Lone_Gunman
Member
Zammy, I think a lot of people here are giving you crap just because you think differently from them. You are not a troll just because you have a different viewpoint.
NRA gone too far?
- Thread starter zammyman
- Start date
- Status
I am not sure of the purpose of this thread.
I am dismayed to see the incredible group-think here. One person has a view which is slightly divergent from yours and you're all over him. Don't bother engaging him on the merits of what he says. Just bash and humiliate him.
I am dismayed to see the incredible group-think here. One person has a view which is slightly divergent from yours and you're all over him. Don't bother engaging him on the merits of what he says. Just bash and humiliate him.
Thank you. It's amazing how people will just descend down on this thread if they really disagree with my views. I carry yes, I own guns, yes. I am not here saying "all guns should be banned, no CCWs, etc." But I still get kicked. amazing.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I know it sucks that most people here are pro 2nd Amendment, and pro-Constitution, and don't want to open their minds to more progressive concepts, such as limiting individual liberty in the name of public safety.
R.W.Dale
Member
WHY would you expect differently.
Go to a Mustang forum and start posting about how you think the Camaro is better & faster and see if the treatment you receive is nearly as understanding or tolerant as what Zammy gets here
R.W.Dale
Member
take those rose colored glasses off
NO as much as you would like for it to the fairness doctrine doesn't apply to the internet. Go to a forum any forum and you're going to find a very select group of enthusiasts with very similar views about the forums subject.
People on this forum may not agree at all on which is better a Mustang or Camaro like we do 2a issues
Go to a Mustang forum and the posters may not all agree on 2a issues but they'll all likely agree that a Stang is batter than a F body
get over it, that's life
FYI I love GM but I think the Mustang was a better all round package
MikePGS
Member
Originally posted by zammyman
If a view cannot be respected by others why express it. these kinds of things really get rid of a persons desire to express themselves fast. It is these kind of people who cannot respect views who bring it down for everyone else.. because they have no respect
R.W.Dale
Member
Zammyman wrote:
Views are not expressed to be respected. They are expressed usually to persuade others of that view.
If you fail at persuading, it is what it is.
Nowhere is it written that a VIEW must be respected. There are numerous VIEWS that I do not respect. There are numerous views that you do not respect, either.
You could have a view that all people who use the screen name "JWarren" should be imprisoned.Sorry, I don't think I'll respect that view. See how that works? Some views themselves are bad.
PM me and I can send you a list of sites to read that would melt your brain and illustrate to YOU how you yourself very likely do not respect ALL views.
It is your responsibility to be convincing of your arguements, not ours to respect them. Hence is the very concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas."
-- John
Views are not expressed to be respected. They are expressed usually to persuade others of that view.
If you fail at persuading, it is what it is.
Nowhere is it written that a VIEW must be respected. There are numerous VIEWS that I do not respect. There are numerous views that you do not respect, either.
You could have a view that all people who use the screen name "JWarren" should be imprisoned.Sorry, I don't think I'll respect that view. See how that works? Some views themselves are bad.
PM me and I can send you a list of sites to read that would melt your brain and illustrate to YOU how you yourself very likely do not respect ALL views.
It is your responsibility to be convincing of your arguements, not ours to respect them. Hence is the very concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas."
-- John
jpwilly
Member
ELKTROUT wrote: We gun owners have warily watched our government elitists for years, as they have tried to convince us and the American general public that they are only trying to look out for us. All the cliches still apply to our need to remain vigilant regarding our own government. Is it any wonder that our founders spoke so eloquently in stating:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. - George Washington
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, as the NRA has said.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. - George Washington
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, as the NRA has said.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
Must be said again.....
Listen, the rules apply to the law abiding ONLY. Put another way, only those inclined to do so, obey the law.
Making ME register my guns, will not remove already illegal guns off the street. Making ME wait to "Cool Off" will does not apply to guns bought the black market (Street). Making ME take a background check does not stop a fellon who wants a gun. Think about it.....pick any item that has ever been made illegal. Beer, drugs, prostitution, ANYTHING! and you will have a perfect argument why gun control doesnt work. Only the law abiding obey the law! Simple really!
Listen, the rules apply to the law abiding ONLY. Put another way, only those inclined to do so, obey the law.
