Re: Time to talk about gun control?

101
featureless wrote:
OldBiff wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:14 pm. Show me one credible price of legislation that talks about an outright gun ban or confiscation. Show me where this is in the national Democratic platform. Even St. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion about the fact that the 2nd amendment isn’t an unlimited right and that restrictions on types of weapons are appropriate a la Miller.
Well, that's partly bullshit and partly true. I can't speak for national efforts for a total ban, but "assault weapons" are certainly a ban agenda of the Dem platform. Feinstein has worked hard on making that semi auto rifles this time around, not just black, pistol grip death machines.

California has already passed numerous assault weapons bans. No confiscation yet, but no ability to pass them on when we croak or sell in state, so attrition will do it for them. The CA handgun gun roster will accomplish the same thing in time. So, it's in the works here, just a matter of time unless the courts intervein. I know it's easy to say it will never happen, but California is marching that direction. Newsom has his signing pen ready!
Yep, I didn’t even bother with that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

102
It's simply *not* this complicated you guys. While I'm not a proponent of bumper sticker, 3X5 note card solutions the answer to all of these debates is defined in delineations of gray. It is not black or white...it is an infinite variation of gray.

It's not "Socialism/Communism is bad or Socialism/Communism is good. There are people involved. That makes it gray....a billion variations from good to bad.

Marx was incredible and a genius. But his concepts were perverted/used/distorted by Stalin who was the same as Trump or Putin or a dozen other narcissists who adored power over Humans and money as more important than Life itself. It's not simple nor is it unfathomable. There are no simple/bumper sticker solutions for what comes next...no schematic, no outline. Human kind/The World has never before been where we are today.

The Solution is yet to come. Lets start working on it instead of issuing ultimatums.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Time to talk about gun control?

103
VodoundaVinci wrote:It's simply *not* this complicated you guys. While I'm not a proponent of bumper sticker, 3X5 note card solutions the answer to all of these debates is defined in delineations of gray. It is not black or white...it is an infinite variation of gray.

It's not "Socialism/Communism is bad or Socialism/Communism is good. There are people involved. That makes it gray....a billion variations from good to bad.

Marx was incredible and a genius. But his concepts were perverted/used/distorted by Stalin who was the same as Trump or Putin or a dozen other narcissists who adored power over Humans and money as more important than Life itself. It's not simple nor is it unfathomable. There are no simple/bumper sticker solutions for what comes next...no schematic, no outline. Human kind/The World has never before been where we are today.

The Solution is yet to come. Lets start working on it instead of issuing ultimatums.

VooDoo
Last post for a few days. Yea, I know. I said that last time.
Marx was not a genius. He was a idealist. Because human nature needs to compete in order to fulfill itself and feel amply rewarded, the Marxist model will never work. Regardless who is at the reigns, Marxism will suffer, because the group which controls so much (the government) has no competition. Since it has no competition, there can’t be the progression found in a capitalist society.

How many people do you think are dreaming of coming to the US? How many in the US are dreaming of going to another country in anything other than vacation?

If you are going to point out the pitfalls of Capitalism, save it. I already know them. I also know the Great Society under LBJ has been a complete failure orchestrated by one the most racist president who ever held the office.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

104
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:55 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:39 pm *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
A Response to YankeeTarheel

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist. I can stay with you for a few more hours, and then off to bed. I enjoy a good debate up to the point that it becomes something different.


This is mostly factually incorrect.
Fascism ALWAYS includes an element of racist. Marxism does not (though admittedly, many so-called Marxists are racists). The American Communist Party was the FIRST political party in the USA to openly invite African-Americans to join as full members. All races and every ethnicity were invited to join. Of course, the Marxist assertion of Atheism meant your religion was irrelevant.
Both Lenin as well as Stalin purged Jews. Pol Pots was no better against the Vietnamese. Mao, killed to be killing as long as he made money from the grain harvest. It is one thing to have a theory, yet another to make it work. Everything I posted above is factual.

