Antihero said:But against a singular corrupt government official? Yes, a gun will matter.
Name one instance where a citizen used a firearm on a singular corrupt official and did not face criminal consequences.
Antihero said:But against a singular corrupt government official? Yes, a gun will matter.
Name one instance where a citizen used a firearm on a singular corrupt official and did not face criminal consequences.
In reply to Toyman! :
The vs the oppressive government fantasy is pushed by three types of people
1) someone who want to sell you something
2) people who have been paid by #1 to push policy to allow for sales of firearms
3) people who just the fantasy to give themselves influence and power over others.
How do you talk to a flat earthier? A Q believer? Time cube? Etc etc. the base premise on which they build their arguments are flawed. No one's asked me what my beliefs are they've just attacked me because I'm anti 2a, freedom, baby killer, godless. Maybe someone should ask instead of assume. I haven't advocated for disarming a population.
Javelin said:Antihero said:But against a singular corrupt government official? Yes, a gun will matter.
Name one instance where a citizen used a firearm on a singular corrupt official and did not face criminal consequences.
That.....is a straw man argument, sorry Javelin but that's you totally moving the goalposts of the argument.
I did not say and did not face criminal charges. I said make a difference. The possible charges afterwards are superseded by the moment of need at that vital moment. Most would very very much rather use force in a situation that they knew there was an abuse of power than take their chances that something terrible wouldn't happen and have no recourse.
That's kind of the reason to have a gun, those small moments where there is only one thing you can do and other options are exhausted. Make sense?
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Toyman! :
The vs the oppressive government fantasy is pushed by three types of people
1) someone who want to sell you something
2) people who have been paid by #1 to push policy to allow for sales of firearms
3) people who just the fantasy to give themselves influence and power over others.
How do you talk to a flat earthier? A Q believer? Time cube? Etc etc. the base premise on which they build their arguments are flawed. No one's asked me what my beliefs are they've just attacked me because I'm anti 2a, freedom, baby killer, godless. Maybe someone should ask instead of assume. I haven't advocated for disarming a population.
While I know this isn't directed at me, nor do I think I've replied to one of your posts, I'll go ahead and ask so you can add it to the discussion.
What are your beliefs?
Antihero said:Javelin said:Antihero said:But against a singular corrupt government official? Yes, a gun will matter.
Name one instance where a citizen used a firearm on a singular corrupt official and did not face criminal consequences.
That.....is a straw man argument, sorry Javelin but that's you totally moving the goalposts of the argument.
I did not say and did not face criminal charges. I said make a difference. The possible charges afterwards are superseded by the moment of need at that vital moment. Most would very very much rather use force in a situation that they knew there was an abuse of power than take their chances that something terrible wouldn't happen and have no recourse.
That's kind of the reason to have a gun, those small moments where there is only one thing you can do and other options are exhausted. Make sense?
Fine, name one time even that did face criminal charges.
Javelin said:Antihero said:But against a singular corrupt government official? Yes, a gun will matter.
Name one instance where a citizen used a firearm on a singular corrupt official and did not face criminal consequences.
This is exactly backwards. Criminal consequences are irrelevant in the face of tyranny. The very act of claiming independence was a criminal act. Not all that long ago it was a criminal act for 50.2% of the population to vote. A singlular corrupt individual or an entire corrupt government, it makes no difference.
Ive said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to see the worst atrocities committed against innocent people throughout history, look at government. Especially be wary of one that often acts as a global police force.
For those interested in a militia for whatever reason, I'd recommend joining one. Go to a meeting. Participate in training. Most of it does not involve weapons. Our local organization is mostly training for the need of quick communication as an aid to law enforcement, and I would imagine most places are similar. I've never seen or heard mention of weapons or combat at the local level. But realize the context of when those words were written. It is no stretch to read it as "If the need for a militia arises the people forming it will need armed...."
It has also been stated here by others, and not all that long ago by a sitting president, that the constitution isn't a list of things the government allows. Rather the opposite, it is a list of things that the government is NOT allowed to do.
I sincerely hope there is never such a conflict as to render any of it necessary. I really hope I never get sick or injured, but I put money aside for medical bills all the same.
