TheBigChill

All joking aside, it's obvious that rather than actually knowing in detail anything about these instances, you've instead quoted PoliceStateUSA as gospel. Again- Cherry.Picked. That's like me vomiting MSNBC bits as unbiased facts, probably worse.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

+1.

TheBigChill

Awfully presumptuous of you- assuming that your brothers will be right there with you. I'm fairly certain those with something to lose (besides this oh-so-sacred right) will reconsider their involvement should the time come.

Edit: Just to be clear, if anyone understands the benefit or detriment of strength in numbers (collectivism), it's me. I've said it about 5 times already.

No trolling, no sarcasm, no bullshit: There's some serious psychology at play here. When you're so sure something is going to happen; when you're so afraid of that thing; when you're so quick to disregard ANY rationalization besides your own, you then have a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's already happened in your mind, so you act accordingly. That's dangerous.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

That wasn't the original question, was it?

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Yup, policestateusa made up the confiscation act and the wounded knee massacre. I should have spent more than 2 minutes googling USA gun confiscations. I am guessing that WW2 never happened and Japanese Americans weren't sent to concentration camps after being stripped of property and firearms? How do i report a site making up history?

TheBigChill

Yes. Precisely.

How is the concept of cherry picked facts eluding you? Ever hear someone say "there are two sides to every story"? You can't just pick your favorite / best suiting side, via a 100% bias focused website. That's gotta be a joke.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms

You stated the above and i made a smartass comment about it never happening. You asked when did that happen and i provided a few examples. How could that be anything but cherry picked, when providing an example of an actual event in our history. Should i have stated that Beyonce IS a great performer to prove that i didnt cherry pick?

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

So you're one of those "living document" types? It's funny when I have this discussion with people that they really don't know anything about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They like to say that the Founding Fathers would not have written the 2A as they did if they'd known about the technological advance of weaponry, which is a fabrication of the anti that just got popular a few years ago as a tactic to try and reach older gun-owners into "turning" on younger gun owners who favor more modern weapons... well documented. However, not knowing anything about the Constitution is really an underlying issue surrounding their complete lack of understanding what kind of government we have and why the FF's chose their words very carefully. The idea of the 2A blankets the concept that people have the inherent right and responsibility to remove a gov't that no longer serves them. I'm certain you agree with this concept as a broad generalization. The concept of owning firearms to "defeat" the gov't is far more useful as a symbol than an actual defense. If the gov't ever turned on it's people, then what choice would there be but to fight... which is why the gov't can never turn on it's people... because the people will be armed, and "turning on them" means killing them. Kinda like MADD or "chicken or the egg".

This happens in many different forms and quite frequently. Your statement later that it's not "on a mass" scale is designed to make you feel better, but it's also an admission that it does happen. In many cases, the Gov't actually does go to doors, this happens daily in California, but more commonly, they simply make something illegal and demand you turn them in or sell them, or somehow you get labeled as a person who can't own guns. As an anti-gun person, this doesn't bother you, but to the gun-owner, the result is "the gov't is coming for my guns". Confiscation and ban are 2 fairly interchangeable words to most gun owners... if I can't own one, and my kids will never be able to own one, it really doesn't matter what you call it.

Are you speaking of the US military, or of various 3-letter Gov't agencies, or of local police/sheriffs. I doubt you've actually given this statement much thought. The idea you have in your head of tanks and Apaches unleashing hell on neighborhoods of "uprising" citizens is pretty absurd, equally as absurd as the FBI trying to occupy an entire state, or a local police force being convinced to assault some objective filled with members of their town. You've convinced yourself that when the people revolt to take back their gov't, that they will be very few in number and easily defeated. In reality, those revolting will be filled with people who you are convinced work for "the gov't"... like members of the military. You think servicemembers in our military are going to man up their vehicles and quell an uprising that they start... because I can tell you just about everybody I know and work with will be the first to call bullshit on the gov't?

No, the NG is not "the militia" as was meant by the FF. This has been debated by constitutional scholars for decades and you lose every time. Stop getting your historical education from Facebook.

So... when tens of millions of people in this country have decided that it's time for a new gov't, you would be cool if the gov't "dealt" with those people by killing them all?

Just ask yourself where gun ownership in this country would be right now without groups like the NRA/SAF/grassroots, etc... Just ask yourself (lets pick a random date) back in 1990, if the NRA had folded and the Brady Campaign had succeeded.

