Stop accepting blame, stop apologizing, and stop feeling guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is evil in the world and evil doers. JFK Nov-22-1963 assassination, I was a senior in high school followed by his brother latter and MLK. Laws are for those that abide by the law. Those that commit evil could care less about societies laws of moral behavior. Laws are a looks good feels good solution that in essence don't imped the doers of evil. 911 Twin Towers an example of evil, box cutters and airplanes. Yes what I'm posting is simplistic, laws do not change or inhibit what evil doers are capable of and willing to do.
 
Last edited:
Rocketmedic said:
Your attitudes are incredibly insensitive and arrogant and will be your downfall.
Click to expand...

You have not been treated with insensitivity―or arrogance―on this board, friend. In fact, those willing to entertain your commentary here have done so quite honestly and respectfully given the latest tone you have taken. Simply put, the problem lies not with them.

Although I have not had occasion to interact directly with you, I would like to congratulate you on becoming the first, and only, person to ever make it onto my "People You Ignore" list here on THR.
 
BigBore44 said:
I’m seriously starting to think Rocketmedic is just baiting us. Inflammatory statements without explanation. No questions asked. His opinions have passed from ignorant to stupid. Ignorance can be cured with facts and reason, which we’ve taken how much time, collectively, to provide? He’s chosen to ignore everything we’ve explained. And I have been shown no reason to believe he will not continue to do so. I think we’re simply providing him with a source of entertainment. He’s certainly not after an education.

So..... I vote “Troll”.
Click to expand...
Not a classic "troll", in that he's not here to merely annoy.

He's here for a two-fold purpose:
  1. to seek out the gullible and uneducated who will buy the lies of the anti-gun cult
  2. to create the illusion of a "resistance" to the NRA and the cause of gun owner rights

I'm old enough to remember BOTH AHSA (American Hunters and Shooters Association) and the NFA (National Firearms Association).

These were "astroturf" false front operations created by the anti-gun cult to simulate "gun owner" support for invidiously racist gun controls, and to divert support from the NRA. Think of them as "Blacks for Jim Crow", "Jews for the Nuremberg Laws", or "Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws". They were created EXPRESSLY to HARM the interests of their purported constituencies, and were controlled in toto by the anti-gun cult. In fact, the NFA's leaked board membership included a number of prominent gun banners.

Every time there's some kind of high profile shooting (or a Democrat push for more racist gun controls in general), these Quislings and Degrelles of the "gun owner" community come out to shill for more repressive gun laws. It's like clockwork, really.
 
How to spot an AHSA troll:
  • Claims to be a gun owner, yet knows little or nothing about firearms.
  • Calls for "compromise" with people who don't believe in compromise, only submission.
  • Uses anti-gun buzzwords such as "assault weapon" and "reasonable restrictions".
  • Throws out irrelevancies, like hunting.
  • Doesn't know existing laws, while calling for harsh and repressive new ones.
  • Lies, both about statistics and technology. Freely invents "facts" on the fly.
  • Speaks of the "inevitability" of repressive gun laws.

How to deal with AHSA trolls:
  • Expose his ignorance.
  • Refuse to let him set the terms of debate and vocabulary. Call things by their right names.
  • Refuse to treat capitulation as "compromise". Offer him REAL "compromise" (like repealing the NFA '34) and watch him backpedal.
  • Ruthlessly expose EVERY lie.
  • Finally, NEVER give up, or give in.
 
Deanimator said:
Every time there's some kind of high profile shooting (or a Democrat push for more racist gun controls in general), these Quislings and Degrelles of the "gun owner" community come out to shill for more repressive gun laws. It's like clockwork, really.
Click to expand...

Seems to be human nature, even for those not "Quislings and Degrelles". Folks see something terrible happen and they want to keep it from happening again, even tho they don't know how. They grasp at straws, seeking anything that sounds good at the moment. This goes for any tragedy, even those not firearm related. Over recent history, the number of Democrats as compared to Republicans has been virtually a tie.(as of May 2017, 29% Republicans vs 28% Democrats) The majority of folks in this country are Independents. If anything major is decided/pushed in Gun control, it's going to be because of them, and the representatives they elect.

