danez71
Member
See my post in your other thread.
For the record, I've recently relocated from AZ to CA.
You never called me a hypocrite..... I'm just saying that I'm not being hypocritical.
2nd Amendment lost in CT today
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
See my post in your other thread.
For the record, I've recently relocated from AZ to CA.
You never called me a hypocrite..... I'm just saying that I'm not being hypocritical.
danez71
Member
None of your examples had anything to do with Rights except for the ones you listed that MULTIPLE ENTIRE COUNTRIES boycotted (economic sanctions) a poor country.
Thats a far cry from a segment of a population boycotting rich states like CA and NY. (Edit to Add: keep in mind CA's economy is about 8th in the entire world. South Africa is ranked around 74).
I asked for example(s) of, In the US, when did running away ever gain/regained a Right. You have about 230 years of history to look at and realize it has never happened.
People seem to not realize that the US was founded when we ran away, but the Constitution came to be because We stood up and Fought.
Last edited:
Queen of Thunder said:
So what have you done for the RKBA in Connecticut?
Last March, Colt closed down its factory, loaded 400 employees up on ten buses, and took to the streets in protest of Connecticut's new gun control laws.
Did you take 400 people to Connecticut to protest these laws?
Did you even load up one station wagon with some like-minded people and drive to Connecticut to protest?
I'd say that whether you buy a Colt rifle or not, Colt has already done more to oppose gun control in Connecticut than any of us have.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-rally-against-state-gun-control-proposals/
danez71
Member
But what you seemingly don't realize is.......
Those companies are making more profit from the sale to you than what Conn takes in taxes from the sale to you.
If your buying over the internet from those companies, Conn isn't even getting the sales tax.
Your strategy really only hurts the companies that oppose and fight those laws and also hurts the people that work for those companies that (more than likely) also oppose those laws.
You ARE hurting the most viable opposition to those stupid laws the most and hurting the state/politicians the least.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
If Colt,Remington,Kimber,S&W or any gun company decided to move there would be individual communities, states or both willing to help in relocation with such incentives as no sales taxes on construction or equipment purchased for the new site, reductions or elimination on fees associated with building a new business/factory, reduced or abated property taxes for 10 years more or less, free land, reduced costs for utilities, other relocation costs and who knows what else. States and communities make it an easy decision to move.
Boycotts are a tool that must be used. In this case the threat of a boycott can be the "push" needed to get a gun company to consider moving. If there is a serious threat that they are about to lose a major employer politicians are much more likely to change those onerous laws they have passed to ensure their own political survival.
The Courts are only one prong of the attack. Boycotts are another prong that must be used in conjunction with the Appeals in the Courts. Another possible prong of attack is that "gun owners" are a political class being denied representation.
There are 24 communities that take "communities of interest" into account when redistricting and California is one. Would you not agree gun owners are a community of interest.
An equal and possibly more palatable route is Rural vs. City where large cites like NYC virtually control the whole state. Those living in other parts of the state have their votes diluted. We only have to look at how the US Senate is structured and the reason it was structured that way to provide a solid basis for Court action to counter this disparity.
In Texas there is a geographical divide in the voting population. The I-35 corridor and East of it have near total control of both Houses of the Texas Legislature. I can see a challenge coming soon do to this disparity not only in Texas but other states where this exists.
Boycotts are a tool that must be used. In this case the threat of a boycott can be the "push" needed to get a gun company to consider moving. If there is a serious threat that they are about to lose a major employer politicians are much more likely to change those onerous laws they have passed to ensure their own political survival.
The Courts are only one prong of the attack. Boycotts are another prong that must be used in conjunction with the Appeals in the Courts. Another possible prong of attack is that "gun owners" are a political class being denied representation.
There are 24 communities that take "communities of interest" into account when redistricting and California is one. Would you not agree gun owners are a community of interest.
An equal and possibly more palatable route is Rural vs. City where large cites like NYC virtually control the whole state. Those living in other parts of the state have their votes diluted. We only have to look at how the US Senate is structured and the reason it was structured that way to provide a solid basis for Court action to counter this disparity.
In Texas there is a geographical divide in the voting population. The I-35 corridor and East of it have near total control of both Houses of the Texas Legislature. I can see a challenge coming soon do to this disparity not only in Texas but other states where this exists.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Well Conn. is a good 2,000 miles from me so garbing a few fellow gun owners to go up and protest is rather difficult. Outside of letters there is not much I can do. What I do do is help strengthen the CCL and gun ownership in my community. I've had some success with helping a council member to become a gun owner then a CCL holder. A department head is now a gun owner and is shooting trap and skeet. I'm working to grow our numbers one individual at a time. I have extended a standing invitation to any of my elected officials for a trip to the range to be introduced to shooting if they have never done it before.
