I've Lost My Passion For The 2A

Rocketmedic · Oct 23, 2015

So, over the last two years, I have found my faith and belief in the 2A badly shaken by the depressing and continuous string of mass shootings. I've heard the calls for mental health screening (which would disqualify hundreds of thousands of Americans on the basis of medical conditions from 2A rights and would likely be opposed stringently by the gun-rights lobby), and to be honest, I do not believe that any reasonable alternative to gun control exists. Sure, almost all of us are safe, law-abiding citizens, but I cannot help but believe that the permissiveness of our current gun laws and the availability of firearms (specifically, assault weapons, and please don't give me the crap about full-auto vs semi, because there is essentially no difference in terms of use) enables mass shooters to an unreasonable extent.

I really don't think we need semiautomatic weapons, so here's my idea: a voluntary exchange of semiautomatic weapons for a bolt-action or other manual-action longarm or revolver plus the weapon's MSRP in cash, the addition of all semiautos to the NFA list (and the reopening of the registry and an increase in the tax stamp to a more reasonable number like 5k), universally-recognized concealed carry on a shall-issue basis marked via a DL endorsement, mandatory gun-safety training in schools, and a standardized system for removing weapons from people reported to be a danger that would require the state to provide an independent and unbiased psychiatric examination with a fine of $1000 per gun per day that they are confinscated in the event the seizure is unwarranted.

jerkface11 · Oct 23, 2015

How about no.

MagnumDweeb · Oct 23, 2015

Not only no, but hell no.

Gun deaths as a total have been on the decrease each year for the last twenty plus years. Yes mass shootings are up as a total number but total gun deaths are down. Some cities like Chicago are having upticks but that's do to the demographics of those areas, not the guns themselves.

You want to surrender to the Anti-American crowd, you go right ahead. The rest of us who don't want to end up like Canada or Australia will keep fighting and prepping.

ljnowell · Oct 23, 2015

Not surprising. You've posted on here before that you support AWB and the like.

Go ahead and turn in your firearms but don't you dare for a moment think you can speak for the rest of us.

jerkface11 · Oct 23, 2015

Looking at your previous posts it looks like you had no passion for it to begin with.

Fred Fuller · Oct 23, 2015

to be honest, I do not believe that any reasonable alternative to gun control exists.

Tell me please, what has happened in any so called mass shooting in the past two years that was not ALREADY ILLEGAL?? If criminals obeyed laws ... these things would not happen.

And pray tell, how do you propose to disarm people who are already violent criminals actors (VCAs)?

How will disarming honest law abiding people contribute to stopping criminal activity?

Trent · Oct 23, 2015

so here's my idea: a voluntary exchange of semiautomatic weapons for a bolt-action or other manual-action longarm

No frigging way.

No one has the right to decide for me what weapons I use to defend my family and person.

We had a neighbor (we're rural, so by "neighbor" I mean 3 miles down the road) hit in the middle of the night by 5 gangbangers who drove an hour from the city to rob some country folk of their guns.

5 on 1 odds, man.

Think about 5 dudes kicking in your door at 2 AM as you work the bolt on your rifle next time you go shooting.

Considering that it often takes more than one shot to drop an attacker, I started keeping one of those "despicable" semi-automatic rifles next to my bed, with a great big magazine stuffed to the brim with life-saving chunks of metal.

Aside from that, I don't see this thread going anywhere nice.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions - that's the fundamental basis of freedom. But don't expect many (any?) to agree with you on this, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.

You sure as heck have no right to tell any of US what we should or shouldn't own - that's where the line of freedom is drawn, friend. Step over that line and now you're infringing on my freedom... and I'm really protective of that freedom.

You don't want to own semiauto? Great. Don't. Sell them.

But don't even think for a minute you're going to try to get mine, or (any?) of the other gun owners.

Rocketmedic · Oct 23, 2015

I just don't see why your hobbies are more important than the lives of Americans.

Fred Fuller, there really aren't any alternatives. "Mental health" is so vague a subject and diagnosis as to be useless from a gatekeeping point of view, and I don't think that it is reasonable to expect Americans as a whole to continue to tolerate the easy availability of gun owners to amass arsenals capable of depopulating schools when misused- and we all kbow that spree killers don't give a care for the consequences.

JohnKSa · Oct 23, 2015

I just don't see why your hobbies are more important than the lives of Americans.

You're not thinking.