1) complete ban on handgun ownership by civilians with enforced confiscation of all arms currently in circulation.
2) complete ban on semi-auto rifles owned by civilians with enforced confiscation...
3) rifles and shotguns limited to only single-shot
4) federal registration of all firearms.
5) criminal offense to use a firearm in self-defense
6) mandatory inspections of in-home firearm storage
7) required firearm insurance
8) NO transfer of guns between persons... guns are not "personal property", but legally considered on loan from the gov't, and must be turned in and destroyed if no longer wanted
9) ammunition purchase limits and mandatory spent-brass turn in to prove you actually shot your allotted bullets
10) complete ban on reloading
11) ban on all Class3 and gov't confiscation of all in circulation
12) weapons must be registered by their purpose, stored in a gov't approved facility, and checked in/out by their owners... ie, you can't check out your deer rifle until a week before deer season, where you will be given exactly one bullet if you only have one deer-tag.

I could go on for ******* ever with gun-control schemes that have been tried... most of these are tried every year in one form or another in almost every state. Yet even with this knowledge, you will sit there and say "the gov't isn't coming for your guns" and "gun owners are paranoid".

Chill, you're correct about a lot of "gun control" being about politics. The media has to sell Fords and Tampons and Viagra, so it's in their best interests to **** off as many people as possible so they'll tune in. The big problem for the left is that there is that no form of what is currently being touted as "gun control" will have any affect on the types of events they use to promote the schemes. The statistics aren't lost on the anti's, they knew perfectly well that gun control as they push it won't work in decreasing mass shootings or gang-violence, but as long as they say "it's for the kids" and "it's just commonsense", then they are relevant. Their current goal is to make gun ownership as painful and expensive as possible to chip away slowly at the numbers of law-abiding gun owners. Over time, the theory is that there won't be enough law-abiding gun owners out there to fight them... then they move in for the big-ticket items like #1-12 above.

It's very rare to see an anti-gun person say "those pro-gun types are liars"... mostly they attack the NRA "the NRA are baby-killers and if they'd just get out of the way, we could totally solve the gun problem". Whereas (like I mentioned earlier), the complete lack of statistical data to support gun control working forces anti-gun types to manipulate hand-picked data to the point of borderline lies to get out their sound-bytes. Most of your pro-gun powerhouse organizations have standing invites to major players in anti-gun organizations for debates/interviews... which are never responded to because the anti-gun types know they would get massacred (no pun intended) in an real conversation.

Oh yeah, and the reason I own a bunch of assault rifles is so that when the zombies or gov't comes to my neighborhood looking for a fight, I can hand a few out to neighbors who never thought they'd need them.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i heard increase min wage is all about giving the 4% of the total workforce a living income and ending poverty.

TheBigChill

I came for Corky Romano and got Charlton Heston. You Miata guys are ringers.

I must say. the imagery of a firearm of any sort occupying space within a red NA Miata is beyond amusing.

I'm not trying to speak for Founding Fathers, nor can I pretend to know what they would do today. I think we can agree that in the past 250 years, the country has changed a great deal. Actually, that's a massive ******* understatement. Anyhow, the point is that you cannot simply apply antiquated documents, verbatim, in an environment which has evolved so drastically. It doesn't work. How does it make sense that pretty much everything has changed, yet we must interpret these documents as they were intended 250 years prior. It makes zero sense. I understand it's a slippery slope to allow such documents to be see as "living" and potentially allow modifications as seen fit by a few with agendas, but the world just isn't the same place, so things must bend; the document must bend. Which is easier? Fixing the world, or interpreting the document in a manner that allows a greater level of safety for all (if you believe that).


I just don't buy this 'all or nothing' mindset. It doesn't work; not anymore. I'm happy that I can own a gun, and I do. I'm happy to shoot it, and I do, but I simultaneously can step back and think objectively and say, "You know what, not having an AR-15 doesn't really affect my life; life is still good." I'm capable of understanding that limiting magazine size can have a truly positive effect, in the sense that if an aggressor is out at 7 shots, and needs to reload, that 5 seconds of reload time can allow a counter-offensive by the victim, or allow them to flee, or allow intervention in another way. The positive effect of a control such as magazine size outweighs the negative, and that's what this is about. If you disagree, explain how. That said, I'm also not paranoid, nor do I rely on extremist or agenda pushing groups for my news.

Half the issue is human nature: We'll always want what we're told we can't have, period; it matters not what we actually need. I'd like to think that we can use our heads, and be more than a predictable emotional response.

Sam, I do appreciate the post. Good points, even though I disagree on some of them. To touch on one: I think people should be inconvenienced. I think it should be a pain in the *** to get a gun. The power we wield as gun owners is somehow so often overlooked. You point it at something, and it destroys it. Why should that be easy to obtain? In many states, you simply need to be a resident and go through a background check. Johnny ******* may not have any priors, buy nothing says he's not a complete psycho, totally devoid of the maturity or mental stability required to ethically operate a firearm.


So, lets go one step further. In your mind (anyone, jump in here) what does the ideal gun control plan look like? From background checks, to training & licensing, to OC & CC, to State & Federal jurisdiction.