Mussolini STARTED as a Socialist but abandoned it for Nationalism.
I'm Roman Catholic. I was Southern Baptist for 19 years. You think I may see Roman Catholicism through Southern Baptist eyes? You bet I do. The fact that Nationalism is the main dividing point between fascism and Marxism/communism is even more proof that Communism and fascism are very close. Remember, from Stalin to Putin...they are all nationalist, and so is China, and so was Pol Pots, etc.
Lenin NEVER thought International Communism must be or even SHOULD be based in Moscow. In fact, he believed that Berlin was the logical international capital. After all, without any support from Russian Communists, the German KPD consistently managed to get 25% of the national vote in Weimar Germany, and was independent of Russia. Stalin, OTOH, was the one who pushed for and insisted that international Communism be based and subservient to Moscow. Remember, Stalin was a narcissist, and a vicious sociopath, and in his youth, a violent terrorist.
Oh yes he did. He only wanted it in Germany when he was an emigre, and before the October Revolution. Don't forget the German pay off to Lenin, and that long train ride back into Russia. This was all done at the blessings and encouragement of the German government. Basically, Lenin was a national traitor, who justified his actions by believing he was betraying the Russian government only. Lenin would never have mandated Berlin after the Bolsheviks took power. The Comitern held at least 5 maybe 7 world conferences in Moscow starting in 1919. I'm not exactly sure of those dates, but it's close.
Also, Lenin was just as vicious as Stalin. He had his purges on the peasants long before Stalin took the reigns of power. Lenin's youth was no less colorful. Stalin at least had the buffering of the seminary. Lenin was raised as a radical, and his brother was hanged by the Czar for attempting an assassination of same Czar. A confirmed zealot too, as Lenin's brother was given the ability to renounce his actions. Lenin's brother could have walked away with his life. He chose rather to become a martyr, and to catapult his brother into a course that changed the world, and not for the better.

Stalin didn't "find" he couldn't govern--he deliberately undermined the Politburo and all of Lenin's colleagues. First he turned on the Trotsky wing, and when they were destroyed, turned on the more conservative wing. It had NOTHING to do with necessities of governance but with his need to be an absolute, unquestioned tyrant. Remember: Lenin DETESTED Stalin and warned against the Party allowing him to rise to power.
Stalin did what Lenin told him to do. Lenin played Stalin and Trotsky against each other, and Trotsky lost. Stalin was that worker who would do anything you asked him no matter what, and ask for more. The viciousness shown to the peasants started under Lenin. Stalin just carried out the actions. Lenin had no compassion for the peasants. He felt the future was with the proletariat.

Stalin's knowledge of Marxism was rather rudimentary, unlike Lenin. Lenin understood that Russia was probably the WORST country in Europe to attempt Communism. Stalin was simply a cruel Tsar pretending to be a Communist.
Stalin was both well education and well read. He didn't have a good command of the Russian language, but he was no dummy. He understood both what Marx wanted, what Lenin wanted (different from Marx), and what he wanted.

To insist that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are indistinguishable is like saying Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are no different from each other.

I'm glad you gave that analogy, because Judaism and Christianity are very similar, as are the sects of Islam - Shiites and Sunnis. And yes fascism and Communism are almost the same. You can throw racism in there if you wish, but you will find purges of races and nationalities on the communist side for sure.

I think a better question would be: Does Marxist Leninism inevitably lead to a Stalin, or is it merely vulnerable to a Stalin? And it's important that Stalin wasn't a real Communist, and, I believe, never actually understood or believed in Communism.
I have answered this above. For some reason, Marxist seem to glorify Lenin and Trotsky, without actually looking at the damage each of these two did to their people and the world.
Dobe, I don't know where you're getting your information on Lenin but it's virtually ALL wrong. I don't even know where to start! Trotsky and Lenin were close and Lenin, in his will WARNED against Stalin. Both Trotsky and Feliks Dzerzhinsky were Jews and Lenin's right-hand men. Yes, Lenin was cold and cruel, but he was anti-religion, not anti-Semitic. Stalin was openly, blatantly anti-Semitic like the Tsar before him.

One thing about Lenin is that he was a true zealot always focused on HIS goal, getting to a Communist international state.

When you get into Asian politics things get so tangled that we simply cannot judge them by Western standards. I know very little about Cambodian history but in China, we have the oldest extant civilization on Earth, with a much, much, MUCH longer view of the world than we have. China is the center of the world, hence the "Middle Kingdom" to their POV. To them, the Communists are merely the latest dynasty, and still very,very new, not even 70 years old, rather than hundreds. I don't defend Mao. He was a bastard, and a pedophile, and possibly the greatest mass-murderer in history--but the numbers I've seen don't seem to have multiple sources (in a Russian history course in 1974, guest Ukrainian speaker claimed Stalin killed 110 million!)

