Stop accepting blame, stop apologizing, and stop feeling guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
coloradokevin

coloradokevin

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
3,285
Please allow me to be honest here and say that this forum has been giving me some heartburn this week, as I see so many good and decent members grapple with how the gun owning community should respond to the Las Vegas shooting.

That was a tragic and terrible incident, and I think we all feel sorry for the families that lost so much this week. Just about every sane American agrees on those points. I think that's both the beginning and end of what our response to the incident needs to be as members of the gun-owning public.

None of you are responsible for what happened, and no gun or piece of equipment you own is responsible for what happened. Agreeing to further restrictions on your 2nd Amendment rights won't bring back the lives that were lost at the hands of that mad man, nor will it prevent a terrible mass murder from happening in the future. No "compromise" or "common sense solution" actually exists here, because the fault in the system was found in the heart of an evil man, not in the piece of aluminum and plastic that he used to carry out his terrible deeds.

The human capacity to do harm to each other is disappointingly immense, and really knows no bounds. If a gun with a "bump stock" hadn't been available to this shooter, perhaps he'd have used a bomb. If not a bomb, perhaps driving a truck into the crowd would have worked. Or, maybe he could have crashed a Cessna into the crowd (he was a pilot). Maybe he would have even thought of something that none of us ever considered.

All of that aside, it's disgusting that anti-gun lobbyists will use any tragedy as an opportunity to gain traction against gun owners. Not only do they go for the hearts and minds of the general public, they also manage to convince reasonable and law-abiding gun owners that we're somehow at fault in this. We're not. You are not. I am not.

The very first mention I saw of gun control this week came from Mrs. Clinton, when she attempted to spin this tragedy into an argument for keeping sound suppressors as an NFA item. I later saw a news story that was applauding gun owners who were cheerfully giving their collections over to the police at a gun buy back. Then, I talked to a local gun owner I know who found it tasteless that a regular local gun show wasn't being cancelled in light of this shooting.

None of that makes any sense! Stop accepting blame for things that are not your fault. Stop feeling guilty for enjoying a lifestyle that doesn't make sense to some other people. Take care of yourselves, and your fellow man, but stop allowing others to make you feel as if you should be shouldering some of the blame for the actions of a now-dead mass murderer.
 
Nobody here is "agreeing" to further restrictions, at least in the sense of volunteering for them out of the blue. But if restrictions are forced down our throats, it would be stupid not to wrest some concessions in return. It's simply a matter of tactical flexibility. Stonewalling sometimes works, and sometimes it doesn't work. This looks like one of those times when stonewalling doesn't work.
 
The proponents of appeasement regularly proceed from a blind preference for negotiation and are willing to compromise the righteousness of their cause.

To people having the ability to think and accurately discern truth, it is generally recognized that the age-old lure of appeasement fosters neither liberty nor freedom. Conciliation to those who would destroy said liberties and freedoms encourages suppression.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, amongst us, appeasers, apologists, and defeatists and they have to be fought intellectually and politically.
 
Nobody here is "agreeing" to further restrictions, at least in the sense of volunteering for them out of the blue.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not really true. Read more of the threads here on this subject. You'll see some miserable stuff.

But if restrictions are forced down our throats, it would be stupid not to wrest some concessions in return.
Click to expand...
IF. Nothing happens extremely quickly, and time is always on our side. Bans and restrictions don't make much sense to a logical thinker with all the facts, but it takes a bit of time for the emotional tide to recede after one of these incidents. The initial clamor is to DOOO SOMETHING! while the nation is shocked and all flustered by the horror of the act. But as time eases those sensations, over a few weeks and months, that visceral, animal instinct fight-or-flight drive to "DO SOMETHING!" drops off and people more soberly look at exactly what it is that could or should be done. Remember Sandy Hook, and how the same thing happened. And yet, even with a much worse governmental position for our side, we were able to hold back that tide until emotion subsided and were left with almost no permanent losses.

It's simply a matter of tactical flexibility. Stonewalling sometimes works, and sometimes it doesn't work. This looks like one of those times when stonewalling doesn't work.
Click to expand...
:) You're making the assumption that standing strong won't work? Right now? When only the most moon-batty proposals for restricting our rights have even been written down? C'mon, have a little patience and fortitude. Maybe stonewalling opposition won't work this time. Maybe. But let's hold our cards close for now and make wise decisions when the time is right.

Not run around like Chicken Little with his pants around his ankles, shouting that all is lost straight out of the gate.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I'm openly advocating for increased restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.
Click to expand...
Why???
My SKS rifles aren't a threat to anything more than a bullseye at the gun club.
My Winchester 12ga autoloaders is only a threat to clay birds and an occasional pheasant.
My 1911s spend most of their useful time punching holes in targets.
Why should they be restricted further???
 