Chilicharger665

iTrader: (2)

Gun control involves practice and learning how handle recoil.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

In all of this diatribe, I would ask you quite frankly, other than the 2nd Amendment, which part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are you talking about wanting to interpret differently? In fact, please make one coherent argument about any part of any of the primary founding documents that you want changed or interpreted differently other than the 2A.

And you're the one who insists that pro-gun types nit-pick scenarios... I can come up a hundred scenarios where having a larger magazine capacity saves my life and results in the bad-guy being dead. You however, are choosing to rely on 2 very specific and publicized events where a lunatic with an AR15 killed a bunch of people (SHE and Aurora) in a gun-free zone with zero counter. Without those 2 events, you'd really have to dig to find out the last time a hi-capacity magazine was used in a crime. The kid yesterday in SC (reports are that he had a 1911 with an 8rd magazine and reloaded 5 times) killed a bunch of people in a gun-free zone (church) with a 100yr old pistol.

Background checks are almost completely useless. The ATF has zero funding and a political mandate not to prosecute those who lie on 4473's. Bad guys do not get their guns from gun-stores. Most guns used in crimes are not legally bought and any "inconvenience" the gov't placed on purchasing them would have zero affect on their use in crimes. This is not rocket science. A recent example of how making it "a pain in the ***" for good guys to buy guns results in good guys getting killed is the Carol Browne story from NJ.

Legal precedence has determined that the Constitution is not without limits. SCOTUS places limits or unlimits parts of the Constitution as cases make their way to that level... for example... it's illegal to yell "FIRE" in a theater even though we have the "Freedom of Speech".... and yes, it takes a retarded example like that for most people to understand "limits". In more recent times, and pertaining specifically to 2A, you have (most importantly, but not solely) Heller. Anybody with an interest in this thread who doesn't know what the Heller case did (and did not do) should immediately Google and (at a minimum) read the Wikipedia article.

I cannot "idealistically" answer your question about "an ideal gun control plan" because I don't believe in gun control on an ideal level... but I can comment on "realistic" restrictions on gun ownership and use. The problem for your average anti-gun person is that all the laws to cover this are already in place pretty much everywhere. Bad guys intent upon doing bad things with guns don't give a **** about gun-free zones or UBC's, and their access to guns is rarely via legal means. This discussion will always revert to the current anti-gun rhetoric that all we need to do is make it "harder for people to buy guns"... and then make laws that only apply to good guys buying guns who are zero part of the problem.

Lemme see if I can make this simple...
We sell about 10 million guns a year legally sold in this country with the current system and we have XXXX number of gun crimes that are committed by people who completely bypass this system. You want to make those 10 million guns WAY harder for people to buy by creating legal loopholes to jump through (registration, fingerprinting, background checks, mental health, etc)... So lets just say those people go through all that crap and we sell the same 10 million guns to the same 10 million people who cause ZERO pecent of crime.

Meanwhile, all the criminals out there continue to do the same **** they've been doing and nothing changes except it just gets more expensive to be a legal gun owner.

Felons already can't own guns.
It's a felony to lie on a 4473.
It's a felony to use a gun in crime.
It's a felony to provide a gun to a person you know is prohibited from owning one.
It's a felony... blah blah blah... blah blah blah...

Try this on for size... what purpose does it serve for the anti-gun people in this country to push for legislation that might actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes? Let's say there was a magic law out there whereby anybody who used a gun for evil purposes went to jail for a long time? Since most gun-related crimes are committed by those with prior criminal history, common sense would dictate that gun-related crime would go down by orders-of-magnitude by the week if we put in jail anybody who committed a crime with a gun. Why do the anti-gun folks concentrate ONLY on making it harder to legally buy guns rather than punishing those who commit crimes with guns? Any thoughts?

It's because keeping criminals in jail who commit crimes with guns would actually have an instant effect on gun-crime numbers. If laws were passed that put anybody who committed a crime with a gun in jail for 20yrs, there would be a very sudden drop in gun-related crime... if only for the fact that repeat criminals would be in jail. HOLY ****, SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND ALL THE ANTI-GUN PEOPLE ARE OUT OF A JOB! Plus, all us gun-loving types could own all the guns we wanted to fight off the gov't.

But that assumes the anti-gun people have any interest in solving the problem AND letting us keep our guns... which they don't. You have to understand that the end-goal of groups like the Brady Campaign are total bans and outright confiscation. They have no interest in letting anybody keep their guns, so they have no interest in solving the gun problem other than through complete elimination of firearms in the hands of the people. They know they can't win at the moment, so they chip away one bullshit law at a time and call it "compromise" like in Brains cartoon. Chew on that for a minute. What, you seriously believe the Brady Campaign will choose to let people keep their 1911's after that kid in SC killed a bunch of church-going black people? You think an M1 Garand will pass the muster since you're a "collector"? You think you'll be allowed to own a semi-auto shotgun if you promise to only use it on ducks? What dream-world do you live in where you think anti-gun groups distinguish between good gun owners and bad gun owners and that you are in the category they will set the bar just below?