Again, not every gun owner has the same firearms, nor do they use them in the exact same manner. Folks argue about this on forums like this, all the time. Not hard to fathom those same folks have a difference in opinion as to what constitutes "infringement". Doesn't necessarily make them a shill or a troll. Just means they have a difference of opinion. I personally think we have all the gun control laws we need, but I understand why others think we do not. Regardless of how I feel, the minute those folks outnumber folks like me, the laws and rules will change. Period.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I also think that at least some of the 33,000ish Americans killed annually by gun violence might be spared if we made some of the more combat-effective, lethal firearms harder to get.
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of firearms used in homicides in this country are not by any stretch of the imagination "combat effective," and they're about as low on the lethality scale as you can get and still call them a firearm.

We're talking about lots of little mouse guns, "Saturday night specials," cheap little revolvers, single shot breakover shotguns, etc. Lots of .22, .25, .32, and .380 handguns. Why? Because they're cheap. They're also easy to conceal.

So called "assault weapons" account for a negligible number of homicides in this country. However, these so called "assault weapons" are used on a regular basis by victims to protect themselves when their homes and businesses are broken into by multiple armed attackers.

ETA: Oh, and when criminals do want the real thing, they get the REAL thing, not some neutered semi automatic look-alike version. Go down to any sheriff's department and ask them how many machineguns they recover every year, especially in areas where there's a lot of meth cooking.

How do you suppose those backwoods tweakers obtain such weapons, considering they're highly illegal and supposedly unobtanium? And, pay close attention here, HOW DO YOU THINK ME GIVING UP MY SEMI AUTOMATIC AR15 IS GOING TO PREVENT CRIME IF WE CAN'T EVEN PREVENT CRIMINALS FROM GETTING WEAPONS THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL???

Machineguns have been illegal in this country for nearly 85 years, there's a federal law enforcement agency dedicated to stamping them out, the penalties are more severe than many second degree murder sentences, and yet criminals STILL have easy access to illegal machineguns brought here from overseas.

I'll tell you what. When the ATF can enforce the laws already on the books, and criminals no longer have easy access to supposedly illegal weapons, then and only then can we sit down and have a discussion about my AR15.
 
Last edited:
buck460XVR said:
Seems to be human nature, even for those not "Quislings and Degrelles". Folks see something terrible happen and they want to keep it from happening again, even tho they don't know how. They grasp at straws, seeking anything that sounds good at the moment. This goes for any tragedy, even those not firearm related. Over recent history, the number of Democrats as compared to Republicans has been virtually a tie.(as of May 2017, 29% Republicans vs 28% Democrats) The majority of folks in this country are Independents. If anything major is decided/pushed in Gun control, it's going to be because of them, and the representatives they elect.

Again, not every gun owner has the same firearms, nor do they use them in the exact same manner. Folks argue about this on forums like this, all the time. Not hard to fathom those same folks have a difference in opinion as to what constitutes "infringement". Doesn't necessarily make them a shill or a troll. Just means they have a difference of opinion. I personally think we have all the gun control laws we need, but I understand why others think we do not. Regardless of how I feel, the minute those folks outnumber folks like me, the laws and rules will change. Period.
Click to expand...
Firearms (and accessories) for which I have absolutely no use at all:
  • hunting shotguns
  • benchrest rifles
  • self-defense handguns of less power than .380acp
  • any double/single action or double action only semi-auto pistol
  • any Hi Point handgun
  • any S&W revolver with the lock
  • bump stocks
I've got a VERY long history here. You'll have a rough time finding a post from me calling for the BANNING of any of these items.

A real gun owner say, "That sucks. I'm never buying one."
An AHSA troll says, "That sucks. There should be a law to stop YOU from buying one."

I'm straight. That doesn't make me want to pass anti-sodomy laws or push gays off of rooftops per Sharia.

The entire point of the AHSA agenda is not choice, it's LACK of choice, enforced (ironically enough) AT GUNPOINT.

As I said, I'm old enough to remember AHSA AND the NFA. This isn't one guy saying something foolish. It's ORGANIZED, and has been for a LONG time.

Failing to recognize this plays into their hands.
 
BigBore44 said:
Ok. I would like to know three things.

1. What,in your honest opinion, is a “Right” as defined by the Constitution?

I think that a 'right' defined by the constitution is something that one is generally allowed to do, with limits applied by law.