Making ME register my guns, will not remove already illegal guns off the street. Making ME wait to "Cool Off" will does not apply to guns bought the black market (Street). Making ME take a background check does not stop a fellon who wants a gun. Think about it.....pick any item that has ever been made illegal. Beer, drugs, prostitution, ANYTHING! and you will have a perfect argument why gun control doesnt work. Only the law abiding obey the law! Simple really!
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
I had to vote no on the poll, but here is my take. The NRA is just trying to maintain our current level of gun rights, they have conceded points that the majority of the population does consider fair, such as background checks. However, when the NRA gives the Brady's a concession, such as the NICS improvement act, this emboldens them to just keep on pushing. They will never be satisfied, until you have to fill out reams of paperwork, get fingerprinted, wait 30 days, ect, ect. The NRA is just trying to hold our current ground.
wuchak
Member
In theory making people prove a level of competence before carrying sounds good. The question you have to ask is how will this information be abused by the government. It's not a question of it will be it's a question of when it will be. Making people get a permit means the government has a convenient list of people who own guns which makes it easy to go collect them. It also means that the test for qualification or cost of the license can be changed at anytime so as to make it impossible for all but a select privileged few to get it. Look no farther than NYC or the NFA of 1934 ($200 was a lot of money in 1934, almost $8000 in today's money) for perfect examples of this.
The reason given for the NFA of 1934 was to keep guns out of the hands of gangsters but they weren't going to register their guns so what was the real reason the government only wanted the elite to have access to automatic weapons? NYC's original gun laws were passed to keep handguns away from the "violent Italian immigrants." They made the laws "shall issue" like they still are today where the local judge gets final word in who gets a permit. Is there any possible way to make a law more blatantly discriminatory and open for abuse of power? Now it's used to keep handguns away from all but the wealthy and well connected. Exactly as the people who passed it intended it to be used.
ETA: In fact the whole thing is more sinister if you look deeper. Until the advent of machine guns the small arms available to the general citizenry were the same as those used by the military and other government organizations. To come up with a way to effectively remove them, and thereby tip the balance of power from the citizens to the government, they sold the 1934 NFA to the public as necessary to keep the automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals. Who were the criminals? Primarily organized crime groups engaged in the illegal alcohol racket. A class of criminals entirely manufactured by the government prohibiting alcohol to begin with. So they manufactured a criminal class then used the predictable actions of that new criminal class as an excuse to infringe on the rights of the ordinary citizen. This worked so well that they expanded it with the war on drugs. Now they are using the predictable violence with handguns committed by another government manufactured criminal class as a reason to try to remove handguns and other weapons the criminals don't even use (assault weapons) from the rest of the citizens. They have also used the actions of their manufactured criminal drug dealers to infringe on property and due process rights with property seizures, no knock warrants, militarization of the police, etc. If you think this is a happy accident you're not paying attention.
The reason given for the NFA of 1934 was to keep guns out of the hands of gangsters but they weren't going to register their guns so what was the real reason the government only wanted the elite to have access to automatic weapons? NYC's original gun laws were passed to keep handguns away from the "violent Italian immigrants." They made the laws "shall issue" like they still are today where the local judge gets final word in who gets a permit. Is there any possible way to make a law more blatantly discriminatory and open for abuse of power? Now it's used to keep handguns away from all but the wealthy and well connected. Exactly as the people who passed it intended it to be used.
ETA: In fact the whole thing is more sinister if you look deeper. Until the advent of machine guns the small arms available to the general citizenry were the same as those used by the military and other government organizations. To come up with a way to effectively remove them, and thereby tip the balance of power from the citizens to the government, they sold the 1934 NFA to the public as necessary to keep the automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals. Who were the criminals? Primarily organized crime groups engaged in the illegal alcohol racket. A class of criminals entirely manufactured by the government prohibiting alcohol to begin with. So they manufactured a criminal class then used the predictable actions of that new criminal class as an excuse to infringe on the rights of the ordinary citizen. This worked so well that they expanded it with the war on drugs. Now they are using the predictable violence with handguns committed by another government manufactured criminal class as a reason to try to remove handguns and other weapons the criminals don't even use (assault weapons) from the rest of the citizens. They have also used the actions of their manufactured criminal drug dealers to infringe on property and due process rights with property seizures, no knock warrants, militarization of the police, etc. If you think this is a happy accident you're not paying attention.
Last edited:
Bailey Guns
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
Hey, zammyman...
Sarah Brady called. She wants her troll back.
Sarah Brady called. She wants her troll back.
- Status