We live in a changing world. Just a few decades ago, anyone at all could have ordered a Thompson machine gun right off the pages of the Sears catalog. Yet we didn't have anywhere near the same level of horrible tragedies. Something changed in that period and it wasn't guns getting easier to purchase.
A quick story from the other day. I had some friends over, folks from all across the political spectrum. One friend (A) brought a rifle scope for me to look at. Just the scope. The box said Sig Sauer rifle scope in bold print. I picked it up and looked through at another friend (B) across the room. That friend saw me looking at him and ran behind my wife for cover hollering to not point that at him. The situation was a bit funny and we all had a laugh after I explained that it was just a lense and not a weapon. The problem was ignorance. B has never held a gun. That is ok. He was afraid, simply because of a lack of knowledge. I share this simply to illustrate that I believe a large part of the divides in society stem from a lack of knowledge and exposure. I invited to take B out shooting, and he politely declined.
With that, I'm pretty sure I've exhausted all my input on this subject. At least anything remotely helpful.
In reply to Javelin : In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Except not one single person has advocated for disarming the population, so you're still in fantasy land.
I am not searching through 29 pages, but repealing the 2nd amendment, disarming, restricting amm, and gun confiscation have all been brought up in this thread multiple times as well as in the national discussion.
We say "gee, we should do universal background checks so felons don't get guns" and your response is "you can't take our guns so we can keep the government in line!". It's not even the same universe. When the reasonable people on both sides are working on things like unifying existing gun law across all 50 states to close loopholes and fringe 2A people are shouting "not one inch" THEY are the ones not understanding (just as much as the non-existent "melt all guns down and put the nuclear genie back in the bottle world peace" fringe).
Why do you keep addressing me? I've said the same thing as you have multiple times. I've replied to you multiple times. Go back and read my posts about background checks. I was last addressing the argument that an armed populous would make no difference against a government/military, which has nothing to do with background checks. I was trying to explain why it is helpful to look at both sides of an issue. Go re-read my post about the "not one inch" crowd, and the compromises they already made. WE will get nowhere with your approach, as I have explained previously. The law is on the side of the 2nd amendment advocates, you need them to willfully trade away some of their rights for your security. I'm just explaining why things are the way they are, but you seem intent on shooting the messenger. Pun intended.
You also missed Wasco in my response, which is the government's preferred way of crushing you, which is with bureaucracy. They don't ever need to threaten force, let alone actually use it. Imminent domain, endless red tape, qualified immunity, etc are all government constructs designed to keep the population in check when needed. There's a reason untouchables like Capone went down to tax fraud and not a shootout.
I saw your post about Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.. Do you think you would even know those names had if not been for the guns? If only the government was armed, and they could round up anyone they wanted- would we hear about their names? Did those events have an effect on how the government responds in the future? I'm not commenting on the individual incidents, just using your example to show that armed resistance is different than unarmed. And to be clear, when I talk about armed citizens standing up to the government, I'm not talking about small pockets of law breakers or cults, I'm talking much, much bigger scale than that. A scale that we hopefully never see. You are describing law enforcement issues. The examples still work though, if for the wrong reasons. So thanks, I guess.
So, to be clear on my positions...
I don't like violence, I wish people were evolved past that. Maybe in another 10,000 years.
I wish we didn't need guns, but I understand that they are a equalizer for those less able to defend themselves.
I believe that our founding fathers, wisely, mistrusted large central governments. The 2nd amendment was put in place largely as a deterrent. It was so clear to them that they unfortunately didn't put much effort into defining it. To come to an alternate interpretation, you really need to ignore the entire context around it. That is not just my opinion, it is in the legal decision under which we currently operate. Those in position to challenge the decision are wise not to.
Evil people exist and do evil things. It's really hard to legislate out evil without doing harm to the good. It's definitely worth a try, but needs to be done intelligently, not emotionally.
We are far removed from living in the Wild West, and that is due in large part to 2nd amendment advocates making concessions that they didn't have to make. Failure to recognize that could actually lead to the repeal of many gun laws, which most people on both sides don't want. The law is not on the side of gun restrictions.
There is plenty of low hanging fruit that we can go after, like the holes in the background checks that you mentioned. Most people support a version of that. You would have a pretty solid argument if you stuck to that topic.