First of all, there are many, many hobbies and recreational pastimes which potentially endanger the lives of those engaging in them and the lives of others. Drinking, drugs, skydiving, private piloting, car racing, the list goes on. Why pretend that firearms are unique?

Second, if you believe that firearms are nothing more than a hobby to many Americans, you are sadly mistaken. Many see them as an absolute necessity in one or more ways.

I've heard the calls for mental health screening (which would disqualify hundreds of thousands of Americans on the basis of medical conditions from 2A rights and would likely be opposed stringently by the gun-rights lobby)...

First of all, it would most likely be opposed more stringently by those in favor of medical privacy than the gun rights lobby.

Second, why do you think that hundreds of thousands of Americans would be disqualified from firearms ownership after mental screening? Do you really believe that there are that many people who are so seriously mentally ill that they would be denied the right to own a firearm? That seems quite pessimistic.

Third, if there really are huge numbers of people who are so mentally ill that they can't be trusted with firearms shouldn't they also be prohibited from owning a car, sharp objects and generally be prohibited from buying anything that might be turned into a weapon or used to injure someone else or themselves? Should someone that impaired even be walking around freely? And if you lock them up because they're dangerously mentally ill, then would it really be necessary to deny them access to firearms as well?

I really don't think we need semiautomatic weapons, so here's my idea: a voluntary exchange of semiautomatic weapons for a bolt-action or other manual-action longarm or revolver plus the weapon's MSRP in cash...

Sure, why not. I choose not to participate in the voluntary program and I predict that my decision will not be unusual amongst those who own semi-autos.

...the addition of all semiautos to the NFA list (and the reopening of the registry and an increase in the tax stamp to a more reasonable number like 5k)...

See, now this is no longer voluntary. The NFA registry isn't voluntary at all. I don't think that there's any reason increase the tax stamp--NFA items are virtually never used in crimes so it seems pointless to restrict them further.

... universally-recognized concealed carry on a shall-issue basis marked via a DL endorsement...

This will be an extremely hard to sell to the anti-gun states. It's wishful thinking.

...and a standardized system for removing weapons from people reported to be a danger that would require the state to provide an independent and unbiased psychiatric examination with a fine of $1000 per gun per day that they are confinscated in the event the seizure is unwarranted.

Well, except for actually coming up with a practical way to implement that it sounds really great. Once you start trying to implement it, I think that all kinds of practical problems, privacy and other rights violations will shut it down right quick.

Ok, but let's say that everyone agrees 100% with you and we magically figure out how to implement all of your ideas.

What are you going to offer up in another couple of years when the mass shootings don't stop?

Revolvers? Lever actions? Knives with points on them? Airguns?

Rocketmedic · Oct 23, 2015

The goal isn't to entirely stop mass shootings, it is to lower the death toll. A combination of widespread carry and weapons restrictions would do that.

Trent · Oct 23, 2015

Rocketmedic said:
I just don't see why your hobbies are more important than the lives of Americans.

Self-defense is not a "hobby", dude.

You're trolling Clinton's gun buyback line and I just really don't see that concept going over well here.. or on ANY pro 2nd amendment / RTKBA board. Period.

I have a right to use the most effective tool for self-defense of my life or my family's life, from whatever aggressor I feel might threaten me.

General Geoff · Oct 23, 2015

The goal isn't to entirely stop mass shootings, it is to lower the death toll. A combination of widespread carry and weapons restrictions would do that.

The media misrepresents how commonplace mass shootings are. There are so many more common types of murder which do not gain widespread media coverage. To be blunt, mass shootings are an anomaly.

Trent · Oct 23, 2015

Rocketmedic said:
The goal isn't to entirely stop mass shootings, it is to lower the death toll. A combination of widespread carry and weapons restrictions would do that.

Oh BULL!! Where are you getting this stuff? Where is your evidence?

Go look up the Beltway sniper. One shot each attack, 76% fatality rates.

Go look up some knife attacks in China - even without guns, they have mass casualties.

Also, the #1 worst school massacre of all time in the United States, was executed with explosives, back in the 1920's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)

You aren't going to well-wish evil out of this world, man... But you can send it on to the next one rapidly with the proper tools.

Fred Fuller · Oct 23, 2015

Of course you are welcome to your opinions. And welcome to express them. I feel very strongly that further restrictions on honest people would be counter-productive in the extreme. In various locations desperate officials have finally begun arming teachers to prevent attacks on schoolchildren. See http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/Follow-the-Leader.htm for some examples from a decade or so ago.

