A House Divided

Status
Not open for further replies.
So much for the "High Road". Like many firearms forums, it's become very political. I would love to find a forum that deals with firearms only.
From time to time the topic can prove to be very educational for all parties involved and those that simply are readers. We try to keep the topic as focused as possible and to limit the pointless use of generalities like, "The left always, or the right always..." This type of talk does us no good at all.

As a rule we do not allow broad spectrum discussion of politics but in this case it falls in line with THR's goal of education.
 
jcwit said:
Remember, a tree that bends in the winter storm lives to flower and bear fruit in the following year, The tree that stands stiff is blown over and dies before the spring weather ever warms it's branches.

That's usually called "appeasement" in the political world:

Appeasement in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict.

Good thing you weren't Prime Minister of England about 75 years ago, we'd probably be typing this in German now (at least the non-Jewish members). Neville Chamberlin tried appeasement, I prefer Churchhill's mindset:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

I don't expect you to help (vote, etc) if you don't want to, but at least try not to hinder those of us in the fight by giving away the things we're fighting for!!!
 
As I have said before, politics outside of the very narrow scope of this discussion are off topic. Yes, there is an election coming up but which candidate is doing what is out of bounds for this discussion. As we get closer to election time we might be able to have a discussion about the stance of candidates but that is a different thread at a different time.
 
That's usually called "appeasement" in the political world:
Of course, in the actual world, it's usually called "reality."

Dialogue, negotiation, and yes, compromise is not the same as appeasement. The bottle's been uncorked, the genie is loosed; the hourglass has been turned over and the sand runs down ...

Refusal to work within the system, ignoring political realities, constantly painting every firearms owner as an uncompromising extremist, taking an unyielding stance on any issue remotely associated with firearms and the RKBA doesn't always work.

Sometimes you need to actually show up at the table and attempt to educate first, before simply withdrawing to your bunkers under the presumption that you can't change minds while shouting pithy statements such as "I will not comply!" and "... from my cold, dead hands ..."
 
It's never compromise. They antigunners NEVER give an inch sometimes they agree to take less but that's the best you can get when you deal with them.
 
WOW! A house divided is a perfect title to this thread. We are very divided, and stand far apart on alot of issues. This is why I come here sometimes. To see where others stand! It would be easy to just all agree. But that would make us no smarter. Continue to disagree! But lets try to keep the anger in check or we will not hear each other!
 
Fear is born from ignorance.

I don't mean ignorance as "dumb", I mean ignorance as "not knowing".

If you heard a loud noise at night, you are in fear, that is because man is ignorant of the unknown, and thus fears it.

The noise might be a drugged out lunatic kicking your door in, looking to steal your money, or it could of just been a dead branch that fell on your roof.

Until you know what that fear is, your are ignorant, or "not knowing".

It seems like people who push for not having an AWB are living in fear, and are thus: ignorant.

That does not make you a gun owner, that makes you a gun "extremist".

You see, 200 years ago when the constitution was written, the guns people fight so wilfully to carry, did not even exist.

A semi automatic weapon was not even invented until over 100 years later.

In fact if England invented semi-automatic weapons I doubt we even would of won the war.

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry a gun, but it does not say you are allowed a certain TYPE of gun.

If a gun existed that could take out droves of people existed in the 1770's I assure you things would be different, a lot different.

The President of the United States usually represents the collective minds of the citizens.

When the majority of Presidents agree on a AWB, and people say "that's not fair", then yes you are an extremist.

When you think criminals should be allowed weapons, that makes you an extremist.

When you think mentally ill people should be allowed weapons, that makes you an extremist.

When you think anyone should be allowed a weapon without first checking to see if they were booked for armed robbery 5 years ago, that makes you an extremist.

A machine gun serves no purpose. People do not hunt with a machine gun, people do not target practice with a machine gun.

There has been very few cases where a machine gun was even used in self defence.

Most mass murders are caused by assault weapons.

If someone wanted to kill a bunch of people, they could use knives, or a bolt action rifle, but that takes....time ya know?

There is no easier way to take out a crowd of people then using an assault weapon.

A AR-15 with a 50 round magazine has a 50rpm rate of fire, which means 50 people can be killed in under a minute.

Getting back to the entire "Fear" thing, I would bet that the large amount of people who wish to carry such weapons are cowards.

Why? Because these people are afraid of whatever possible situation might face them, so they carry a weapon capable of mowing down 50 people in order to compensate.


An AWB does not infringe the 2A. You are still allowed to own guns under a AWB, you are allowed to carry guns under a AWB, and you are allowed to use guns under a AWB.


An AWB does not take away your 2A right.
 
Last edited:
Here is a good read:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...-war-veteran-I-support-an-assault-weapons-ban


However, the right to own a gun or rifle for the purpose of self-defense or hunting game is a protected right in my opinion. But if self-defense or hunting are truly the rights we are attempting to protect, then non-assault style weapons should fit this function. Assault rifles are inherently offensive in capability and far surpass the self-defense, litmus test.