If you want to respond to this, please quote what I've written. I believe I've been pretty clear and your interpretation of my words is inaccurate and unnecessary. If you have any questions, just ask.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
In reply to Toyman! :
The vs the oppressive government fantasy is pushed by three types of people
1) someone who want to sell you something
2) people who have been paid by #1 to push policy to allow for sales of firearms
3) people who just the fantasy to give themselves influence and power over others.
How do you talk to a flat earthier? A Q believer? Time cube? Etc etc. the base premise on which they build their arguments are flawed. No one's asked me what my beliefs are they've just attacked me because I'm anti 2a, freedom, baby killer, godless. Maybe someone should ask instead of assume. I haven't advocated for disarming a population.
Our very founders didn't think oppressive governments were fantasy, our whole system of government is based on distrust of and limiting the power of the government. That they created. So maybe they are the fourth type? And for every government throughout history that has worked for it's people, how many more oppressed theirs? The odds are not in our favor. Better off buying a lotto ticket. In the same breath in which people say our county is made up of bad people and founded by bad people, they all of a sudden trust them? We are somehow different now than most of human civilization? That is the fantasy.
So how about me? I don't fit the definition of 1, 2, or 3. How would you define me? I'll help you out. I'm a realist that studies history and human behavior. I understand how fragile the illusion of civility is that we live in. It works just fine until it doesn't.
Kind of a tangent, but while focused on citizens Vs. the government, I realized that I had forgotten about the more likely event, which is the complete opposite. When the government abandons the citizens to fend for themselves. Lots of recent examples of this, but what reminded me of it was a story about the L.A. riots in which the police pulled out and let opposing groups of citizens have a literal war for a couple days. Fragile illusion indeed.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Toyman! :
The vs the oppressive government fantasy is pushed by three types of people
1) someone who want to sell you something
2) people who have been paid by #1 to push policy to allow for sales of firearms
3) people who just the fantasy to give themselves influence and power over others.
How do you talk to a flat earthier? A Q believer? Time cube? Etc etc. the base premise on which they build their arguments are flawed. No one's asked me what my beliefs are they've just attacked me because I'm anti 2a, freedom, baby killer, godless. Maybe someone should ask instead of assume. I haven't advocated for disarming a population.
So, what you are saying is that you have no interest in understanding his thoughts on gun control. Yet you get upset and flippant when he doesn't understand yours.
This is why there isn't a meaningful discussion on gun control. Until both sides are willing to actually listen to each other's concerns without the flippant responses the discussion has no chance of moving forward. It doesn't matter if you don't think it's a concern, if the other side does, you need to listen and understand.
If you aren't willing to listen, don't be surprised if no one is willing to listen to you.
In reply to Toyman! :
I understand the position. It's still fantasy. I can understand tHE desire to pretend that you are part of some great sheepdog type organization or movement or want to fight back against oppression but In reality it Dosenr work that way. The government or even I can track you by the glowing box in your pocket. You have no privacy and we all voted for it.
back to scam artists
case in point. The lions not sheep guy.
he's some washed up mortgage broker who charges $147 for a membership to his "den". Sells cheap Chinese clothes with fake made in the USA labels (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/05/ftc-takes-action-against-lions-not-sheep-owner-slapping-bogus-made-usa-labels-clothing-imported) and now wants to sell you a subscription box.
here's one of his blog posts about being prepared. The image on the post is of him holding an AR. https://www.lionsnotsheep.com/blogs/the-lions-not-sheep-blog/those-who-are-not-prepared-do-not-fear
anyway this is one example but it's mostly a guy who wasn't successful in lie until he jammed a bunch of steroids and started a clothing line popular with the proud boys.
Follow the money
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
The roof Koreans use case is very different than the vs. an oppressive government use case. One is possible and needs to be prepared for. I live in minnespolis and have friends who had their brothers restaurant burned down in the George Floyd riots( thanks out of towner boog boys). The other is fantasy in this day and age. Bringing up use cases from hundreds of years ago dosent work anymore. Technology has changed and the average American is so far away from the discomfort and fitness level of Average life during the 1700's that there is no way this is possible.
I think people also forget that the continental army basically lost all engagements until France jumped in on our side. The case could be made thst the colonialists were just a useful instrument for France to get one up on the English, which would then be turned around during the napoleonic times. We weren't as exceptional as we think now. Our history lessons have been poor and we now look backwards with very rose tinted glasses. To throw a further wrench in here and go on a tangent, the case could be made that the American revolution was not a populist revolt but one first perpetrated by a bunch of rich guys who didn't like taxes. They engineered a bunch of clashes with the British that stirred up public dissent and that was the start of that. It all started with money and not principles. The principles later came in to fit the narrative.
barefootcyborg5000 said:Ive said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to see the worst atrocities committed against innocent people throughout history, look at government. Especially be wary of one that often acts as a global police force.
This very much merits repeating, especially in light of the fact that we have, here in the U.S., at this very moment, people being incarcerated for the simple fact that their political leanings are in opposition to the sitting government. It's not just the "oppressive regimes" in Russia and Communist China and elsewhere. It's right here.
1988RedT2 said:barefootcyborg5000 said:Ive said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to see the worst atrocities committed against innocent people throughout history, look at government. Especially be wary of one that often acts as a global police force.
This very much merits repeating, especially in light of the fact that we have, here in the U.S., at this very moment, people being incarcerated for the simple fact that their political leanings are in opposition to the sitting government. It's not just the "oppressive regimes" in Russia and Communist China and elsewhere. It's right here.
Man. That's always been the case. First red scare of 1917. We do not live in unique times. We are not exceptional.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
It doesn't matter whether you think the other side's position is correct or not. That is irrelevant to the discussion. Anecdotal stories are even more irrelevant.
Until you are willing to listen and understand the other side's position without snide remarks, you are not having a discussion. You are spouting off your position and he is spouting off his. Nothing will be accomplished beyond both of you feeling superior and thinking the other side is stupid.
In reply to Toyman! :
Ok. I'm ready to listen. Shoot. Go for it. Educate me.
SV reX said:We have a mental health problem. We have people getting shot. Probably as a result of the mental health problem.
I am of the opinion that the shooter in Uvalde was mentally ill. I am also of the opinion that the easiest way to have possibly avoided the shooting was with a few cleaner laws related to acquiring a gun.
If there had been a thorough background check, it might have caught his mental instability. If there had been a delay of a couple weeks before he could acquire a gun, it might have given him time to reconsider his actions. If there was a training requirement in handling the weapon, it may have communicated some safety guidelines that got through to him.
Yep. He was mentally ill. But waiting for the national response to mental illness to catch up to him would have taken decades, and most certainly would not have stopped him.
We need a far better approach to mental health. We also need to consider sensible guidelines for gun ownership.
Agreed with all of this.
Although, as has been mentioned earlier, the obsession with guns will actually discourage some with mental health issues from seeking treatment because they dont want to lose access to their weapons, even temporarily. Additionally many with mental health problems don't think they have a mental health problem.
I think any real checks in the acquisition chain of events are improvements. Thorough background check, waiting period, training, registration, etc. Steeper requirements to buy any weapon/clips/whatever that has a large capacity, whatever that number is determined to be.
But also as Javelin pointed out, the background checks that currently exist are a joke, and any laws like these that only exist at a state level seem pointless. Most with a desire for a weapon will simply go over to the next state (ignoring Alaska and Hawaii for a min). Whatever is done needs to be done at a federal level to be effective.
How about I suggest this...
Offer a bullet point list of 5 or so things that you see as solutions or improvements. Limit your commentary on your list. Understand someone is gonna disagree, but don't defend anything in your list.
Let someone else create their own list. DO NOT disagree with ANYTHING on their list.
Once you have read their list, ask questions about it. Ask why they think they are good ideas. Don't challenge their ideas. Just listen.
Offer no explanation of your own list other than answering someone else's questions.
Then combine lists.
Fueled by Caffeine said:1988RedT2 said:barefootcyborg5000 said:Ive said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to see the worst atrocities committed against innocent people throughout history, look at government. Especially be wary of one that often acts as a global police force.
This very much merits repeating, especially in light of the fact that we have, here in the U.S., at this very moment, people being incarcerated for the simple fact that their political leanings are in opposition to the sitting government. It's not just the "oppressive regimes" in Russia and Communist China and elsewhere. It's right here.
Man. That's always been the case. First red scare of 1917. We do not live in unique times. We are not exceptional.