I mean lets be realistic here. What Conn. politician cares what a gun toting grandmother in Texas has to say.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
There is no logistical reason that a single person could not own, maintain, and deploy a nuclear device that was assembled for them (like we buy guns that were assembled for us by a manufacturer).
A nuke is only different because it is more rare, but the Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle could be mounted in the back of a pick up truck.
Most of us can't manufacture and AR-15 from scratch either, but we can buy them.
If it was legal, a person could just as easily buy and truck around a Davy Crockett nuke. Is this a good idea? ... probably not.
Is it a bit hyperbolic? Sure. But the point is that at SOME point in the spectrum of "arms" it has been generally agreed that there is a barrier/line that civilians don't get to cross.
Nuclear bombs are at one far end of the spectrum. Sticks are at the other. Bolt action rifles, RPGs, revolvers, SMAWs, shotguns, tanks, full automatic weapons, artillery, AR-15, etc. all fall somewhere in between.
Right now, in the US, the barrier/line is being defined approximately:
1. Semi autos for all, but sometimes with extra paperwork depending on locality
2. Full autos with restrictions and extra paperwork
3. Explosive devices
The barrier/line is never going to disappear entirely, which would be the least restrictive interpretation of "Shall not be infringed" that some advocate for. The question is where that barrier/line will be set, which will be determined through legislation and the courts.
Queen of Thunder said:
I'm not disparaging your one-on-one efforts, but the fact is that distance or not, Colt has already done more to fight the anti-gun legislation in Connecticut than you have. And as you've pointed out, you're thousands of miles away and no one in CT is going to care what a Texan has to say anyhow.
Yet you want to cut the legs off manufacturers who are still in a position to oppose these laws in court. Point of fact, I'm pretty sure that to have standing in court, those manufacturers have to have a presence in the state.
You just admitted that you can't do anything in CT... does it make sense to attack those who can?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Speedo66
Member
What we have to keep in mind is that the Democrats in CT have a majority in both houses. From what I've read, they initially wanted to follow NY and ban all "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines period, and they had the votes to do it. The Republicans got them to agree to the present situation, grandfathering in currently owned weapons and magazines. I'm still astounded they agreed to the compromise.
However, pushing through legislation in the dead of night in secrecy, even to the people expected to vote on it, is not the fabric a free and democratic society is made from.
Welcome to 21st century American politics.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Chief-
I definitely understand the complexity of nuclear devices. It is actually part of my family history (grandpa was an engineer working on the manhattan project. He didn't KNOW he was working on the manhattan project at the time, but he figured it out later) and I come from a family of physicists.
All you are saying is correct regarding the complexity and stability of a nuclear device.
But, in theory, the US Gov't could treat surplus Davey Crocket devices like they do M1 Garands through the CMP. Check em out, make sure they are functional and ready to go, and your local billionaire could order one up for $100 dollars. Generate some revenue to fill those gaps in the budget.
Now that millionaire has a functional nuclear device... they didn't need to know how to make it or all the complexity of it, they can just take it out to their ranch, push the button and watch it go "Kablooey!!"
What are the arguments for why this is not done?
It isn't a physical or logistical impossibility... if they can train soldiers to deploy a davey crocket, the billionaire can get the same training included in the purchase price.
The reasoning is the danger posed to the public. Same reasoning Antis use. Granted, the SCALE is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY different (this is where your "outside the realm of reasonableness that it's assinine to even consider it as a possibility" is accurate), but the essential argument is the same.
1. Letting people buy and own fully functional nukes is way too dangerous.
2. Letting people buy and own fully automatic machine guns is way too dangerous.
3. Letting people buy and own semi auto rifles is way to dangerous.
4. Letting people buy and own guns is way to dangerous.
[Not saying those are right, just demonstrating]
The basic argument is the same, just the scale and the item in question change.
Me, I fall somewhere between 1 and 2 (like most of us I suspect). Full auto is fine for people to own... nukes, not so much.
I definitely understand the complexity of nuclear devices. It is actually part of my family history (grandpa was an engineer working on the manhattan project. He didn't KNOW he was working on the manhattan project at the time, but he figured it out later) and I come from a family of physicists.
All you are saying is correct regarding the complexity and stability of a nuclear device.
But, in theory, the US Gov't could treat surplus Davey Crocket devices like they do M1 Garands through the CMP. Check em out, make sure they are functional and ready to go, and your local billionaire could order one up for $100 dollars. Generate some revenue to fill those gaps in the budget.
Now that millionaire has a functional nuclear device... they didn't need to know how to make it or all the complexity of it, they can just take it out to their ranch, push the button and watch it go "Kablooey!!"
What are the arguments for why this is not done?
