs to be crushed. And B: We need to really demand as citizens that we be told about all weapon sales conducted by our government in our name.

 

The real issues of Tyranny and injustice can maybe start to be addressed when we do this.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I am a Libertarian. I also am a gun owner.

 

The Second Amendment is just as important as the rest of them. If the Second is to be interpreted to be only valid in 1781, then the same should be at least true of the First. Modern technology was unknown at the time, so why should instant messaging or any electronic media be protected? Or television and radio? They are just a more effective means of getting your message out than was available 240-some years ago and as you so rightly point out the Government controls those as well. You can destroy a person just as thouroughly with words as you can with a gun, perhaps more so because a person would live longer while being destroyed. As far as your opinion that because the Government has more formidible weaponry at its disposal then we should allow that same Government to take away what crude tools the People do have at our disposal and leave us to use less effective ones? Why not just choose not to wield them yourself rather than passing laws prohibiting me from arming myself? Nobody is asking you to protect your own liberty should the need arise, but those of us who would choose to protect it (again, should the need arise) for you while defending our own would prefer that you not demand that our tools be taken from us.

 

More gun laws will not be any more effective in controlling violence than the thousands of gun control laws that are already on the books have been. The lunatics and criminals that perpetrate violence upon our schoolchildren and other defenseless citizens will continue to do so but using different tools, and the citizens will be even less able to defend against these horiffic attacks.

 

The solution is fewer armed lunatics and criminals. How can we do so while still maintaining our liberties? That is the real question here. Several of the shooters in the past have shown ample evidence of their mental illnesses well prior to their horiffic acts (one just need to Google the shootings to see evidence of this). People who were around them failed to do anything about it though. In some cases (Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech for example) the perpetrators acquired their guns legally and went through the necessary background checks, but their mental illness did not prevent them from acquiring the guns (as it should have!).

 

The challenge here is a vexing one. How can we maintain our civil liberties and protect ourselves against abuses here? That is a difficult one to be sure.

 

As to the NRA, what makes you believe that they can be or should be "gutted"? It is a membership driven entity, and as such the membership dictates their direction. I can assure you that the NRA does not accurately represent the majority of gun owners in this country by a long shot. If they did the membership would be many times larger than it already is. The proper way to counter the NRA would be to build the membership of an equally powerful lobby in Washington, but that does not exist at this time as far as I am aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See our government has weapons of mass destruction. They've got more than weapons, they've got control over airwaves, or any and all types of mass communication. That argument about the second Amendment is more than kind of dumb.

Yes, you are correct. If my neighbor and I revolt against a tyrant government, we would not get very far. However, when intolerable acts are committed by a government, it will not be individuals, yet collective states that rebel and they will fail without a well armed militia. As for WMDs - I highly doubt the United States is going to drop a nuke on it's own people - they have to live here too.

And nobody is talking about taking away someone's right to own a handgun or a rifle for hunting anyway.

Actually, yes, there are those that propose just that.

The NRA is down right bogus. Why they have so much control over politicians - or why big banks and Wall Street does really illustrates why this country is in a stalemate over many fixable issues.

The NRA is a group comprised of American's with the express right to declare their opinion and to take action for or against ANY legislation, just as you have that right. Why are they powerful, because they have a strong member base.

Gun trade is an explicit condition mandated by our government in such a way that is completely under-reported on. Whose the biggest seller of WMD - we are. We sell more than semiautomatic weapons too. We sell jets designed only for warfare, guided missiles, tanks, you name it and we do it all over the world.

Are we talking about handguns or tanks? I'm sure no gun right activist is saying citizens have the right to bear WMDs.

Here at home we can with good laws over time eliminate a lot of the illegal domestic trafficking of guns. We can do buy backs, control the sale of ammunition, and prosecute those who break the laws. We can also stop arms sales to other countries.

Yes, because all these gun laws we already have were broken by law abiding citizens. I'm sorry, but if one is inclined to commit murder, he will find a way and criminals do not abide by the law.

Now you might say that other countries have the right to protect themselves too. You might even say it's our right as a Super Power to put WMD's into the hands of our allies, whomever they are judged to be.

You might say, Iran, while they never explicitly attacked another sovereign has sold WMD's to known terrorist organizations, and you'd be right. But from where did all that originate?