I gotta go.. I'm no Communist or Socialist but I am somewhat familiar with the theories and history.
Interesting as always. I have already sighted some of my sources. I do stand by them as well as my many Russian history classes under Dr. Owens. Keep reading on Lenin's will. There are even theories that Lenin's wife wrote the will. Remember, most of Lenin's late writings were transcribe by others as Lenin had suffered a stroke.

Good conversation. I look forward to others.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I am enjoying this as well, but I must have missed where you cited Dr. Owens before the above. I studied under the late Sidney Harcave, who wrote the authoritative text on the first Russian Revolution, in 1905.

Good luck with your surgery.
Sorry to have had to run but my wife's traveling and I had to prepare dinner.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

105
featureless wrote:
OldBiff wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:14 pm. Show me one credible price of legislation that talks about an outright gun ban or confiscation. Show me where this is in the national Democratic platform. Even St. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion about the fact that the 2nd amendment isn’t an unlimited right and that restrictions on types of weapons are appropriate a la Miller.
Well, that's partly bullshit and partly true. I can't speak for national efforts for a total ban, but "assault weapons" are certainly a ban agenda of the Dem platform. Feinstein has worked hard on making that semi auto rifles this time around, not just black, pistol grip death machines.

California has already passed numerous assault weapons bans. No confiscation yet, but no ability to pass them on when we croak or sell in state, so attrition will do it for them. The CA handgun gun roster will accomplish the same thing in time. So, it's in the works here, just a matter of time unless the courts intervein. I know it's easy to say it will never happen, but California is marching that direction. Newsom has his signing pen ready!
So none? You can still buy a gun in every state in the union and always have been able to do so. The idea that banning assault weapons (whatever that means) is tantamount to eliminating the ability of the people to buy and keep guns is preposterous. It’s not an unlimited right even the intellectually bankrupt originalist/textualist will agree with the having prohibited persons even though the amendment says “the people”. You can’t just go pick up an 81mm mortar, sawed off shot gun, or medium machine gun because otherwise muh freedoms. There are appropriate limits to what weapons can and cannot be owned by the general public as defined by case law and international agreements (remember when Elon Musk was selling his “not” flamethrowers?) it is entirely appropriate to discuss which guns fall into that category. People will have differing opinions about this, but it doesn’t mean they’re “destroying the second amendment” unless they’re calling for complete bans and confiscation. That’s some end of the world sandwich-board bullshit right there.

Ever wonder how we made it all the way to the 2000’s with only three 2A SCOTUS cases? Or why they waited 30 years to challenge the law in the Heller case? Could it be all the manufactured “gun grabber” paranoia and over the top rhetoric pushed by the radicals that took over the NRA in the 80’s?

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

106
IL considers antiques 'firearms' to disarm Felons despite Federal law that allows them to possess them.

NY, NJ, MA, CT, CA and several other states forbid AKMs and standard AR-15's.

Many states restrict standard capacity magazines and bar visitors from other states to buy ammo while visiting.

See a nice pistol while visiting another state? Be ready to pay for shipping and transfer to an FFL in your state.

There are restrictions in place. Also, you have heard of the proposed House Bill that will remove the ability of private residents of the United States to assemble AR-15's, yes?
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

107
As to the Democrats who want to ban 'assault weapons', it has been the Firearms Platform of the DNC since 2012.

Republicans just want to disarm minorities. Democrats want to make everyone who enjoys shooting as a recreation or for self defense a minority.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

109
ErikO wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:35 pm As to the Democrats who want to ban 'assault weapons', it has been the Firearms Platform of the DNC since 2012.

Republicans just want to disarm minorities. Democrats want to make everyone who enjoys shooting as a recreation or for self defense a minority.
I live in one of the most restrictive states, NJ, yet there has been ZERO effort, even from the most radical state senators and assembly-persons, to ban all guns.
Lever action, bolt action, single shot, revolver, black powder: No effort at all to ban them or even limit them. Despite the 10 round limit on removable magazine capacity, a lever-action rifle with a tube magazine that holds more than 10 rounds isn't restricted.