However, the right to own a gun or rifle for the purpose of self-defense or hunting game is a protected right in my opinion. But if self-defense or hunting are truly the rights we are attempting to protect, then non-assault style weapons should fit this function. Assault rifles are inherently offensive in capability and far surpass the self-defense, litmus test.
 
So who do you wish to get involved?

Private enterprise would be a good start. There are a number of people who give training in the safe handling of guns and the law.

Ideally, some level of legal education and training in the handling of dangerous devices, from chainsaws to guns could be done in the public schools, but since they seem to have problems teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, that is probably not going to happen.

But there are the Boy Scouts, 4H, volunteer groups, the NRA does a lot of training classes.

Basically, anyone who desires training can get it, I have seen gun store owners and employees volunteer time and effort to help novice gun owners learn safe gun handling.
 
And you're NOT for gun control?
When you support a weapon that killed 27 innocent people, in cold blood, you do not support someone's right to life.

As show numerous times in history, such as in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Aurora Colorado, these weapons come with more bad than good.

That's just a short list, take a look here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/


There has been shown more good than bad in owning a gun.

There has been shown more good than bad in carrying a gun with you.

But there HAS NOT been shown more good than bad than carrying a large capacity semi automatic weapon.


Prove to me there is a need to carry a AR-15. SHOW ME where a AR-15 was used in self defence, more times than innocent people were killed, then I might just change my mind.
 
And if you believe everything the media says you are beyond help. The second a has no compromises and needs none. Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.
 
If you choose to call me an extremists, that's just your opinion. It dosn't make it fact! You seem not to listen very well. Calling names willnot help you, only learning. The 9th. Amd. covers my AR along with the 2nd.Amd.! If you would stop and listen and READ! You would know that along with the other things you missed while sleeping thru history class. So many opinions & so little listening or LEARNING! You think you will win with the same propaganda the anti-gun crowd throws at us! It wont work! Come up with something better than that!
 
This picture of a quote defines my stance on the 2A.

reaganak47.jpg

Again, you seem to fail history, these weapons DID NOT EXIST in the time the constitution was written, your argument of "I can own one cuz the 2A lets me", is unfounded.
 
You see, 200 years ago when the constitution was written, the guns people fight so wilfully to carry, did not even exist.

A semi automatic weapon was not even invented until over 100 years later.


The 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry a gun, but it does not say you are allowed a certain TYPE of gun.

If a gun existed that could take out droves of people existed in the 1770's I assure you things would be different, a lot different..


I'm not even sure where to start with all this OMG !

first off, the right to keep and bear arms , goes way back to some where round 500BC long before we had guns and long before the 2nd Amendment was written, the right to protect ones self is a God given right , the founders were educated in history dating back to the first written texts , and understood the right to keep and bear arms , and repeating arms were in the making at the time the 2nd Amendment was written , attempts to make things like pepper box guns and such were know , so to think the dumb old guys with there powdered wigs could not have foreseen repeating arms in the near future is just crazy talk , not to mention the courts have seen the evolution of the gun and upheld are rights to bear and keep them ,

as for the 2nd Amendment not saying what type .... your right and it don't say . so there fore it also don't limit what we may have ,

You really NEED to go read . the "Second Amendment Premier" and "Shooting Straight" Telling the Truth About Guns in America.
 
A few helpful hints. Try : The Portable Patriot /Miller &Parrish, & The Constitution of the United States of America / Barns&Noble. These should help also going to the Constitutional Society website will give you everything! Try those before the propaganda that is issue by the NEWS people!
 
and repeating arms were in the making at the time the 2nd Amendment was written ,


Um...no. The first semi-automatic rifle was unveiled in 1885, by Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher.

Nice try though.
 
Fear is born from ignorance.
With ya there!

It seems like people who push for not having an AWB are living in fear, and are thus: ignorant.
QUITE to the contrary: Those of us who fight hardest against Assault Weapons Bans are those who understand EXACTLY what we're fighting for and against.

You've proven over and over that you don't know history, or law, or understand how our government works -- but you're going to tell US that we're fearful out of ignorance? That's pretty funny, actually.

You see, 200 years ago when the constitution was written, the guns people fight so wilfully to carry, did not even exist.
Neither did the computer or web blog. Yet we understand that the rights recognized under the Bill of Rights were written to protect all future developments in those areas. You think your right to free expression doesn't include photography or fax machines or twitter? You feel they were just protecting parchment and broadsheet paper? Of course you don't. But, as I suggested earlier, you really haven't though very hard about these issues.

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry a gun, but it does not say you are allowed a certain TYPE of gun.
The first amendment says you can speak your mind. It DOESN'T say you can post it on the net, or take a picture to express your views. Still protected?