Realistically, gun crime in this country will not be solved by "gun control". Most people could give a **** less about guns as long as they don't turn on the TV and see white elementary school kids getting shot up in the classroom. Black kids in the ghetto can get killed by the dozen every weekend in drug wars with little pocket revolvers and 22lr Cobra's and nobody bats an eye, but kill a bunch of white kids in an anti-gun state with an AR15 and everybody loses their ****. Who are you kidding about how much you care about gun control? Most people understand that good guys with guns are not the problem, and bad guys with guns will get them no matter how many laws there are. The greater issue of gun control can be lumped in with a few dozen other social problems that stem from people living their lives with a complete lack of personal responsibility for their actions, and demanding that each inconvenience they bring upon themselves be solved "by the gov't"... cue the progressives and the slow march off the deep end.

TheBigChill

Based on the following frighteningly ignorant statements, I can tell this is a debate totally devoid of reason. I'd like to think I know when to stop talking to a wall, so that's what I'll do, BUT:

Just so you can see it wrapped-up concisely, here's where you stand. Tell me if this sounds reasonable:

1) Everyone should be able to have any weapon. This includes weaponry equal to military grade arms.
2) Any resident of the US should be able to obtain these weapons.
3) There should be no attempt made at determining whether or not the person obtaining the weapon is of sound mind, nor should their past transgressions be considered when applying for firearm ownership.
4) Regardless of any and all changes that occur in our society and Govt moving forward, documents or legislation created during the infancy of the country should be interpreted and applied literally and completely, without consideration to it's applicability or lack thereof at that time.

How'd I do?

Stop ignoring facts. The mass shootings, school shootings, and literally thousands of other shootings are carried out with legally obtained weapons, and by their legal owners. That's a fact you can't ignore or twist. Whether or not some shitty Son stole the gun from his Dad or not is irrelevant to me. The gun was still made available to him by proxy. Great rights come with great responsibility, but you boys only want the former.

Where do you think "illegal" guns come from, anyway? Magic materialization? Many of them start as legal guns. Actually, most of them do. The imagery of crates full of illegal guns being sold at the port by some Botswanian villain should be reserved for Michael Bay movies. It's estimated by the ATF (Victim Surveys) that over a 5 year course, 341,000 incidents of firearm theft occurred. Thoughts?

There have been 60 or so mass shootings since 1982. Care to research how many were committed with legally obtained weapons? I'll let you sift through those details, because obviously I personally can't reach you with reason or facts. Actually, no- I'll tell you. 48 of 60.

You go ahead and stand your ground, hastily, blindly and selfishly defending your individual right. Meanwhile, there are kids drinking a ******* chocolate milk seconds before being unknowingly shot in the back. You're afraid; you're paranoid; you're an alarmist, and frankly, not much better than a simple child who covets something taken away from him. Actually, just the threat from your paranoid brothers is enough to stir you into fear driven fervor.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

So in your world, we ban civilian gun ownership and begin confiscation. All legal guns are surrendered by civilians. The criminals still have guns and yes after an undetermined amount of time, eventually a portion of those guns will be captured.

Does prohibition sound familiar? You really want a deeper black market of gun trade?

Do you think that the very small amount of crazies will stop being crazy? Or do you think they will obtain the next best object to inflict harm? A knife a hammer etc?

Does china and knives ring a bell? Pretty sure owning a gun in china is next to impossible. But they still had an attempt of a mass murder.

Ok, so lets ban knives and hammers. Well, we still have arms and legs.....

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

outlaw humans.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Honestly, I don't even really care. If he'd driven a truck through the front doors of the church and mowed down the last 3 rows of pews, nobody would be debating the senseless automotive violence in this country, or whether driver's license tests are stringent enough to weed out those who can't handle the responsibility.

Monk

iTrader: (3)

The irony of this statement makes me a little sad.
You have been nothing but an absolute douche since you stepped into this thread. Knock off the ad hominem attacks. We could have talked about this reasonably and respectfully, but you set the tone for an absolute ****-show.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

To be fair, I might have started that by calling him a dumbass, but I stand by that.

Monk

iTrader: (3)

Actually, I think this may have started it.

Not a good way to start an argument.

TheBigChill

Seriously? This is getting tiresome. When did I say ban all guns? I own guns, and would like to keep them; potentially buy another one. Again, your "all or nothing" mentality is showing.