Rocketmedic said:
I'm openly advocating for increased restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.
Click to expand...
Yes you are because despite what you might claim your are anti gun and would gladly give up your rights to make others feel better even though it will not actually change anything. We've all seen you as you are. You'd sell out other gun owners in heartbeat.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I'm openly advocating for increased restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.
Click to expand...

While your honesty is refreshing in a world where people talk in half truths and spin, you're completely wrong on this. We don't need to guess what will happen if we further restrict guns. We know based on what's happened where it's been done. The AWB had a negligible to no impact on crime. I live in the Chicago area and was a LEO here, where anti's have passed some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In our South and West sides of the city people are shooting each other at record rates. It's politically incorrect to discuss the fact that in those areas more than 70% of kids have been abandoned by their fathers and studying in grammar and high school makes you the object of ridicule. The politicians, being in bed with the teachers union won't give the families who want to raise their kids responsibly school vouchers so kids can have a chance at an education and a decent life, condemning those kids to schools infested by gangs and violence. Of course the media is mostly silent about what happens here, as it would highlight the failures of leftist policies. Last weekend there were more than 50 people killed here. I didn't hear a word about that.

What you propose has had no impact on mass killings in Europe either. Semi automatic guns are not the problem. There has never been a time in history where evil hasn't reared it's head. Banning guns in any form will not change that, it only prevents good people from being able to protect themselves and their loved ones.
 
I think many people mean well but, in the wake of a tragedy or significant event, are driven by their emotions.
They become useful tools for statist politicians who lay in wait for any opportunity to restrict freedom and seize more government control.
Evil exists in the world, always has and always will and it seems to thrive in government.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I'm openly advocating for increased restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.
Click to expand...
I would like to point out who this individual is- “I'm literally the poster child for American gun owners”. (12/22/2012)
It is truly remarkable that he has garnered so much knowledge and wisdom at such a young age. I’m having a difficult time determining whether he is a troll or that he truly believes the statements he makes.
 
I’m having a difficult time determining whether he is a troll or that he truly believes the statements he makes.
Click to expand...
Remember, folks, not everyone who disagrees with the gun rights movement is evil, or a socialist, or out get you.

They are certainly and objectively wrong, but that doesn't make them bad people and mistreating or abusing them is unacceptable.

Attack the arguments -- all you want, with vigor -- but do not attack the person making them, who is not evil, just confused.
 
yokel said:
The proponents of appeasement regularly proceed from a blind preference for negotiation and are willing to compromise the righteousness of their cause.

To people having the ability to think and accurately discern truth, it is generally recognized that the age-old lure of appeasement fosters neither liberty nor freedom. Conciliation to those who would destroy said liberties and freedoms encourages suppression.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, amongst us, appeasers, apologists, and defeatists and they have to be fought intellectually and politically.
Click to expand...

As a Jew who is just now 70 years old.

I was raised with many other Jew's in NYC [ yea THAT city ] and I was taught to be the typical Jew who appeases.

As I grew up and actually learned that appeasement does NOT work = ever.

I became a gun owner and a shooter,then an LEO [ firearms instructor and D/T inst too ].

I am VERY willing to teach others what appeasement will bring you,a really good chance at being the recipient of GENOCIDE.

Your posting is where we NEED to be.
 
Sam1911 said:
Remember, folks, not everyone who disagrees with the gun rights movement is evil, or a socialist, or out get you.

They are certainly and objectively wrong, but that doesn't make them bad people and mistreating or abusing them is unacceptable.

Attack the arguments -- all you want, with vigor -- but do not attack the person making them, who is not evil, just confused.
Click to expand...
“I'm openly advocating for increased restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.“

It’s not often I disagree with you Sam. But I’d say this time is one of those times. Except no one attacked him. We simply called him out for what he obviously appears to be. As well as his obvious stance on the 2nd Ammendment. And I inquired as to why he’s a member of our community. It started out that he would gladly give up all HIS semiauto weapons to bring those people back (a nice, misguided, heartfelt statement). Now, even after logic and reason, he’s advocating for restrictions to MY weapons. To quote Mr Heston: “From my cold dead hands!” He’s no friend to my rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam1911 writes:

Remember Sandy Hook, and how the same thing happened. And yet, even with a much worse governmental position for our side, we were able to hold back that tide until emotion subsided and were left with almost no permanent losses.
Click to expand...

On the Federal level, sure. But Colorado, Connecticut, and New York come quickly to mind, and not in the same way... Heck, even my state of Florida has now had a bill drafted to restrict or prohibit autoloading centerfire rifles (an "AWB") in response to Las Vegas. Certain to go nowhere, I'm sure, but the attacks aren't just in DC. Every one of us living under Federal law also lives under the laws of a state, district, or territory.
 