2. What, in your honest opinion, is the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment?

I think that the right to keep and bear arms is a conceptual endorsement of the right to own firearms, ammunition, and accessories related to the function and carriage of those firearms, and to carry those firearms in one's daily affairs. I think that the original intent was to provide means to equip an organized militia in an era where standing armies were uncommon and small. I don't think that the intent of the 2A was to provide the means for rebellion. Today, I think that the 2A is an affirmative acknowledgement of the right to defend oneself with lethal force from criminals, to hunt as prescribed by law and regulation. I do think that the 2A, like the rest of the Constitution, is subject to regulation.

3. What, in your honest opinion, is the purpose of the words “well-regulated militia”?
Y'all are going to hate this, but I think that the purpose of the words "well-regulated militia" was intended to apply to well-trained, drilled, and vetted members of state and local militias back in the day. I don't think that this has existed since the Old West's posses. I don't think that there is a lot of well-regulated militia anymore. I think that the National Guard and America's very different position in the world today geo-politically and socially have rendered the militias the Founders depended on obsolete. I think that this clause gives us a constitutional framework to regulate firearms and other weapons that are of particular military utility to a more rigorous extent than hunting rifles, sidearms for self-defense, and weapons not as militarily useful such as manual-action rifles and the like.

I’m honestly asking you to provide this information. Don’t skip it and reply to an “arrogant and offensive” post. Reply to this one. 3 simple questions.
Click to expand...

In my perfect view, semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200). In exchange, semi-automatic pistols (capped at 15 rounds, because I'm a liberal) are left alone (pistols over 15 rounds would be NFA), nationwide constitutional carry and mandatory NRA Eddie-the-Eagle gun-safety training in schools for everyone, and a constitutional amendment forbidding federal, state or local gun, ammunition, accessory or property confiscation, bans or other forms of limiting access unless a clear and present imminent danger exists from a specific source and due process has been executed fairly and faithfully (say, a penalty of all of MSRP payable by the detaining authority, compounded weekly, pending a judicial decision). People could carry firearms anywhere, openly or concealed. Additionally, citizens and resident aliens could access military firing ranges as available to shoot, and states would be encouraged to form and expand state militias including gun owners to support state disaster, unrest, etc. That's my gun-control dream. Will it get guns out of the hands of criminals? No, but it will limit access to semi-automatic massacre enablers. Will it stop mass shootings? Maybe not, but it's a lot harder to kill 58 people with a lever or a bolt than an assault rifle.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I also think that at least some of the 33,000ish Americans killed annually by gun violence might be spared if we made some of the more combat-effective, lethal firearms harder to get.
Click to expand...
Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until you posted that. If you truly mean that, you are either seriously confused and refuse to listen to any of the points posters have put forth, or you're just an anti, because that is straight out of their playbook.
 
BigBore44 said:
Ok. I would like to know three things.

1. What,in your honest opinion, is a “Right” as defined by the Constitution?

2. What, in your honest opinion, is the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment?

3. What, in your honest opinion, is the purpose of the words “well-regulated militia”?

I’m honestly asking you to provide this information. Don’t skip it and reply to an “arrogant and offensive” post. Reply to this one. 3 simple questions.
Click to expand...

Good questions. Unfortunately, there is no agreement even among legal scholars. I am interested in the opinions of others here.
 
Rocketmedic said:
semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200)
Click to expand...
A hardcore anti position.
Rocketmedic said:
In exchange,
Click to expand...
Nope, you are confused (Well, not really), that isn't getting something, that is falsely promising we can keep A if we give up B, then next time you want A. It's how antis work.
 
Rocketmedic said:
In my perfect view, semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200). In exchange, semi-automatic pistols (capped at 15 rounds, because I'm a liberal) are left alone (pistols over 15 rounds would be NFA), nationwide constitutional carry and mandatory NRA Eddie-the-Eagle gun-safety training in schools for everyone, and a constitutional amendment forbidding federal, state or local gun, ammunition, accessory or property confiscation, bans or other forms of limiting access unless a clear and present imminent danger exists from a specific source and due process has been executed fairly and faithfully (say, a penalty of all of MSRP payable by the detaining authority, compounded weekly, pending a judicial decision). People could carry firearms anywhere, openly or concealed. Additionally, citizens and resident aliens could access military firing ranges as available to shoot, and states would be encouraged to form and expand state militias including gun owners to support state disaster, unrest, etc. That's my gun-control dream. Will it get guns out of the hands of criminals? No, but it will limit access to semi-automatic massacre enablers. Will it stop mass shootings? Maybe not, but it's a lot harder to kill 58 people with a lever or a bolt than an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Nothing's sweeter than to have the other side prove EVERYTHING you say with their own words.