So you're saying that because it has happened in the past, it's okay? You're in favor of throwing political opponents in jail? It is a time-honored practice with a proven track record, but I'm not sure how well it sits with a majority of Americans.
And with that, I am out. I have actual things to do.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
I didn't say it was ok. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that this is not unique in this country.
i do not condone violence as part of the political process, but that's always been there as well
I'll start.
1- I don't think there should be any further limitations on types of hardware or accessories than what exists right now. It's too easy to twist the specifics for political purposes.
2- I am in favor of better and more uniform licensing procedures. This would probably mean Federalizing the process. I recognize the Constitutional issues in this, but find the discrepancies between state rules unacceptable. I also think there should be tiered licensing, and training and proficiency testing.
3- I think a waiting period before allowing a gun purchase is reasonable.
4- I think private sales of firearms should meet the same requirements as gun shops.
5- I would like to see a large increase in spending for mental health care.
(EDIT)
6- I think there should be more guidelines for proper gun storage in the home, and penalties for failing to do so.
In reply to SV reX :
Ok.
1. Permits to buy firearms like is done in Finland or Norway. (Not really many restrictions on types of firearms, but you need a permit to buy for all transactions)
2. Laws to make straw purchases extreme felonies with minimum jail times in the 50 year range. Need to be national level with enforcement. Too much state to state trafficking.
3. Required practical training needs for permit to buy ( this must be paid for from taxes as I don't want to discriminate against the poor)
4. specific to school shootings and other things we need to start holding police liable for their incompetence. This will require overturning the not required to protect citizens Supreme Court case. (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
5. Strong community based and funded mental health programs. The police shouldn't have to deal with these people, they have too much to do on their own. Could be more ride alongs with police for crisis workers. More state funded hospitals. Etc.
ProDarwin said:But also as Javelin pointed out, the background checks that currently exist are a joke, and any laws like these that only exist at a state level seem pointless. Most with a desire for a weapon will simply go over to the next state (ignoring Alaska and Hawaii for a min). Whatever is done needs to be done at a federal level to be effective.
I disagree with the current background check being a joke. My state, Indiana, is not known for having the most comprehensive background checks with the potential for "loopholes" associated with private sales. With that being said, my son worked for Gander Mountain for 2 years and it was a rare day when someone wasn't denied due to failing the background check. This also extended to identifying potential straw purchases when someone would come in looking to purchase the exact same gun that a perviously denied person had looked to purchase.
Is there room for improvements? Yes. Is it as bad as Javelin keeps claiming in regards to not using the federal database? I don't find evidence saying that is the case.
If it is truly worthless today, just do away with it. (edit) I am not advocating doing away with it, just that the emphasis of it being worthless today is not accurate.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Sounds like we agree on almost all points.
I left school shootings out intentionally. I think it's a subset that gets addressed among the other things.
OK, regarding police actions... I agree there is a lot to fix. Do you think it's wise to tie law enforcement changes to gun control changes? They seem like 2 different issues to me.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
To throw a further wrench in here and go on a tangent, the case could be made that the American revolution was not a populist revolt but one first perpetrated by a bunch of rich guys who didn't like taxes. They engineered a bunch of clashes with the British that stirred up public dissent and that was the start of that. It all started with money and not principles. The principles later came in to fit the narrative.
I've been saying that for years. The US was founded by a bunch of rich white guys who managed to wrap the Revolution with a pretty bow of individual freedoms the average colonist thought could benefit them. Almost 250 years later, the jury is still somewhat out on whether or not that was a success.
The irony is individual gun freedoms or restrictions on the average citizen mean absolutely zero to those in power, other than to provide a handy distraction from how they are getting worked over. Every time there is a fight over guns, they just sit back and smile, "let the snopes squabble over the meaningless scraps..."
Sorry if I'm a little bitter right now as I'm looking at a $2300 dental bill, despite having insurance I pay no small amount for each paycheck...
Edit: Otherwise, I have no arguments against Paul's list. I have pretty much said as much in previous posts, with the only difference being I attempted to offer some compromise ideas in order to get there.
In reply to fusion66 :
Ok. I hear you saying you are satisfied with the background check process in your state.
Do you think it should be standardized across state lines?
You'll need to log in to post.