On the Federal level, sure. But Colorado, Connecticut, and New York come quickly to mind, ...
Click to expand...
Of course they do. But surely the losses in those three states do not in any way make for a cogent argument that we should fold our cards NOW? Not at all! We fight on as we did then. If we held then, we'll hold now.
 
Guilt? No. I admit that I grieve over any senseless tragedy but when firearms are involved, the despair is much worse. I have seen the constant erosion of our right to bear arms over my lifetime. I know the mental anguish that I must face as the onslaught of new restrictions once again is proposed.

Whenever a right, principle, or freedom that you cherish is attacked, you instinctively respond defensively. Unfortunately, logic and facts are often powerless in an emotional debate.

The world has not become safer because of gun control laws. Yet this “Pollyanna” viewpoint continues to surface as the cure to evil deeds. Restriction upon restriction is added to the ingredients with the belief that we will ultimately concoct the perfect recipe.

Lord, what fools these mortals be.

My biggest fear now is that I will lose the will to fight.
 
This may be viewed as harsh by some--

Blaming society, the 2nd Amendment, or things such as Bumpfire stocks for the actions of an evil individual is simply reverting to tribalism--the group is responsible for the individual and therefore the group gets punished.

Now, what the individual above proposed first was a ritual penance for himself--this is a free country and he can do as he likes as an individual. But that apparently is not enough, he is now offering a grander gesture of sacrifice--not of himself only--but of the rights of others. It is not virtuous to sacrifice what you do not value, nor is it virtuous to demand sacrifices of others who see things differently.

This is contrary to the Anglo-American historical position that it is the individual and THEIR ACTIONS that matter therefore we do not punish innocents for the actions of the evil and twisted. Society is not the blame for the actions of this twisted evil man--he is.
 
I'm not accepting any blame.

However...

I think we all can clearly see that unconstitutional laws have been passed and are currently in effect. To think there will be no more such laws passed in the future is irrational. I don't like it, but that's how I see it.

That being said, the extent to which the population of this country believe in gun rights, comes down largely to their perception of how safe or endangered they feel they are with guns in the hands of their peers. NPR recently sited a poll claiming that even though less than half the population own guns, the majority of the population feel safer with more guns in the people's possession. I would like the perception of the general public to stay this positive.

And unless there's a compelling argument for not restricting or banning bump stocks, that would be fathomable to the average citizen, I'm happy to throw them under the bus. So if you have a good argument for them that isn't "Because the 2A..", please do share.
 
And unless there's a compelling argument for not restricting or banning bump stocks, that would be fathomable to the average citizen, I'm happy to throw them under the bus. So if you have a good argument for them that isn't "Because the 2A..", please do share.
Click to expand...
I do not need a reason beyond fully understanding what the 2nd Amendment is, and is FOR.

However, sure, to answer the less important part of the question: Banning bumpfire stocks would be quite unlikely to be as straightforward as banning items sold as bumpfire stocks. The version of a bill to this effect published at the moment says it bans, "a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed OR FUNCTIONS to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle..."

Think hard about that for a moment. Just how far would such a ban reach into all of our gun safes? Good heavens. A huge number of things could be swept up into that pile. Binary triggers, "Hiperfire" triggers, any trigger that is lighter than ... well, nobody knows how light because ANY semi-automatic trigger can be bump-fired, all sorts of springs, stocks, parts, etc. And even unrelated stuff.

And, to get really into the meat of it, look at the ATF letter on PGO shotguns that have barrels less than 18" long but are still over 26" so are not NFA Firearms. The ATF has set precedent there by saying that if you do conceal one, like by putting it under your long coat, then you've disproved the assumption that this is not a concealable firearm, and that kicks it into the category of "AOWs" under Title II, so you're now a felon.
In other words, what you DO with it matters.

You don't have a device designed to accelerate the fire of your semi-auto rifle? Well, fine, but somebody just saw your "accidentally" double a few shots off a bench testing out the trigger on your AR. That's bump firing. And you just displayed a rifle that accelerated the rate of fire EXACTLY as a bump-fire stock would do. Whoops.

You hear this as a simple thing. You see this as putting the folks at SlideFire stocks to the guillotine, c'est la vie, and all will be well. But that's not how laws are written nor how they are enforced.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Citizens stopping potential mass shootings
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
X-Rap
X-Rap
CoRoMo
  • Locked
California Gun Owner Explains Why He Feels Partly Responsible for Gun Violence
2 3
Replies
74
Views
4K
goon
G
R
  • Locked
Man shoots, stops burglar
Replies
17
Views
814
TallPine
T
D
  • Locked
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Replies
2
Views
413
mortablunt
M
G
  • Locked
Why the NRA must be stopped.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Al Thompson
A
Back
Top