It isn't a physical or logistical impossibility... if they can train soldiers to deploy a davey crocket, the billionaire can get the same training included in the purchase price.
The reasoning is the danger posed to the public. Same reasoning Antis use. Granted, the SCALE is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY different (this is where your "outside the realm of reasonableness that it's assinine to even consider it as a possibility" is accurate), but the essential argument is the same.
1. Letting people buy and own fully functional nukes is way too dangerous.
2. Letting people buy and own fully automatic machine guns is way too dangerous.
3. Letting people buy and own semi auto rifles is way to dangerous.
4. Letting people buy and own guns is way to dangerous.
[Not saying those are right, just demonstrating]
The basic argument is the same, just the scale and the item in question change.
Me, I fall somewhere between 1 and 2 (like most of us I suspect). Full auto is fine for people to own... nukes, not so much.
danez71
Member
Wait.. what..?!?!??
You're saying its "too difficult" to make a road trip and think writing letters is about all you can do....
And yet you think that everyone in those states and companies in those states to move out and relocate to another state.
That's rich right there.
Arkansas Paul
Member
^ Exactly.
Pulling up stakes and moving away from where you've lived your entire life isn't something you just do.
Pulling up stakes and moving away from where you've lived your entire life isn't something you just do.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I can kinda see where you're going with this...except that it won't ever work this way with nuclear weapons.
Simply addressing your Davy Crockett devices, they were taken out of service in 1968, 46 years ago. Given the age and issues with storage, even if they still existed they would very likely be in poor condition. However, given what they contained and the fact that the Cold War was very much in full swing at the time, likely the fissile material was immediately reclaimed for reuse in other weapons. So they no longer exist as surplus.
Second, the materials themselves are tightly controlled for all the reasons I cited in my last posting. Fissile material simply won't be put in the hands of private citizens in this fashion because there is not direct control over the material to ensure it won't be spread in unauthorized ways which could not only threaten national security, but international security as well.
These kinds of weapons are so far off the opposite end of the spectrum with respect to privately owned arms that it isn't even funny. They are truely a class unto themselves because of this.
Because of this, the arguments that the gun control crowd would use when trying to tie any argument with respect to nuclear weapons into that of firearms far surpasses the point of absurdity.
We can debate small arms, artillery, conventional explosives and bombs all day long with respect to where to draw the line...but not with nuclear weapons.
Last edited:
Arkansas Paul
Member
100% correct.
It passes absurdity and doesn't even slow down.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
These kinds of weapons are so far off the opposite end of the spectrum with respect to privately owned arms that it isn't even funny. They are truely a class unto themselves because of this.
Oh, definitely, i agree. But, the spectrum STARTS (at least until my worldcrusher-super-laser-of-doom is completed) with Nuclear and then heads toward sticks.
At some point on that spectrum most everyone agrees that there is a class of weapons that an individual could own and use but should NOT be sold without restriction. There are also some items that could be considered arms that are generally agreed they SHOULD be sold without any restrictions.
I would hazard that most people would put an RPG into the first category.
I would hazard that most people would put a baseball bat into the second.
In between comes everything else.
danez71
Member
All very valid.
To recap:
* He's stated that its "too difficult" for him to go protest in CT with his friends and about 'all he can do' is "write letters" but he expects all of the pro 2A people and companies to incur a huge expense and burden and move out of those states.
And....
* He's stated that he wants to boycott those companies that sell guns/gun related products located in CT which also just happen to be in the best location to fight the anti laws.
Jeeez.... I'm starting to wonder which side is he really on.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
You can imagine my disappointment, not only when I saw this, but when I saw that you happened to buy a Mosin Nagant while out looking for .22lr ammo and then want to purchase so much ammo for it as to be concerned about UPS's weight limit.Queen of Thunder said:
You can certainly spend your money as you see fit, just as you can actively attack those who are fighting for the 2A in their home states. I just think it's a shame that you claimed to not have the money when you turn around and buy a surplus rifle on a whim, plus a huge pile of ammunition and then state you're now in the market for a .338 Lapua(a chambering not known for cheap rifles nor cheap ammo).
By the way, Big 5, the place you so proudly supported by buying this rifle, is based out of California. You know, that place with far more restrictive laws than Connecticut. I suppose your declaration of, "Buying from companies located in Conn. is supporting the very laws that they passed. I can't do that" doesn't apply to California?
I'll make the donation regardless of your actions.
RussB
Member
As will I today...just another $25
larryh1108
Member
I also chuckled when I read that.
Indigo22
Member
And what about the rights of a well regulated militia in the state of CT...?? Should a group of patriots decide to form one shouldn't they be able to have the proper equipment for the defense of the state? Rifles and Magazines of sufficient capabilities and capacities would be an integral part of their needs.
larryh1108
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