Our government, our military, currently travels the world, demonstrating weapons to a host of nations - many of which in the end have no real control as to where these weapons might end up.

We don't even know any of this. It's not new, it's been going on for a long time. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

This true you know. And the fact is none of it makes people anywhere any safer.

That's why - A: the NRA needs to be crushed. And B: We need to really demand as citizens that we be told about all weapon sales conducted by our government in our name.

 

The real issues of Tyranny and injustice can maybe start to be addressed when we do this.

 

 

You totally lost me. You really need to narrow your topic thesis down. I tried to keep up with you, but you bounced from hand guns, to WMDs, to the NRA all the way to foreign gun trade polices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should really try to stay on your own topic. You start out with changing the gun laws and gut the NRA, then quickly transition to the proliferation of WMD by the U.S. ????

 

Why do you want to change the gun laws? Are the laws currently in effect being properly enforced? Is sentencing of those found guilty of violating current gun laws just and adequate? I'm assuming the recent mass shootings has you up in arms (pun intended) about gun control. These things are tragedies of highest magnitude, but they are after all the fault of our society. You see, you guys have for years placed individuals with abhorrent tendencies into a protected class. The few (read that miniscule) individuals that carry out these acts of grand violence are just "different", that's all. We can't let them be discriminated against just because they're different. We can't single them out for further evaluation because they may get their feelings hurt. Since they can't be evaluated, we have to wait until they do something like Aurora, or Columbine, or Newtown. THEN everyone starts coming out of the woodwork to say "Yeah, we knew he wasn't quite right." There is also a lack of parental acknowledgement that their child may have some "issues". Why? For the same reasons above, they don't want to be stigmatized.....either that or they just don't want to see that their child has a problem.

You've also weakend the ability of parents that want to do the right thing by raising their children to have proper manners and social skills. You have branded discipline as abuse. A child throwing a tantrum in a restaurant should get a smack on their behind or one back talking should get a slap across the cheek. We used to get that, but not anymore. Now, children grow into teenagers that you try to avoid when you see them in groups of three or more at the mall. If you don't see that at your mall, I suggest you venture out of your bubble a time or two. You reap what you sow.

 

Let's talk about the 2nd Amendment and gun laws. I found it amusing when I went to the bradycenter.org website that nowhere did I see the 2nd Amendment in print. I guess it's not about the amendment, it's just about infriging on it. Let's say for a minute that I own guns. Let's say I own an AR-15, another semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol. Let's also say that I have several 30-round magazines for my AR and a few hundred rounds of ammunition for all of my weapons. Now, I know your next question will be "Why do you need all of those guns, and all of that ammunition, and those high-capacity magazines?" I don't "need" them right now. I want them in case I need them. Do you need your seat belt on your drive to the store and back home? Not likely, but you want it's protection if the need arises and you don't know when that might be. And, it's my right as a citizen of the United States of America to own them. Do I shoot my guns? Yes I do. It's important to me to be proficient in the handling and use of my firearms. It's important for my safety and those around me. Why would I own an AR-15? Because I'm familiar with it as it was the firearm in use during my military service. Why do I have 30-round magazines? Because they are plentiful. None of my magazines are filled with 30 rounds btw. Have I shot anyone with my guns? No, and I hope I don't have to. I haven't even pointed them at anyone. Would I shoot someone? Yes, if I or my family are threatened. I have killed a lot of people, many of them I had a lot more respect for than anyone I might need to shoot here. I know you may say I'm some whacked out vet with PTSD and it's only a matter of time before I blow. That's amusing, but if it makes you feel any better, I did go thru the standard psychological evaluation and was pronounced fit for return to society ;)

 

What is your problem with the NRA? Or any of the other pro-gun lobby organizations? You want to call them gun nuts ready to conduct mass murder at the drop of a hat? Most of the anti-gun groups are viewed the same way in that if they are successful, the average citizen will be deprived of a method of self defense. The NRA is one of the largest training organizations for the safe, responsible use of firearms for youth, law enforcement, the military and civilians. Yes, they advocate against any more useless gun laws that INFRINGE on the 2nd Amendment. You say you're not talking about taking away someone's right to own a handgun or rifle for hunting. I beg to differ. It's not just about self defense or hunting. I can use all of my weapons for self defense. Are you suggesting that I can ONLY have a handgun for self defense? Well, you can choose what ever you want for your own defense, but you do not get to choose for me or my family.