By the way, name a commercially available "assault rifle" that's not already covered by the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. You DO know what the NFA and the Huges Amendment are... DON'T you?

Why watch "The Walking Dead" when you can regularly see the rotting corpses of AHSA and the National Firearms Association come clawing their ineffectual way out of the grave every few months...
 
Deanimator said:
They're not "illegal", just foolishly overregulated.
Click to expand...

The ones I'm talking about are illegal. They were never registered, and aren't even candidates for being legally registered. They were brought in from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. in shipping containers. I've seen lots of illegal machineguns confiscated by the sheriff's department in the area where I live, and not one that I've seen has been on the NFA roster. And they're not bubba jobs, either. They're factory machineguns, and unfortunately many are collector's items that every one of us on this forum would trade our left nut for.

Rocketmedic said:
In my perfect view, semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200). In exchange, semi-automatic pistols (capped at 15 rounds, because I'm a liberal) are left alone (pistols over 15 rounds would be NFA), nationwide constitutional carry and mandatory NRA Eddie-the-Eagle gun-safety training in schools for everyone, and a constitutional amendment forbidding federal, state or local gun, ammunition, accessory or property confiscation, bans or other forms of limiting access unless a clear and present imminent danger exists from a specific source and due process has been executed fairly and faithfully (say, a penalty of all of MSRP payable by the detaining authority, compounded weekly, pending a judicial decision). People could carry firearms anywhere, openly or concealed. Additionally, citizens and resident aliens could access military firing ranges as available to shoot, and states would be encouraged to form and expand state militias including gun owners to support state disaster, unrest, etc. That's my gun-control dream. Will it get guns out of the hands of criminals? No, but it will limit access to semi-automatic massacre enablers. Will it stop mass shootings? Maybe not, but it's a lot harder to kill 58 people with a lever or a bolt than an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

So you're a fascist. Why should someone's ability to afford a $2k tax dictate which rights they can enjoy?
 
Deanimator said:
As I said, I'm old enough to remember AHSA AND the NFA. This isn't one guy saying something foolish. It's ORGANIZED, and has been for a LONG time.

Failing to recognize this plays into their hands.
Click to expand...

I'm that old also. There too are firearms/accessories I have no desire or need for. As I said before, I think we already have enough gun control. We too are organized. Don't see a problem with it. What I do see is an attempt by both antis and pro-gun advocates to bully or intimidate others to their way of thinking. These types of gun forums are a prime example. Folks that express an opinion that does not fit within the parameters of others are sometimes chastised/belittled to the point they no longer post that view. Those doing the intimidating think they have changed the mind of the individual, while in fact all they have done is suppressed that opinion(on the forum only) and alienated a fellow responsible gun owner. Has that helped our cause at all? Or has it only inflated the ego of the bully? Again, as I said before, altho I don't agree with some of the opinions expressed here, I do understand why some do. I also think there's a better way to change/influence peoples opinions than by name calling, bullying and stereotyping, even tho that seems to be the acceptable norm in our society today. Since as a gun owner, I don't like being stereotyped as a drunken redneck, I don't tend to stereotype every non-gun owner or someone with a different opinion of what constitutes an infringement, as an idiot.



Deanimator said:
They're not "illegal", just foolishly overregulated.
Click to expand...

Here's a prime example of a type of gun control than most pro-gun folks cannot agree upon as to how much of an infringement there is. In reality, I'd bet most pro-gun folks think the regs surrounding machine-gun ownership is properly regulated, as you see very little argumentation on gun forums as to repealing those regs. Again, just MHO, to which I, you and everyone else here, is entitled to.
 
buck460XVR said:
What I do see is an attempt by both antis and pro-gun advocates to bully or intimidate others to their way of thinking.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less about changing his mind any more than I care about changing the minds of the Klan or Antifa. My concern is that they not be allowed to gull the uninformed and gullible with their lies.

REAL bullying is shouting somebody down on stage, or trying to get the AHSA trolls booted from this forum. I don't believe in either. In fact, having the fifth columnists here is a fabulous opportunity to expose their lies and malice.

To the snowflakes and crybullies, mere CONTRADICTION is "bullying". And again, that's not a new development. MacKinnon and Dworkin were pushing that line in the '80s with their censorship campaign.

The AHSA trolls aren't merely presenting a point of view, they're arguing for the use of ARMED FORCE against those whose lawful property they wish to take away.

If you don't believe me, ask our little pal what he thinks should happen to somebody who buys an unregistered AR AFTER his ban goes into effect. It always comes down to men with guns KILLING you if you don't comply.

My answer, now and always is, "NO, I REFUSE. I'm your huckleberry."
 
Rocket,

How does registering something NFA or otherwise, make it less dangerous? It has become well known in the gun owning community that the only purpose registration serves is to identify items for confiscation or a complete ban at a later date when politically feasible. This has played out several times throughout the country in some states and throughout the world. That is why no educated gun owner should ever support registration, because that is the ultimate goal of firearm registration, confiscation.

The act of registering something does not make it safe or less likely to be used for evil purposes. Even in the case of a jihadi in France driving a large truck through a crowded area to kill as many as possible. I suspect the truck was “registered”, but it has no bearing on anything.
 
ScrapMetalSlug said:
Rocket,

How does registering something NFA or otherwise, make it less dangerous? It has become well known in the gun owning community that the only purpose registration serves is to identify items for confiscation or a complete ban at a later date when politically feasible. This has played out several times throughout the country in some states and throughout the world. That is why no educated gun owner should ever support registration, because that is the ultimate goal of firearm registration, confiscation.

The act of registering something does not make it safe or less likely to be used for evil purposes. Even in the case of a jihadi in France driving a large truck through a crowded area to kill as many as possible. I suspect the truck was “registered”, but it has no bearing on anything.
Click to expand...
His goal is not "safety", nor is it that of any others of the anti-gun cult.

His goal is a monopoly on the means of armed force by a government controlled by those of his ilk.

Then they can REALLY get to work...
 
Rocketmedic said:
In my perfect view, semi-automatic shoulder-fired weapons that are magazine-fed would be treated as NFA items, the registry would not reopen except to receive those weapons that already exist, and the NFA process would make them way harder to get (think a $2k tax stamp instead of $200). In exchange, semi-automatic pistols (capped at 15 rounds, because I'm a liberal) are left alone (pistols over 15 rounds would be NFA), nationwide constitutional carry and mandatory NRA Eddie-the-Eagle gun-safety training in schools for everyone, and a constitutional amendment forbidding federal, state or local gun, ammunition, accessory or property confiscation, bans or other forms of limiting access unless a clear and present imminent danger exists from a specific source and due process has been executed fairly and faithfully (say, a penalty of all of MSRP payable by the detaining authority, compounded weekly, pending a judicial decision). People could carry firearms anywhere, openly or concealed. Additionally, citizens and resident aliens could access military firing ranges as available to shoot, and states would be encouraged to form and expand state militias including gun owners to support state disaster, unrest, etc. That's my gun-control dream. Will it get guns out of the hands of criminals? No, but it will limit access to semi-automatic massacre enablers. Will it stop mass shootings? Maybe not, but it's a lot harder to kill 58 people with a lever or a bolt than an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
I will respond accordingly after I get off work. But, in your perfect world, you just made this a “$2k+cost of gun” NFA rifle. Semi-automatic and magazine fed. A883CC02-3D83-4F0C-939A-4CD18A92373A.jpeg
 
I will respond accordingly after I get off work. But, in your perfect world, you just made this a “$2k+cost of gun” NFA rifle. Semi-automatic and magazine fed.
Click to expand...
As that other notable person who thinks as Rocketmedic does, said recently, "So what? ... I certainly hope so."

(That was Nancy Pelosi when asked point blank whether this bill would be a slippery slope toward banning other guns.)
 
In response to Rocket Man’s (not the Korean) image of a utopian world,

here’s one just as ludicrous:

Every individual that is captured committing a violent crime is subject to treatment called Ludovico’s Technique, a form of brainwashing that incorporates associative learning. After being injected with a substance that makes you dreadfully sick, you are forced to watch exceedingly violent movies. In this way, you come to associate violence with the nausea and headaches you experiences from the shot. Thereafter, the mere thought of violence has the power to make you ill. Ego, no more repeated evil acts. The program would be expanded for those other's believe may be thinking of committing evil.
 
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
816
TallPine
T
D
  • Locked
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Replies
2
Views
419
mortablunt
M
G
  • Locked
Why the NRA must be stopped.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Al Thompson
A
Back
Top