Fudd; or Gun Culture Bias

Rocketmedic said:
I'd also put forth that arson, ramming etc are a lot easier to escape than a shooter with an assault rifle mowing people down.

I'd ask the victims, but they're dead. But don't worry, I'll just tell them it's easy to escape. They'll be fine by morning.

I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms. Those incidents happened. Those people are dead. And you're being a buffoon by throwing real data and history away just to advocate for a failed pet agenda. You are a willful idiot. I am done with this conversation.

Rocketmedic said:

I'd reckon it would be a lot easier to 'save' the 1911 by setting a 10- or 15-round limit, but I'd be OK with making all weapons with detachable magazines NFA-able. Increasing the tax to something more like $1000 would be appropriate too.

I'd also put forth that arson, ramming etc are a lot easier to escape than a shooter with an assault rifle mowing people down.

Click to expand...

How exactly would you set a 15 round limit on a 1911 in order to save it?

Whoa. I've been an AR-15 owner since 1968, and a machine gun owner since 1975. I consider those that would throw me -- and others like me -- under the bus in order to (supposedly) protect their Fudd guns to be Quislings and traitors to the overall cause of gun rights. ALL gun owners must stick together or we will be defeated in detail.

Rocketmedic said:

I'd reckon it would be a lot easier to 'save' the 1911 by setting a 10- or 15-round limit, but I'd be OK with making all weapons with detachable magazines NFA-able. Increasing the tax to something more like $1000 would be appropriate too.

I'd also put forth that arson, ramming etc are a lot easier to escape than a shooter with an assault rifle mowing people down.

Click to expand...

Who cares what you'd 'be OK' with? Lots of folks would 'be OK' with an outright ban and confiscation of all firearms; it doesn't make it reasonable, or make it right.

All this focus on 'firepower' seems to have blinded you to an important fact; spraying rounds is demonstrably (ask any police or military trainer) less lethal than careful, aimed fire-the exceptions being when have a water-cooled Vulcan gun and several TRUCKS full of ammo. So your great idea would likely save nobody, but simply slide us farther along down the slippery slope toward gun prohibition.

You've been shown crime stat's and objective evidence that your presuppositions about firearms are incorrect; if you really want people to respect your opinion, you have to show its amenable to facts, and not simply a dogmatic belief in gun control

Larry

Rocketmedic said:

Y'all have already demonstrated that you're not willing to make the changes necessary to really fix mental healthcare. How many of you would support comprehensive psychological and background checks for every gun owner? I reckon you'd just start screaming "2A!"

Click to expand...

Oh jeeeez. You're conflating 2 issues.

Please explain how a comprehensive psychological check for gun owners fixes any part of mental health care.

Rocketmedic said:

So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder.

Click to expand...

Notice the Rocketmedic is just like any other infringer: Start small, and keep on taking until they are all gone.

So, how do you suggest that the millions of detachable magazine weapons end up on the NFA? Confiscations?

I raised my right hand to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. You are looking more and more like one of those domestic enemies.

Rocketmedic said:

I'd also put forth that arson, ramming etc are a lot easier to escape than a shooter with an assault rifle mowing people down.

Click to expand...

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a one trick pony, and don't think that folks don't see right through you.

Bye, Felicia.

Rocketmedic said:

The rich generally don't massacre large groups of people (Vegas being the exception).

Click to expand...

I think that Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were quite rich, and they murdered millions. Any other brilliant observations to share with us?

Rocketmedic said:

The rich generally don't massacre large groups of people (Vegas being the exception). I'm seeking to make assault weapons less available for those of modest means because most crime and most mass shootings are done by people who aren't wealthy enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

Click to expand...

And why not a poll tax to go with that?

If the lumpenproletariat shouldn't have effective self-defense, why the vote?

One has to ask oneself what the true purpose and reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. It’s main thrust wasn’t the protection of hunters rights or that of target shooters or civil war reinactors. It was to give power to the individual / group of individuals so that their power over the government could be preserved, meaning the power we provide to the government is held in check. A well regulated militia has little to do with hunting / individual self preservation and lots to do with preventing a tyrannical runaway freedom stripping government. How does a populace do that with “fudd” guns (don’t really care for the term but it gets the point across).

Wise words from wise men...

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Rocketmedic said:

The rich generally don't massacre large groups of people (Vegas being the exception). I'm seeking to make assault weapons less available for those of modest means because most crime and most mass shootings are done by people who aren't wealthy enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

Click to expand...

So you want to ban certain types of guns for lower income people based on your biases? Where do we draw that line? Annual income? At what income level will you allow someone to own an AR? At what income level is a person more likely to "massacre large groups of people"? If someone is below that level should we give them a raise so they don't go out and shoot a bunch of people? Should we watch people below that income level? What if I qualify under your test now but my business takes a downturn. Do I need to turn in my AR? What if my income then increases. Do I get it back? A good friend of mine just lost his job. His income dropped. Should I watch him? Another friend is about to lose half of what he owns in a divorce. How about him? My next door neighbor has been out of work for a while. Her? What about race? Ethnicity? Religious affiliations? Gender? I'm willing to take part in a reasonable discussion, but what you're posting is just silly. I'll take a step back from this.

Rocketmedic said:

The rich generally don't massacre large groups of people (Vegas being the exception). I'm seeking to make assault weapons less available for those of modest means because most crime and most mass shootings are done by people who aren't wealthy enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

Click to expand...

The elitist attitude shines bright.

Rocketmedic said:

Would you support preemptive removal of firearms from people at risk from mental illness?

Click to expand...

We are all at risk. Can you be more specific?

All gun control is treason, given that it's strictly forbidden by the Second Amendment, which is the law of the land, as ratified by a constitutionally elected government by the people of this country. Any gun control, without legally amending the constitution to allow for it, is an attempt at sedition and the overthrow of the people themselves, which is treason.

I would gladly have a gun control debate with you, @Rocketmedic , but only from the perspective of legally amending the constitution to modify the second amendment to allow for it. Any debate that doesn't start there is moot and seditious.

What is “at risk” for mental illness? Why don’t you answer any questions asked? Yeah, I know, no answers your group can come up with. Many questions deflected, by more from you. Typical self centered mentality.

You don’t want a discussion. You “think” you are at the podium.

Rocketmedic said:

A serious question for the THR community:

At what point are we alienating one another within the gun-owning community? I know that certain members here disparage, insult and belittle those of us who express different opinions regarding how the RKBA should apply, and that our individual viewpoints are unlikely to change- but to what degree should this be tolerated? Should it only be certain views that are condoned or accepted? Is there a place within the gun-owning community for "Fudds" or those who don't think that all gun control is treason?

Click to expand...

The polarization between conservatives and liberals in our society is very bad with no cooperation let alone mutual trust. It is no longer possible to be "Fudd" and be accepted into gun owning community. One just has to accept that individual freedom is valued more than group safety and for practical reasons each individual has to take responsibility for their own safety. The Second Amendment is very, very costly proposition to our society, but it's the cost we must accept and learn to live with.

PabloJ said:

The polarization between conservatives and liberals in our society is very bad with no cooperation let alone mutual trust. It is no longer possible to be "Fudd" and be accepted into gun owning community. One just has to accept that individual freedom is valued more than group safety and for practical reasons each individual has to take responsibility for their own safety. The Second Amendment is very, very costly proposition to our society, but it's the cost we must accept and learn to live with.

Click to expand...

Less costly than traffic accidents or prescription drug abuse. Not to downplay the tragedies that have happened but perspective needs to be given. Stripping away firearm deaths by accident, suicide, and justifiable shooting deaths and the cupboard is bare in arguments for gun control. What’s left in the percentage of deaths to population is small compared to other death statistics.

How costly was Hitler’s rampage, Moa, Stalin, Pol Pot? Disarming the populace was first on the agenda. And we currently have government run amok in this country on both sides of the aisle.

The second amendment is not a proposition, it is a right, and until that is changed in the constitution it will never be a proposition!

Mike OTDP said:

To me, the real issue are gun owners who are willing to throw other gun owners to the wolves...in order to protect themselves. Those people..."Fudd" is not strong enough. "Quisling" is the correct term.

Click to expand...

I apologize, Rocketmedic; I used an incorrect term. You are not a Fudd, you are a Quisling.

Rocketmedic said:

Would you support preemptive removal of firearms from people at risk from mental illness?

Click to expand...

As Danez71 said, We are all at risk; so no. Too Minority Report. Who gets to decide? DSM? AMA? CDC? CIA? NSA?

Rocketmedic said:

So let's NFA everything with detachable magazines. Bam. Mass shooting just got a lot harder.

Click to expand...

Say, doesn't the TCP .380 have a detachable magazine? Why, yes, yes it does. If you want to disarm yourself, none of us will stop you; Indeed, I encourage it, as your lack of logic and rhetoric in your posts leads me to believe that under the draconian mental heath screening you want, you'd probably not pass their tests. So please sell your handguns (and whatever other guns you rich folks can afford) and live the socialist elitist dream you want to impose on all of us.

The Second Amendment is “costly” to oppressors. The statistics don’t lead astray but emotions do.

Rocketmedic said:

Would you support preemptive removal of firearms from people at risk from mental illness?

Click to expand...

You mean like those who call for an awb?

Rocketmedic said:

I'm seeking to make assault weapons less available for those of modest means because most crime and most mass shootings are done by people who aren't wealthy enough to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

Click to expand...

I can hardly believe that I'm reading this on a gun forum.

Regarding the idea of making so-called "assault weapons" less available, that horse is already out of the barn. There are millions of such weapons in private hands. In fact, judging from recent prices, there's a glut of them on the market. If you attempt to outlaw them (or drastically regulate them by bringing them under the NFA), you may eliminate some of them (what? maybe 30% of them?), but there would still be plenty available -- but now, they would be underground, and by definition held by lawbreakers. You'd have all the negative social effects seen under Alcohol Prohibition, and an increase in general contempt for the law.

Given the prevalent real-world situation regarding such arms, the only answer to violence involving them is to have parity of force between the good guys and the bad guys. Therefore, ownership of AR's and the like should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

Tying the ownership of guns to income and social status is elitist, antidemocratic, and unAmerican. It's also a good way to foster social unrest and rebellion.