 

You see, Sen. Feinstein's new legislation is not the issue, it's a starting point. When you couple her stuff with Sen. Schumer's remarks about confiscation as a possibility, well you get a likely conspiracy. And that's just what they're saying in public. I don't have a problem with you folks banning what ever you want in your local area. I'm sure you live in a metropolitan area and you have police that will show up within moments of you needing them. I'm sure that when you ban guns in your area, then no one will have guns and you'll be safe. Good for you. Works in Chicago.

 

When we have senators talking about registration and confiscation of our weapons, that is where the line will be drawn. I wonder who you think will carry out these confiscations? Police? Less than 50% will comply I'll bet since an order like that would likely be against the state constitution. DHS? Have you been to an airport lately? National Guard? Those folks live here too and likely also own firearms. The military? I'll give you one guess. Besides, if it gets to the point where an attempt is made to try and use the military, you know the government has way over reached it's authority. Are you going to volunteer your services to assist in confiscation? Do you really think preparing for the "Zombie Apocolypse" has anything to do with zombies? Bless your heart.

Virtually the ONLY thing at serious risk of "confiscation " or a full ban...is the 30 rd (or over 10 rd mags + Clips. Likely if you owned,legally, some hand gun or assault rifle...you revert back to the 10 rd clip that was the limit just a few years ago. I FULLY support that. Whenever I need to murder ANYONE, I don't think it's sporting to go kill 50 extra people just to inflate my ego. Actually...I'd PREFER a one shot long range kill and a neat escape. I would not wanna go with the full video game look, the Assault rifle, the costume,the overkill and drama queen crap. That's why I don't fit in with the NRA gun fetish types. Shooting folks...don't give me a boner. I don't lick guns and think I'm having sex. I also don't see a gun as some kind of religious thing.

 

Currently...the fact that I often think some folks OUGHT to be shot...is a good reason to NOT have a gun handy. I'm a good shot. If I want to kill someone...one shot should do it. I'd RATHER...not even think about killing. Life is a pretty rare thing in this universe.

 

If One WASNTS to actually find out the TRUTH...online....one hast to filter out theFLOOD of delusions and paranoia to get the basic FACTS. That the people who COVET....LUST FOR...extreme firepower are that paranoid,delusional, compulsive...ought to convince any sane person that the people who CRAVE the ability to mow down 30+ people...maybe should face some SPEED BUMPS...seems obvious.

 

Were I wanting to....I COULD put together a plan to, in a week or so...DOUBLE Lantz's body count in terms of massacring small kids. Really...you get a bunch of them cornered and if you can't waste 20 in 30 sec...you suck. Were Lantz at all efficient he could have killed 50-100 little rug rats. Since YOU are a tad trigger happy, I won't say how, but even if they post an armed Rent-a-cop....50 is pretty doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's paint a tyrannical picture to see what some of your feedback would be.

 

Let's say Rick Santorum won the election for President. Let's say Republicans won a super majority in both the house and senate. Let's say there were legislation and executive orders that explicitly denied the ability to choose an abortion or choose your marriage partner (same sex). In fact, let's say they took it a few steps more and said that it was against the law for people to have same-sex relations. They republicans expanded police forces and identified Occupy Wall Street individuals as militant combatants of the state and in some cases authorized lethal force to disburse some of the gatherings.

 

As a libertarian, I'm already cringing at how tyrannical this imaginary state would be.

 

What is the next step for us pro-liberty patriots? If we don't believe in the second amendment, our only recourse would be to do strikes and peaceful rallies. What happens then if a conservative police state label rebellious individuals as enemies of the state and start detaining them indefinitely (NDAA) or executing them?

 

Would we wait out the conservative political storm and hope that our votes in the next election cycle restore the freedoms of our great republic or do we make a stand against tyranny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption that the entire military would just happily engage in warfare against its own citizens it is sworn to protect breaks any argument that is trying to be made in the original post. It is known fact that many people in the US armed forces would, not only resist these efforts, but also actively engage the military. Also, to suggest that the US would use "weapons of mass destruction" on its own citizens is laughable. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the world would not sit idly by while America began a genocide on its own people.

I don't really know what the rest of the original post is about. It went from talking about guns to talking about nuclear proliferation. Which... Has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should really try to stay on your own topic. You start out with changing the gun laws and gut the NRA, then quickly transition to the proliferation of WMD by the U.S. ????

 

Why do you want to change the gun laws? Are the laws currently in effect being properly enforced? Is sentencing of those found guilty of violating current gun laws just and adequate? I'm assuming the recent mass shootings has you up in arms (pun intended) about gun control. These things are tragedies of highest magnitude, but they are after all the fault of our society. You see, you guys have for years placed individuals with abhorrent tendencies into a protected class. The few (read that miniscule) individuals that carry out these acts of grand violence are just "different", that's all. We can't let them be discriminated against just because they're different. We can't single them out for further evaluation because they may get their feelings hurt. Since they can't be evaluated, we have to wait until they do something like Aurora, or Columbine, or Newtown. THEN everyone starts coming out of the woodwork to say "Yeah, we knew he wasn't quite right." There is also a lack of parental acknowledgement that their child may have some "issues". Why? For the same reasons above, they don't want to be stigmatized.....either that or they just don't want to see that their child has a problem.

 

First you say we can't discriminate, then you seem offended that we can't single them out for fear it will hurt their feelings? Isn't that discrimination? Sure sounds that way. Sounds like you think all quiet and shy teen should be singled out. Why can't they be evaluated? No one is stopping the parents from seeking help, unless they are low income and have no access to mental health treatment, but that's another topic. The people who come out of the woodwork to say they knew the person in question wasn't quite right, are not trained in the mental health profession either, nor should they be expected to know the minds of crazies. And the parent won't seek help, makes it TheOldBarn's fault how? I didn't know it was his day to watch everyone's child. Sorry, it's not my day either. I've got my own back yard to take care of. Parents are responsible for their own children.

 

 

 

 

You've also weakend the ability of parents that want to do the right thing by raising their children to have proper manners and social skills. You have branded discipline as abuse. A child throwing a tantrum in a restaurant should get a smack on their behind or one back talking should get a slap across the cheek. We used to get that, but not anymore. Now, children grow into teenagers that you try to avoid when you see them in groups of three or more at the mall. If you don't see that at your mall, I suggest you venture out of your bubble a time or two. You reap what you sow.

 

TheOldBarn has done no such thing. Parental responsibilities are the PARENTS responsibility. If you don't know how to discipline a child without slapping them across the cheek, I'd say you are the one who's lacking in parental skills. It's much better for a child to learn inner self discipline, and want to mind their parent out of love and respect, instead of fear. Spanking a child, and using power play does nothing but show you are an irrational parent who needs parenting classes, and certainly shouldn't be giving out advise on how others should raise children, or for that matter, other peoples children.

 

 

Let's talk about the 2nd Amendment and gun laws. I found it amusing when I went to the bradycenter.org website that nowhere did I see the 2nd Amendment in print. I guess it's not about the amendment, it's just about infriging on it. Let's say for a minute that I own guns. Let's say I own an AR-15, another semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol. Let's also say that I have several 30-round magazines for my AR and a few hundred rounds of ammunition for all of my weapons. Now, I know your next question will be "Why do you need all of those guns, and all of that ammunition, and those high-capacity magazines?" I don't "need" them right now. I want them in case I need them. Do you need your seat belt on your drive to the store and back home? Not likely, but you want it's protection if the need arises and you don't know when that might be. And, it's my right as a citizen of the United States of America to own them.

 

Um, yeah, we're going to try to fix that so you can't own AR-15's. Seat belts save lives, guns take lives. See the difference? No, didn't think you would. Apples to oranges!

 

 

 

Do I shoot my guns? Yes I do. It's important to me to be proficient in the handling and use of my firearms. It's important for my safety and those around me. Why would I own an AR-15? Because I'm familiar with it as it was the firearm in use during my military service. Why do I have 30-round magazines? Because they are plentiful. None of my magazines are filled with 30 rounds btw. Have I shot anyone with my guns? No, and I hope I don't have to. I haven't even pointed them at anyone. Would I shoot someone? Yes, if I or my family are threatened. I have killed a lot of people, many of them I had a lot more respect for than anyone I might need to shoot here. I know you may say I'm some whacked out vet with PTSD and it's only a matter of time before I blow. That's amusing, but if it makes you feel any better, I did go thru the standard psychological evaluation and was pronounced fit for return to society ;)

 

Oh, thank you for not pointing your gun at someone today. Really, you might need to shoot someone here? Gotta love those keyboard warriors. Nah, I don't believe you are a wacked out vet. I don't believe you are a vet at all. I've never known a vet to brag about killing people, and brag about it on a message board.

 

 

What is your problem with the NRA? Or any of the other pro-gun lobby organizations? You want to call them gun nuts ready to conduct mass murder at the drop of a hat? Most of the anti-gun groups are viewed the same way in that if they are successful, the average citizen will be deprived of a method of self defense. The NRA is one of the largest training organizations for the safe, responsible use of firearms for youth, law enforcement, the military and civilians. Yes, they advocate against any more useless gun laws that INFRINGE on the 2nd Amendment. You say you're not talking about taking away someone's right to own a handgun or rifle for hunting. I beg to differ. It's not just about self defense or hunting. I can use all of my weapons for self defense. Are you suggesting that I can ONLY have a handgun for self defense? Well, you can choose what ever you want for your own defense, but you do not get to choose for me or my family.

The NRA used to be all about safety and training, now they are all about $$$. They don't give a crap about the citizens in this country. They are concerned with one thing only, and that's more $$$$. You are the perfect example of why we need to enforce strict gun laws.

 

You see, Sen. Feinstein's new legislation is not the issue, it's a starting point. When you couple her stuff with Sen. Schumer's remarks about confiscation as a possibility, well you get a likely conspiracy. And that's just what they're saying in public. I don't have a problem with you folks banning what ever you want in your local area. I'm sure you live in a metropolitan area and you have police that will show up within moments of you needing them. I'm sure that when you ban guns in your area, then no one will have guns and you'll be safe. Good for you. Works in Chicago.

 

It works in Japan. It works in Europe. It's much safer to walk the streets in other countries, where people act civilized. I think next to America is Yemen on gun violence. I really don't want to live in Yemen. The idiot Right says we'll be safer if we have more guns, so why isn't America the safest country in the world?

When we have senators talking about registration and confiscation of our weapons, that is where the line will be drawn. I wonder who you think will carry out these confiscations? Police? Less than 50% will comply I'll bet since an order like that would likely be against the state constitution. DHS? Have you been to an airport lately? National Guard? Those folks live here too and likely also own firearms. The military? I'll give you one guess. Besides, if it gets to the point where an attempt is made to try and use the military, you know the government has way over reached it's authority. Are you going to volunteer your services to assist in confiscation? Do you really think preparing for the "Zombie Apocolypse" has anything to do with zombies? Bless your heart.

 

Oh, now it's more gun love and paranoia. Yea! Here's a reminder. Kent State, Waco, Ruby Ridge, OWS, Vietnam protesters, and the list goes on. Your little stockpile, is just compensation for, well, smaller things. If the Government wanted to take your guns, they certainly could, and there's nothing you can do about it. You do realize that the military takes orders from the commander in chief, and that the Government pays their salary out of our tax dollars? I always wonder what kind of drug makes one so delusional, that they think they can go up against the Government, with a couple of hand guns, and maybe an AR-15 or two. Wow, that' doesn't even look good on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it,

IMO there is nothing in his post branding him a con, except perhaps being pro gun. (so am I to a point)...he very well might be but since its his first post there is nothing else to go on

 

besides, I thought he presented his counter argument well, made some valid points and was respectful through the whole post

 

other mods might disagree, I do not

 

edit

after looking at his profile he does identify himself as a conservative. I asked him not to post in here any lionger

 

 

Really? What good points did he make other than ridiculous paranoid drivel?

 

"I have killed a lot of people, many of them I had a lot more respect for than anyone I might need to shoot here."

 

 

Was that a good point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like the KKK about 100 years ago

 

how are they doing these days?

 

 

I agree with that. Here's what you do. You make gun nuts look like nasty cigarette smokers and shun them. You start a campaign about the dangers of simi automatics, just like they did with second hand smoking. You put up advertisements of people that have been shot in the face, just like they show the black lung, or the wrinkled up prune of an old woman, showing how smoking causes you to age drastically. You could show all twenty children from Sandy Hook, or the 3 year old baby that just blew his head off, playing with a troopers gun....and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...