(I see those wheels turning! Thinking can be FUN! ;))

If a gun existed that could take out droves of people existed in the 1770's I assure you things would be different, a lot different.
Quick quiz: WHO OWNED THE CANONS used by the American Rebels? {cue Jeopardy music...} BING! Time's up. PRIVATE CITIZENS OWNED THE DEADLIEST WEAPONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

When the majority of Presidents agree on a AWB, and people say "that's not fair", then yes you are an extremist.
Ok...so what? I could name a VERY LARGE collection of Presidents (equally dead if that makes you feel better) who were totally accepting of slavery. Should we the people of 2015 accept their opinion, too?

You're throwing around "extremist" as if that somehow insults any of us. I really don't care if YOU think I'm an extremist. I could suggest a few choice names for someone who takes your role in a movement such as ours. I don't think it is very productive to do so, though.

When you think criminals should be allowed weapons, that makes you an extremist.
Actually, I DON'T think criminals should have weapons. I KNOW they do. Whether I like it or not is completely irrelevant. But knowing that they DO is one of the reasons that I do, too.

(Wheels turning...brain straining into motion... I can see it! :))

When you think mentally ill people should be allowed weapons, that makes you an extremist.
Wait, you mean, "when you think someone should actually have their due process before being stripped of their rights?" Don't use code words. Say what you really feel.

When you think anyone should be allowed a weapon without first checking to see if they were booked for armed robbery 5 years ago, that makes you an extremist.
Again, that's not something I THINK should happen. That's something I KNOW DOES happen. You're stuck in the mindset that gun laws stop bad people from doing things. When it finally "clicks" for you, you're going to smack yourself for that one. ("DOH!")

A machine gun serves no purpose. People do not hunt with a machine gun, people do not target practice with a machine gun.
What are you on about?
a) The second amendment protects the citizens' right to the "terrible implements of the soldier" (as Tench Coxe said) more than any hunting or "sporting" firearm.
b) Machine guns are used in statistically ZERO crimes. They're utterly irrelevant to any sort of crime control.
c) Yeah, lots of people use machine guns in competition. You really aren't very experienced in the wide world of gun ownership, are you?

There has been very few cases where a machine gun was even used in self defence.
And far fewer where a legal one was used in a crime. So what?

Most mass murders are caused by assault weapons.
Utter bull-oney. I might almost dismiss your "caused by" statement, except to say, "well then mine are all defective, 'cause they haven't even killed a single person!" Caused by...lol. And secondly, most mass murders don't include a military style semi-auto rifle, so your very basic claim here is total crap.

If someone wanted to kill a bunch of people, they could use knives, or a bolt action rifle, but that takes....time ya know?
You really don't know anything about guns, do you? Do you even own any, or are you just here trolling? This is silly.

There is no easier way to take out a crowd of people then using an assault weapon.
Oh, I don't know... BOMB? Or how about simple, unregulated, completely free to own gasoline? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

A AR-15 with a 50 round magazine has a 50rpm rate of fire, which means 50 people can be killed in under a minute.
You're just flailing. Where are you getting your numbers? You're so off the deep end with this line there really isn't a point in picking it apart.

Getting back to the entire "Fear" thing, I would bet that the large amount of people who wish to carry such weapons are cowards.
Insult ... projection. Not a debating tactic. Shows you in a very sad light.

An AWB does not infringe the 2A. You are still allowed to own guns under a AWB, you are allowed to carry guns under a AWB, and you are allowed to use guns under a AWB.


An AWB does not take away your 2A right.

You really don't "get it" do you? The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect "what's left" after our rulers decide what we can and can't have. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right to bear ARMS to the citizen. ARMS. The weapons of war. Why? Because, 1) that's one of the inalienable rights of a free man, and 2) to help preserve the security of a free state -- and all that means.

The 2nd Amendment DOESN'T protect hunting. It DOESN'T protect sporting shoots or competitions. Not directly. The 2nd Amendment says we are all equals, with the ability and duty to bear the capacity for lethal force in defense of ourselves and our family, friends, and neighbors, and of our state if need be.

You call us extremists? Buddy, the founders of this nation were EXTREMISTS that would make your knees knock together, quailing in the face of them.
 
Last edited:
Dad knows! ^
thanks , but I forgot about Glen Becks book "Control"

some high lights : the first school shooting was in Canada not here , the three worst mass shooting were in in Europe before Sandy hook. all in places with lots of gun control , the first school massacre in the USA was done with bombs (gas) not guns , and tons of other FACTS , so add that one to your list , Oh and you can get that one on Audio Books , through it in your car CD player and learn a few things ,
 
Last edited:
The only reason an AW might be needed is to protect ourselves from a "tyranical government".

But let's not forget that the Government has.

-Tanks
-Fighter Jets
-Land Mines
-Missiles
-Nuclear Missiles
-Grenades, bombs, and other explosives.


I doubt a AW would hold up to that...

People argue in favour of a AW because soldiers have AW's too, and that makes us equal. However soldiers also have a lot of things we don't, such as grenades, tanks, land mines, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top