Also see http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/gun-control-poll-americans/
Poll: More Americans oppose stricter gun control
By Jeremy Diamond, CNNUpdated 7:10 PM ET, Wed October 21, 2015

The last reported attack at a school I saw was in Sweden = and it was done with a sword. See http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/police-man-attacks-school-southern-sweden-34644939

For me, shooting is far more than a hobby.

JohnKSa · Oct 23, 2015

A combination of widespread carry and weapons restrictions would do that.

Yeah. So you expect the anti-gunners to agree that weapons are good and to endorse widespread legalized carry and the pro-gunners to agree that weapons are bad and to restrict them.

As the T-Rex says in Meet The Robinsons, "I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through."

Trent · Oct 23, 2015

The Clinton "buyback" idea just dumbfounds me.

They want the government to buy back my guns.

With money that comes from me, the taxpayer.

No, no, and no.

Even forgetting that we are already broke enough as a country, you're not going to convince gun owners to "sell" their guns .. to a government that is spending the citizens' money to do it.

That buyback program would be a really good way to start a war, though. Remember, after the short skirmish at Lexington, bodies didn't hit the ground en masse until the British went after the gunpowder at Concord and were sent back to Boston with their tails between their legs.

We have a tradition in this country of living as free men - don't think that free men will be eager and willing to hand over their only means of keeping that freedom intact, over the acts of a few deranged kids.

To allow confiscation of our arms (under any pretext) means we are handing over the security of all future generations, so that our descendants are no longer responsible for or capable of protecting their lives or way of life.. This opens the door for totalitarianism... Which is the polar opposite of what this country is supposed to be about.

JohnKSa · Oct 23, 2015

By the way, you can level with us. This isn't exactly a sudden epiphany, is it?

You've had these thoughts before...maybe you really lost your passion about 3 years ago?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690879

"I, for one, would support a tiered addition of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines onto the NFA registry, in exchange for constitutionally-guaranteed carry, ammunition, and acquisition protections for all firearms on a federal level."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=668925

"I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted. It's a sacrifice, yes, but it may well prevent far more drastic measures in the future, and in all honesty, I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool when compared with the potential harm from their misuse."

Deog · Oct 23, 2015

Ok you convinced me, where should I take my guns ?

Is this like a vegan giving cooking lessons to BBQ masters ?

yugorpk · Oct 23, 2015

I have no problem with anyone voluntarily giving up their guns. Come for mine and you will join the list of casualties that will turn forced confiscation into a short lived experiment in tyranny. It will be a blood bath. Not everyone feels the same way. Maybe 1/2 of one percent of gun owners will defend their civil rights. Thats still 3/4 of a million people putting a bullet in the first Barney that knocks their door down. How long do you think that situation will last?

Rocketmedic · Oct 23, 2015

I would reckon your resistance would last until a Hellfire turned your home, pickup and guns into a flaming pool of spilt diesel, charred meat and plastic slag.

Rocketmedic · Oct 23, 2015

We're not all Cruz-loving conservatives.

xxjumbojimboxx · Oct 23, 2015

I'm a libertarian... You're a troll... and your bolt action argument is null.. You'd remember Charles Whitman if you paid attention.

Rocketmedic · Oct 23, 2015

Killed a lot less people than Adam Lanza, Chris Mercer, the Asian guy at VT or James Holmes.

So unpopular opinions constitute trolling?

xxjumbojimboxx · Oct 23, 2015

Rocketmedic said:
Killed a lot less people than Adam Lanza, Chris Mercer, the Asian guy at VT or James Holmes.

So unpopular opinions constitute trolling?

Charles Whitman killed 16 people. Mercer Killed less.Holmes killed 12. Check your facts. Lanza killed his mom with a bolt action 22. You ever see guys do a mad minute? Bolt action or not, if there's no one there to stop it, it simply doesn't matter. If there is someone there to stop it, we would prefer them have semi auto capabilities. Wouldn't we? Or do we want our heroes outgunned?

mnrivrat · Oct 23, 2015

If you think murder is all about what tool the criminal uses then you have a warped sense of reality.

And if you think that the freedom of 300 million people should be determined by a handful of nut jobs then you carry well your warped thinking.

With that said , we have a little thing called the bill of rights in this country. It includes the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right that government has no business infringing upon it. (that incudes the armerment of a soldier) If you don't like that, then move , or work to change the constitution, not to basterdize it.

I've Lost My Passion For The 2A

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Administrator

Member

Administrator

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads