Anti-Gun Thought Patterns

It's all infantile domination fantasies.

Interesting graphic in the article.

Somehow, though, according to the author, it still comes down to being the gun's fault.

"Without violating the 2nd amendment" : "ban sale of semiautomatic weapons."

Huh? The author(s) have NO CLUE what the second amendment us about.

Walkalong said:

They just don't understand human behaviour

Click to expand...

Walkalong, this is the Kubaya Krowd in 5 easy steps:
(1) When People are bad, it's not their fault.
(2) People require a safe space environment as a Right
(3) The Government's primary responsibility is to reduce that safe space risk to zero
(4) The People themselves can neither be held responsible, not trusted, to be an instrument of that risk reduction.
(5) The instruments of that risk reduction are, in fact, the purview of the Government . . . and the Government alone.

EVERY ONE OF THESE 5 STEPS turn the Founders' intent for the relationships within the People, and that of the People vs the Government, on its head.
There is both risk, and cost, in being a Messy -- but Free -- People.

.

The author of this proposal is delusional. For one thing, gun owners are not going to be part of an organization whose purpose is to take their guns away.

He also pays lip service to the 2nd Amendment without having the vaguest notion of what it's about.

The Left will not be satisfied until every American is fully and totally disarmed.
Of that let there be no doubt.

Walkalong said:

Yes, and unfortunaelty many people want .gov to "protect" them, and sadly, they just don't see, or keep fooling themselves that eventually .gov will get it right and they will be "safe". Long after they are nothing but slaves to the government will they realize they have given all of the freedoms away for the false hope of being safe and .gov giving them all they want.

One of the first things governments do when they want total control over your lives is take away weapons. Since the Japanese peasants were not allowed swords by warlord rulers, to the peasant in England not allowed arms or even to hunt "the kings" deer in the forest, etc, etc....

Rome had paid armies, the ones paying all the taxes so Rome could live the way they did had no real arms. Disobey, the armed squadrons come and wipe out your village, sending a message loud and clear to all the rest.

Never give up your arms, never. It is the 2nd Amendment for a reason, that is how important the founding fathers knew arms were. Current arms by the way. ARs are the prevalent weapons of today, don't let them take them away.

Click to expand...

But Francis O'Rourke would tell you that you don't need a gun because Amber Guyger is there to protect you. Just ask Botham Jean...

I like how they claim hard liners seized control of the NRA in 77 and turned policy hard line no compromise. LOL

Cool story bro.

Note how there is no justification for banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons? And realize that means all handguns except revolvers?

MEHavey said:

Walkalong, this is the Kubaya Krowd in 5 easy steps:
(1) When People are bad, it's not their fault.
(2) People require a safe space environment as a Right
(3) The Government's primary responsibility is to reduce that safe space risk to zero
(4) The People themselves can neither be held responsible, not trusted, to be an instrument of that risk reduction.
(5) The instruments of that risk reduction are, in fact, the purview of the Government . . . and the Government alone.

EVERY ONE OF THESE 5 STEPS turn the Founders' intent for the relationships within the People, and that of the People vs the Government, on its head.
There is both risk, and cost, in being a Messy -- but Free -- People.

.

Click to expand...

There is a place where you you get free food, free clothes, free medical care. There is always someone watching over you to ensure that you get everything you need. Your safety is guaranteed. You will not be attacked and never be exposed to an opinion that you disagree with. It is so safe that it is difficult to even hurt yourself intentionally. It is solitary confinement in prison.

Welp owning years worth of old 1960's american rifleman.....the NRA thing....nope. The articles in there could be written today.

Now I do need to go back and see the years, but I think the oldest is '63.....65, I don't remember.

We believe in the 2nd amendment BUT we wish to define and control what if any guns you are allowed to have.

What is a "mass" shooting" more than 2, 3 4 ??

More deaths and shootings use handguns but they want to first take away rifles.

More deaths are caused by vehicles, tobacco. knives, suicide, drugs blah blah blah

We the Govt want to prohibit Alcohol so lets study that and see how well it worked.

That's right, kids. Take the nice pills that calm you down enough to stay in the classroom, even though they make the voices in your head tell you to kill your classmates and yourself.

Just remember, it's okay to shoot your friends - we'll just blame the gun and the NRA.

Rule3 said:

More deaths and shootings use handguns but they want to first take away rifles.

Click to expand...

That's typical of a worldwide pattern. Rifles present more of a threat to the authorities. People don't effectively revolt with handguns. For example, in Greece, rifles (with a few exceptions for competitive shooters) are absolutely prohibited for civilians, whereas handguns are allowed with tight licensing. This goes back to the Greek Civil War. The idea was to disarm the Left. (In America, the idea is to disarm the Right.)

But the other lesson to be learned is that passing legislation does not necessarily change the "facts on the ground." Greece, despite its highly restrictive gun laws, is awash with hidden guns. Not only are there thousands of holdover guns from WW2 and the Civil War, but there was a tidal wave of AK-47's smuggled in from nearby Albania after the Hoxha regime there fell. Even the Greek police estimate that there are some 250,000 fully-automatic AK's floating around the country. They are used in crime on a daily basis. (Or, more likely, kept hidden.)

Other the confiscation what does registering guns accomplish? Even if a gun is "registered" that does not prevent a person from going crazy and committing violent act.

Of course all the criminals will register their stolen guns.

It's all the same BS over and over.

Rule3 said:

Other the confiscation what does registering guns accomplish?

Click to expand...

Registration and licensing, in and of themselves, tend to reduce gun ownership by setting up more roadblocks. At least that's the theory. In reality, it means more noncompliance and more disrespect for the law.

The antigunners have made no bones of the fact that, short of complete confiscation, their goal is to make gun ownership as difficult and inconvenient as possible. One way or the other, they want to drastically cut down on the number of guns in the country.

mokin said:

Interesting graphic in the article.

Somehow, though, according to the author, it still comes down to being the gun's fault.

Click to expand...

There are, of course, simplistic people across the political fence from us who believe that if the world could be more like a prison we'd all be better off. It gives rise to such expressions as "My brother--he," insert copious crying, "he, got killed by a gun," negating individual responsibility for an act. Some of these people believe personal self-control is the provenance of employees of government agencies, and a world without guns, knives, or any sort of weapon would be a better world. They will believe further that if a person is in danger of losing his life, the disagreement should properly lie between the regulating government agency and the person about to perpetrate the crime, that violent self-defense is just as much an abhorrence as cold-blooded murder.

The thinking anti-gunners--and they most definitely exist--consider the attitude of self-reliance found in veterans, frontiersmen, or anyone who believes they have a personal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and doesn't see that sort of individualism as something to be sublimated to a collective good, they see, these people, us, as the true enemy to the bright and beautiful future they so fervently work toward.

The gun, to them, is only a symbol.

You believe a magazine ban won't help? You believe a ban on semiautomatic weapons will change nothing? Don't sell the opposition short. They agree too. These are just tiny measures to keep the movement alive until the day they envision when dangerous individualism is no more.

We don't have a conflict between gun owners and those who aren't interested in owning guns. It's a conflict between the belief in freedom and overriding government power. It's not so unusual to find someone with zero interest in firearms on our side. Neither is it out of the norm to find a wealthy world-traveled hunter who supports every single gun control measure.

Interestingly, when we debate whether businesses open to the public should be able to ban carry - we get "Muh private property is my castle". Also, the bans put on churches, malls, theaters, theme parks, etc. by some states were all designed by antigun folks to make carry so difficult as to be useless. In TX, the original business ban was a ghost busters sign and there were plenty of them. However, the clever move to the 30.06 signs decreased or eliminated concealed carry bans in many places.

Unfortunately, OC was seen as so obnoxious (old debate) that it brought about a wave of 30.07 sings PLUS a wave of new 30.06 signs, a net loss for carry in TX.

As we have said, many times, an AWB is mocked as you will not comply. It is pointed out that long arms are hidden in Europe. However, we have also pointed out that a gun buried in your basement is useless except for a civilization crash.
Can't compete, can't hunt, can't use in self-defense, risk of being turned in by ex, blabbing kids or neighbor, accidental discovery by the firemen, plumbers, legal risks to your heirs, accessory industry is taken down for civilians, children will get the message that such guns are bad, etc. Cultural shift will occur.

The guns will be used in crime but not be legal citizens, so practically they don't exist for normal use of arms. No competition for me with an AR (shooting at a rock at the 'ranch' - so what).

As I have also said, an emphasis on self-defense in court decisions is dicey. Look at all the folks here who carry revolvers and mock those who carry more as NUTS. That's different from carrying a revolver and acknowledging the reasons why is works for you but not denouncing the need for more than 5, or saying 3,3,3 always happens. Yes, folks write articles on using EBRs for self-defense but it is rare and not convincing to moderate folks who think a SW Model 10 is sufficient. NUTS want more.

As far as the NRA, the one modification is to get themselves out of the obsequious worship of the current president and GOP leadership who speak of defending the RKBA (but not expanding it - they dropped those bills like hot coals). Your first priority is not the re-election of the Extremely Stable Genius of 4D chess in his great and unmatched wisdom, but the RKBA. Not to start a NRA war again. Whether the courts will now step up is an unknown. The appointments are as much about abortion and gay rights - as gun rights (not to start debating those first two issues).

Making the gun a political totem of the right leads uncommitted folks, who don't like many liberty restraining conservative positions, to think - well, if these kind of folks like guns - well, there must be something wrong with guns. Demanding conservative ideological loyalty is idiotic. The NRA magazine cover that says STOP THE SOCIALIST WAVE might turn some on, but it's stupid - except as a fund raiser. The headline should be stop the banning of guns.