Currently, the limits on semi-auto pistols comes down to 3 (unless I missed one): 10 round mags, max. Mag must go through the handle, not attach separately, no suppressors (although, strangely, pistols can have a threaded barrel but semi-auto rifles count it as one of the 2 things that make it "an assault weapon")
Semi rifles allow one of multiple things, but 2 make it an "assault rifle"--pistol grip, collapsible stock (and most adjustable stocks are consideded that), threaded barrel, flash arrester, and a few things I forgot. Mags max at 10 rounds, also. You can have an adjustable stock if the weapon has to be disassembled to adjust it.

So, in NJ, ARs are still legal if they have a fixed stock, a welded-on muzzle break or un-threaded barrel, and 10 round magazines.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

110
OldBiff wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:07 pm
featureless wrote:
OldBiff wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:14 pm. Show me one credible price of legislation that talks about an outright gun ban or confiscation. Show me where this is in the national Democratic platform. Even St. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion about the fact that the 2nd amendment isn’t an unlimited right and that restrictions on types of weapons are appropriate a la Miller.
Well, that's partly bullshit and partly true. I can't speak for national efforts for a total ban, but "assault weapons" are certainly a ban agenda of the Dem platform. Feinstein has worked hard on making that semi auto rifles this time around, not just black, pistol grip death machines.

California has already passed numerous assault weapons bans. No confiscation yet, but no ability to pass them on when we croak or sell in state, so attrition will do it for them. The CA handgun gun roster will accomplish the same thing in time. So, it's in the works here, just a matter of time unless the courts intervein. I know it's easy to say it will never happen, but California is marching that direction. Newsom has his signing pen ready!
So none? You can still buy a gun in every state in the union and always have been able to do so. The idea that banning assault weapons (whatever that means) is tantamount to eliminating the ability of the people to buy and keep guns is preposterous. It’s not an unlimited right even the intellectually bankrupt originalist/textualist will agree with the having prohibited persons even though the amendment says “the people”. You can’t just go pick up an 81mm mortar, sawed off shot gun, or medium machine gun because otherwise muh freedoms. There are appropriate limits to what weapons can and cannot be owned by the general public as defined by case law and international agreements (remember when Elon Musk was selling his “not” flamethrowers?) it is entirely appropriate to discuss which guns fall into that category. People will have differing opinions about this, but it doesn’t mean they’re “destroying the second amendment” unless they’re calling for complete bans and confiscation. That’s some end of the world sandwich-board bullshit right there.

Ever wonder how we made it all the way to the 2000’s with only three 2A SCOTUS cases? Or why they waited 30 years to challenge the law in the Heller case? Could it be all the manufactured “gun grabber” paranoia and over the top rhetoric pushed by the radicals that took over the NRA in the 80’s?
We'll have to agree to disagree. Heller prohibits categorical bans. Legislature continues to create a category of one of the currently most "common use" firearms, the AR15 (or semi auto rifle under some new legislation). Heller says that destroyes the 2A right. You may not like that, but it is currently the law of the land, incorpated against the states by McDonald. No, it's not a total ban. But neither is it reasonable as rifles account for a very small percentage of total gun homicide. Rifles as a category are handily out done by knives, bats and fists in the statistics and totally blown away by hanguns.

Where is the justification for that infringement? There is none. Just like there is no justification on limiting Democrats use of the internet to Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and Republican usage to Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday to reduce hate speach. The result doesn't justify the infringement of the right. Background checks, fellons? Sure. Machine guns? Sure, they aren't in common use. Ar15s and semi autos? No. There as common as a Honda Accords.

So is there a total ban? No, I agreed with you there. Is there a slippery slope? Fuck yes there is, per the example in California. Unless, of course, you think the 2A only applies to muskets. ;)

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

111
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:48 am
ErikO wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:35 pm As to the Democrats who want to ban 'assault weapons', it has been the Firearms Platform of the DNC since 2012.

Republicans just want to disarm minorities. Democrats want to make everyone who enjoys shooting as a recreation or for self defense a minority.
I live in one of the most restrictive states, NJ, yet there has been ZERO effort, even from the most radical state senators and assembly-persons, to ban all guns.
Lever action, bolt action, single shot, revolver, black powder: No effort at all to ban them or even limit them. Despite the 10 round limit on removable magazine capacity, a lever-action rifle with a tube magazine that holds more than 10 rounds isn't restricted.

Currently, the limits on semi-auto pistols comes down to 3 (unless I missed one): 10 round mags, max. Mag must go through the handle, not attach separately, no suppressors (although, strangely, pistols can have a threaded barrel but semi-auto rifles count it as one of the 2 things that make it "an assault weapon")
Semi rifles allow one of multiple things, but 2 make it an "assault rifle"--pistol grip, collapsible stock (and most adjustable stocks are consideded that), threaded barrel, flash arrester, and a few things I forgot. Mags max at 10 rounds, also. You can have an adjustable stock if the weapon has to be disassembled to adjust it.

So, in NJ, ARs are still legal if they have a fixed stock, a welded-on muzzle break or un-threaded barrel, and 10 round magazines.
So was giving African Americans three fifths of a vote ok? I mean, they did get the right to vote! (Fucking of course not)

We're in similar gun reg boats. I want to know why my 2A rights mean less than my fellow citizens in other states. The supreme court says we're supposed to be equal under the Constitution.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

112
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:09 am We're in similar gun reg boats. I want to know why my 2A rights mean less than my fellow citizens in other states. The supreme court says we're supposed to be equal under the Constitution.
Don't forget: the Ninth and Tenth Amendments allow folks to claim rights that aren't listed in the Constitution, and they also allow states to regulate things as long as that regulation is not unconstitutional. California has made two State Constitutional amendments (Prop 187 and Prop 8) that turned out to be unconstitutional. They weren't gun related, but they illustrate how the 9th and 10th work.

I think Calif is ripe for SCOTUS review with respect to CCW and open carry. We have the Mulford Act which prohibits open carry and we have a "may issue" scene with respect to CCW. Each county is different, so in many counties a person cannot (may not, actually) carry. Disarmed. But no real SCOTUS decision yet (Peruta, meh).

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

113
CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:19 am
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:09 am We're in similar gun reg boats. I want to know why my 2A rights mean less than my fellow citizens in other states. The supreme court says we're supposed to be equal under the Constitution.
Don't forget: the Ninth and Tenth Amendments allow folks to claim rights that aren't listed in the Constitution, and they also allow states to regulate things as long as that regulation is not unconstitutional. California has made two State Constitutional amendments (Prop 187 and Prop 8) that turned out to be unconstitutional. They weren't gun related, but they illustrate how the 9th and 10th work.

I think Calif is ripe for SCOTUS review with respect to CCW and open carry. We have the Mulford Act which prohibits open carry and we have a "may issue" scene with respect to CCW. Each county is different, so in many counties a person cannot (may not, actually) carry. Disarmed. But no real SCOTUS decision yet (Peruta, meh).

CDFingers
Agreed and to point. When you get to where a constitutional right is so regulated, is it any longer a right? We did that with gay marriage. Other states have done it to minorities (hell, Mullford was passed to keep blacks unarmed and unable to resist). I don't see why so many people can't see that the 2A is a right as well.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

114
featureless said:

I don't see why so many people can't see that the 2A is a right as well.
I, a former conspiracy thinking denier, have concluded that the reason is a conspiracy of propaganda. Our current Commander in Chief is just like a broken clock: right twice a day by accident.

(1) He is right that Europe willfully depends upon the US defense umbrella and refuses to invest in the military even close the amount they have pledged (UK and France excepted).

(2) He has co-opted the "Fake News" topic - and he is mostly wrong. But I recall a '60 Minutes' episode on gun control from 30 years ago. I normally really respect '60 Minutes' - but I still recall the one sidedness of the mis-information.

IMO, there has been a long, protracted effort on the part of most media to promote a totally negative view of gun ownership. When they do show gun owners, they deliberately bring out the gun owners that are in the lower social status - and I mean no offense here. But they seem to bring out gun owners who have no ability to articulate a reasoned position - making ALL gun owners to appear as if we are 'clinging to our guns and ...."

It has created a social stigma so strong that when I recently mentioned to one of my good friends that I own firearms, he said "so you must be one of the people who voted for Trump." Now this is someone I know very well. He has no real reason to think I voted for Trump. But GUN OWNERSHIP, now that is a sure sign. Not only of Trump voting, but also general mental derangement. This friend is highly educated, well traveled, a damn good mathematician and a very successful venture capitalist. But the mis-information he has been fed by first tier media has been relentless. There are NO positive messages from costal elites about guns. It would appear to me that either the entirety of coastal elites either have really drunk the cool-aid, or the few people who think otherwise stay in the closet.

In my case, this particular friend is someone I have known for more than 30 years. And I talk to him often. So why did he not know until recently that I own firearms?

Simple - I am in the closet in the high tech industry.

I have no idea why this one topic (or, if I am blind, and it is not ONE topic at all) has generated such a polar position by coastal elites. Why guns?
Image

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

115
Dobe wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:12 pmBecause human nature needs to compete in order to fulfill itself and feel amply rewarded
I disagree with that assertion. I certainly feel no need to compete - in fact I tend to find competition against others to be quite boring. I do see a lot of people who do seem to enjoy competition, but I'm not convinced they are the majority of humanity, so I wouldn't call competitiveness "human nature" as if that's some sort of universal truth.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

116
max129 wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:56 am
featureless said:

I don't see why so many people can't see that the 2A is a right as well.
I, a former conspiracy thinking denier, have concluded that the reason is a conspiracy of propaganda. Our current Commander in Chief is just like a broken clock: right twice a day by accident.

(1) He is right that Europe willfully depends upon the US defense umbrella and refuses to invest in the military even close the amount they have pledged (UK and France excepted).

(2) He has co-opted the "Fake News" topic - and he is mostly wrong. But I recall a '60 Minutes' episode on gun control from 30 years ago. I normally really respect '60 Minutes' - but I still recall the one sidedness of the mis-information.

IMO, there has been a long, protracted effort on the part of most media to promote a totally negative view of gun ownership. When they do show gun owners, they deliberately bring out the gun owners that are in the lower social status - and I mean no offense here. But they seem to bring out gun owners who have no ability to articulate a reasoned position - making ALL gun owners to appear as if we are 'clinging to our guns and ...."

It has created a social stigma so strong that when I recently mentioned to one of my good friends that I own firearms, he said "so you must be one of the people who voted for Trump." Now this is someone I know very well. He has no real reason to think I voted for Trump. But GUN OWNERSHIP, now that is a sure sign. Not only of Trump voting, but also general mental derangement. This friend is highly educated, well traveled, a damn good mathematician and a very successful venture capitalist. But the mis-information he has been fed by first tier media has been relentless. There are NO positive messages from costal elites about guns. It would appear to me that either the entirety of coastal elites either have really drunk the cool-aid, or the few people who think otherwise stay in the closet.

In my case, this particular friend is someone I have known for more than 30 years. And I talk to him often. So why did he not know until recently that I own firearms?

Simple - I am in the closet in the high tech industry.

I have no idea why this one topic (or, if I am blind, and it is not ONE topic at all) has generated such a polar position by coastal elites. Why guns?
I've thought about and agree with all points you make. I guess what I don't get is, for an elite and/or socially conscious group that otherwise supports civil rights, why come down so hard on this particular right? It's not just the media feed--and yes, media around guns is certainly "fake news". For the party of #resist, just what the fuck are we supposed to do to resist should the ballot box fail? Rubber bands and paperclips? For the #metoo, just how is a woman supposed to overcome disparity of force alone in an alley with a sexual predator? Who are you to take that option off the table, providing only safe access to abortion should the rape lead to pregnancy? For #let'emin (is that a thing yet?), just how do you back down the feds, directed by an elected neofascist, when #resist fails? For the #nokidsincages, what are we going to do if it continues? For the #blacklivesmatter, why is it that we trust only the authorities to have high caps, AR15s, etc. when it's those very authorities that are shooting minorities and we're in the streets demonstrating against?

These are very big, very real issues. I'm not saying a gun is the answer, but it sure is a comforting fallback position and beats the hell out of strong words if push comes to shove. I just don't get the disconnect. And yes, I am very much in the closet as well.

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

117
OldBiff wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:07 pm So none? You can still buy a gun in every state in the union and always have been able to do so. The idea that banning assault weapons (whatever that means) is tantamount to eliminating the ability of the people to buy and keep guns is preposterous. It’s not an unlimited right even the intellectually bankrupt originalist/textualist will agree with the having prohibited persons even though the amendment says “the people”. You can’t just go pick up an 81mm mortar, sawed off shot gun, or medium machine gun because otherwise muh freedoms. There are appropriate limits to what weapons can and cannot be owned by the general public as defined by case law and international agreements (remember when Elon Musk was selling his “not” flamethrowers?) it is entirely appropriate to discuss which guns fall into that category. People will have differing opinions about this, but it doesn’t mean they’re “destroying the second amendment” unless they’re calling for complete bans and confiscation. That’s some end of the world sandwich-board bullshit right there.

Ever wonder how we made it all the way to the 2000’s with only three 2A SCOTUS cases? Or why they waited 30 years to challenge the law in the Heller case? Could it be all the manufactured “gun grabber” paranoia and over the top rhetoric pushed by the radicals that took over the NRA in the 80’s?
Nonetheless there are prominent people on the left openly talking about completely repealing the second amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin ... dment.html
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

119
CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:21 pm The 2A is the only right that allows citizens to possess a tool that can deal death at a distance. That calls in special scrutiny. I think this is why this club focuses on education and marksmanship.

Be careful out there.

CDFingers
Of course, and is the reason we have background checks and prohibited persons/places. But that doesn't make it subject to unreasonable restriction for little to no benefit. For example, I could understand some serious discussion about stronger regulation on handguns that account for 12,000 homicides per year. Instead, the focus is on banning a class of rifles that account for ~300 deaths per year as a portion of all rifles. So where's the justification to restrict that right? If we consider the "militia" part of the 2A, certainly rifles would be under stronger protection than handguns, handguns being almost useless to a militia. (not suggesting a handgun ban here, either)

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

120
featureless said:

just how is a woman supposed to overcome disparity of force alone in an alley
With this I completely agree. It is all fine to say "Learn Self Defense" - what TOTAL bullshit. I am in damn good health. I walk more than 4 miles per day. I am 6 feet tall. I was in the USMC. I was certainly well trained in 'self defense'. But someone a lot younger, stronger and more aggressive by nature than me has me at a total advantage. I am in my early 60s, but I cannot get up off the floor quickly.

As for women, it is a very dark topic that I am aware that most women are often in fear of their own safety. In my life, that may happen once a year. In the case of my wife, it may be once a week.

To me, the single most cogent argument for gun ownership is "God made men and women, Sam Colt made them equal."
Image

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

122
max129 wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:40 pm With this I completely agree. It is all fine to say "Learn Self Defense" - what TOTAL bullshit. I am in damn good health. I walk more than 4 miles per day. I am 6 feet tall. I was in the USMC. I was certainly well trained in 'self defense'. But someone a lot younger, stronger and more aggressive by nature than me has me at a total advantage. I am in my early 60s, but I cannot get up off the floor quickly.

As for women, it is a very dark topic that I am aware that most women are often in fear of their own safety. In my life, that may happen once a year. In the case of my wife, it may be once a week.
Yup. I'm not a big guy at 5"10", but I'm fast, in decent shape and can take 40 judo throws in an hour (with a crash pad!) and still get my ass up off the ground (mat) without using my hands. Although, at 45, it's harder than it was at 35 to avoid a couple of advil prior to bed. My wife is 5'2" and spunky as fuck. But mass will always have the advantage, no matter how fast, strong or well trained you are. In a society that supposedly looks at equal rights, promotes feminism and breaking glass ceilings, you'd think arming women (should they desire it) would be a natural conclusion. Maybe us white males fear armed women as much as armed blacks? ;)
CDFingers wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:54 pm A person who cannot defend oneself cannot truly exercise liberty, as some schllubb will come along and exercise freedom and rob they unarmed ass.

CDFingers
I agree with this sentiment, as funnily as you worded it. :lol:

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

123
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:09 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:48 am
ErikO wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:35 pm As to the Democrats who want to ban 'assault weapons', it has been the Firearms Platform of the DNC since 2012.

Republicans just want to disarm minorities. Democrats want to make everyone who enjoys shooting as a recreation or for self defense a minority.
I live in one of the most restrictive states, NJ, yet there has been ZERO effort, even from the most radical state senators and assembly-persons, to ban all guns.
Lever action, bolt action, single shot, revolver, black powder: No effort at all to ban them or even limit them. Despite the 10 round limit on removable magazine capacity, a lever-action rifle with a tube magazine that holds more than 10 rounds isn't restricted.

Currently, the limits on semi-auto pistols comes down to 3 (unless I missed one): 10 round mags, max. Mag must go through the handle, not attach separately, no suppressors (although, strangely, pistols can have a threaded barrel but semi-auto rifles count it as one of the 2 things that make it "an assault weapon")
Semi rifles allow one of multiple things, but 2 make it an "assault rifle"--pistol grip, collapsible stock (and most adjustable stocks are consideded that), threaded barrel, flash arrester, and a few things I forgot. Mags max at 10 rounds, also. You can have an adjustable stock if the weapon has to be disassembled to adjust it.

So, in NJ, ARs are still legal if they have a fixed stock, a welded-on muzzle break or un-threaded barrel, and 10 round magazines.
So was giving African Americans three fifths of a vote ok? I mean, they did get the right to vote! (Fucking of course not)

We're in similar gun reg boats. I want to know why my 2A rights mean less than my fellow citizens in other states. The supreme court says we're supposed to be equal under the Constitution.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding my post. It sounds like you're addressing questions I didn't ask.

Yesterday (or was it Monday?) several posts back, I expressed my own trepidation at having guns in my house as a new gun owner. A new "one and done" poster, in his first (and last) post said "grow a set!"

What he wrote made a deeper impression on me than I expected, and certainly not what he intended. I realized he sees his gun/guns as a phallic symbol, an expression of his manliness.
In simpler words, an extension of his dick! (You are what you shoot?? :see_stars: ) I forgot his handle so I'll refer to him as DH (for Dick Head).

So this got me thinking: Why? Why do so many want to conceal or open carry?

Let's exclude those with clear, obvious reasons: The person transporting diamonds in a bad neighborhood (my wife's cousin had her first husband shot to death in such a robbery). The armed guard, say, Brinks Truck person. The Wyoming rancher where the Law is an hour or more away if a bad guy shows up., and 4-legged "criminals" threaten his herd. A number of us here fall into one of these categories, or similar ones.

But why the rest? If you live in suburbia, as I do, do you really need to carry to go to Target or Barnes & Noble, to pick up your kid at school? When is it paranoia, or being a dick extension (like DH), and when does it make sense? How many who DO carry do it for those reasons? Like the asshole who pulled a gun on 4 teenage girls in a fast food joint? Sure it was criminally inappropriate and he's been arrested, but was HE really justified in carrying a firearm?

I think of George Zimmerman, whom I assess as having gotten away with murder. I speculate that had I been on that jury, the jury would have convicted him or been hung. When people think of guys like Zimmerman or DH, is it any wonder they want to keep guns out of the hands of these yahoos?

But there's 2A and the latest Heller interpretation. Now, I didn't say it first, but the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact nor was it intended as one. Yet, mass shootings aside, how many times has someone reached for a gun out of fear or anger, with injurious or deadly results?

How do we draw the line to so that an Adam Lanza, or Nikolas Cruz, or Deven Kelly, or Dylann Roof do NOT get to own, hold or possess a firearm, yet allow solid citizens to have them?
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

124
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:36 pm I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding my post. It sounds like you're addressing questions I didn't ask.
Sorry. It was meant as a somewhat rhetorical. NJ and CA only get 3/5s of an AR, just like African Americans only originally only got 3/5s of a body for representation. How come the whities in other states get a whole AR and a whole representation? Shitty analogy, but all I had at my pre-coffee 5:00 am check in. :)

Re: Time to talk about gun control?

125
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:59 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:36 pm I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding my post. It sounds like you're addressing questions I didn't ask.
Sorry. It was meant as a somewhat rhetorical. NJ and CA only get 3/5s of an AR, just like African Americans only originally only got 3/5s of a body for representation. How come the whities in other states get a whole AR and a whole representation? Shitty analogy, but all I had at my pre-coffee 5:00 am check in. :)
OK. No problem. Whenever I get something that seems tangential I try to withhold judgement--because someone hasn't had their coffee yet! :coffee:
(I only drink Swings Coffee, from M.E. Swing & Company, Coffee Roasters. Been in biz coming on 100 years soon...my worst offense is forgetting to grind and set up coffee for the morning. I can be sure my wife will let me know the rare times I do that!) :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests