I have this to say about gun control..

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP is an anti-gun cretin, demonstrably incapable of/unwilling to engage in critical thought or genuine introspect. He needn't admit this outright; his words have made it tacit.

He even uses, almost verbatim, the words of anti-gun politicians trying to swoon the "sportsmen" and "moderates":
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trying really hard today?

I just told you I own a rifle, a shotgun, two air rifles, a air pistol and put a pistol on lay-away.

Yet you clip off half my post and label me as a "anti gun cretin".

Do you have any idea how much of an idiot that makes you look like?

the words of anti-gun politicians


No, it's not the words of "anti-gun politicians" you "cretin", its the words printed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
 
Regardless, I don't think ad hominem attacks - from either side - are high road, even if many of us do not support or appreciate his positions. That means personal attacks for the non-Latin crowd :D

Taking him at face value, he's said in other posts that he's 22 years old (I barely remember being 22, but I do recall how danged arrogant I was - I'm glad that was before Al Gore invented the internet, or I would have been insufferable). In fact, I have some T-shirts that are older than him. And he said he just bought his first rifle something like two weeks ago. Just sayin'
 
Owning guns does not make one pro-RKBA. Many people have owned, and do currently own, guns who are adamantly pro-gun control.

I have yet to see convincing evidence that thirty-ought-six is pro-RKBA based on the postings by him that I've been reading on this site.

Rights are RIGHTS...not "privileges". Treat a right like a privilege and it can, and WILL, be taken away.
 
even if many of us do not support or appreciate his positions.

The agreement/disagrement of a AWB is split about 52/48 percent among the american people.

The problem is the majority of those who are in favour of a AWB are NOT IN FAVOUR OF BANNING ALL GUNS.

The issue I see, is that I think people are too ignorant to realise that...

There are tons of people who like the 2A, but don't want certain guns, yet ignorant people call them "anti's".

The 2A is not "take it or leave it", some people are in the middle, a surprisingly large amount of people are.

Read this, read this 1000 times, and maybe it will finally click:

43% of gun owners favour an assault weapons ban.


Are gun owners "anti's" if they own guns? People who who DO NOT OWN GUNS are anti's.

So please, be a little more opened minded, and stop lumping these two groups together, and then maybe I will try to be a little less pissed off.

1-14-13-8.png


Also..

1-14-13-12.png


See that? 12% and 16% OPPOSE the two things that make me get called an "anti" out of a poll of 1,502 individuals.
 
Last edited:
If "43% of gun owners favour an assault weapons ban", then there would appear to be a significant number of gun owners who don't know what an assault weapon is.

This indicates a rather serious, and disturbing, gap in fundamental understanding of the entire political scene with respect to gun control.
 
Last edited:
Also, be careful about tossing Heller out there like that, and out of context. Yes, the court said that the 2A is not unlimited. Neither is the 1st A.

But Heller did establish that the government cannot ban firearms that are in common use for self defense. And Heller did not contravene Miller, which held that the 2A protects firearms that are in common military use and are applicable for the common defense. NOTE - they did not say the must be used for or are limited to the common defense, just that the firearm the 2A protects firearms that can be used for the common defense.

So, if you are arguing for a ban on assault weapons by citing Heller, you are on very shaky ground. That's not an attack, that's a simple reading of all the relevant decisions. You may support such a ban, but there is very little legal or constitutional support for such a ban.
 
I just told you I own a rifle, a shotgun, two air rifles, a air pistol and put a pistol on lay-away.

Diane Feinstein owns a gun, too-along with a host of other elitist anti-gun zealots.

You had a chance to show us that you were willing to be malleable, ready to change your position when your tenets and underlying postulates were blown out of the water with cold, hard facts. Instead, you only strengthened your resolve to champion gun control.

Everything you've posted thus far is a textbook example of a dyed-in-the-wool anti masquerading as a "moderate gun owner". Your kind has attempted to infiltrate here before, but it doesn't work on THR. This is not your average gun board, filled with gamers and mall ninjas. The demographic here includes a lot of highly intelligent and well educated individuals with a lot of wisdom. This board has tremendous patience as a whole for newcomers, including (and especially) those will ill-informed/ill-conceived positions on gun right. But when someone such as yourself comes along, spouts off piles of anti-gun rhetoric hot off the Brady bunch or bloomberg sites, and proves to be absolutely inexorable, that patience can run dry very quickly.
 
Diane Feinstein owns a gun, too-along with a host of other elitist anti-gun zealots.

You had a chance to show us that you were willing to be malleable, ready to change your position when your tenets and underlying postulates were blown out of the water with cold, hard facts. Instead, you only strengthened your resolve to champion gun control.

Everything you've posted thus far is a textbook example of a dyed-in-the-wool anti masquerading as a "moderate gun owner". Your kind has attempted to infiltrate here before, but it doesn't work on THR. This is not your average gun board, filled with gamers and mall ninjas. The demographic here includes a lot of highly intelligent and well educated individuals with a lot of wisdom. This board has tremendous patience as a whole for newcomers, including (and especially) those will ill-informed/ill-conceived positions on gun right. But when someone such as yourself comes along, spouts off piles of anti-gun rhetoric hot off the Brady bunch or bloomberg sites, and proves to be absolutely inexorable, that patience can run dry very quickly.
Again, you ignore my argument and label me as an "anti", that shows a high amount of intellect and intelligence on your part.

Why don't you back up YOUR ARGUMENT with facts and data, and then I might stop wondering if your IQ isn't in the single digits.

What you have proven to me, several times, is that you lack a total cognitive function of separating two groups apart.
 
Come on guys, the personal sniping is just going to get another thread locked. Well, maybe this thread should go down in flames as the discussion is not exactly coherent.

What is the OP's position on:
- concealed carry?
- open carry?
- handgun registration?
- waiting period?

I am NOT trying to add fuel to the fire. But let's define some positions here.
 
Oh, so you're on the subject of grammar now? Nice strawman argument

No. If I wanted to attack your grammar, it'd be a full page. I'm only pointing out your little slip that gives away your non-US schooling. We don't add a "u" in favor, and using an "s" in realize is also British.

Secondly, do you understand what a strawman argument is? Because it ain't this...
 
Like I said, I am mad because people don't know any better than to paint brash generalisations with a 10 foot wide brush.

It's really no different than saying "all whites are racist", no not all whites are racists, just some are.

Not all 2A supporters support an AWB ban, but some do, but this doesn't make them any more of "anti" than it would make a white person a racist.
 
gives away your non-US schooling.

No, it gives away that my internet browser was written in British English and thus has a British English spell check system.

It automatically corrects everything I type, I just don't feel like going through all my words and changing everything into "American English".
 
What is the OP's position on:
- 1. concealed carry?
- 2. open carry?
- 3. handgun registration?
- 4. waiting period?


1. Personally, I would be more afraid knowing someone is hiding a gun, than having a gun proudly displayed on a belt loop.

Displaying a gun also signals to a potential attacker "hey, don't mess with me!".

2. See #1. I don't feel there should be any difference at all between concealed and open carry.




3. You, your own person, is registered in the United States under a 9 digit number known as a social security number, your car is registered as well.

Being against a hand gun reg is nothing but mongering fear. If they wanted to, the government/leo can get a hold of the store's FFL transcription.

Even if they didn't have that, if you bought a gun with a debit card, credit card or check, they have a record of purchase as well.

I've seen too many TV shows (ones based on actual murder cases, not made for TV crap), where a murder was solved because the gun was registered, or the cops got a hold of the CCTV tapes, and cross referenced that to the FFL transcription to find who bought the gun.


If someone murders someone with a gun, and the LEO gets ahold of the gun, and it's registered, then they (usually) can solve the case.

People who argue against this often say "If I buy a gun, the government will know I have a gun!"

That's fear, and paranoia. There are enough guns in this country that nearly amounts to the amount of people living in it.

Do you really think they are going to "single you out?".

Also, if your unregistered gun turns up in a murder scene (due to theft), you may never see that gun again. But if you can prove it's yours, you just might get it back again.

Can you imagine if you had a handgun your dad/grandpa passed down to you, that was stolen and used in a crime? You might as well kiss that gun good bye if you cannot prove that it's yours.



4. No, I think it's stupid. If I really wanted to kill someone, I don't think some 24 hour period is going to change my mind, I would find a different way to do it.
 
Last edited:
1. Personally, I would be more afraid knowing someone is hiding a gun, than having a gun proudly displayed on a belt loop.

That right there screams anti or, at the very least, non-gunner. It is irrational. Perhaps even more irrational is the notion that you would be aware of their concealed
weapon. Makes the whole statement non-sequiter, really

Displaying a gun also signals to a potential attacker "hey, don't mess with me!".

Demonstrably untrue. It also takes away the tactical advantage, makes you a primary target. Concealed carry is a far better deterrent, as it leaves a would-be assailant wondering if this victim is of the statistical minority who is armed. As such, concealed carry also benefits those who do not.

2. See #1. I don't feel there should be any difference at all between concealed and open carry.

Finally, a point of agreement!

3. You, your own person, is registered in the United States under a 9 digit number known as a social security number, your car is registered as well.

Argumentum ignoratio elenchi. Furthermore, few people will argue that the SSN is not horribly abused. And you should drop the vehicle registration parallel post haste; driving is a privilege, not a right.

Being against a hand gun reg is nothing but mongering fear. If they wanted to, the government/leo can get a hold of the store's FFL transcription.

Even if they didn't have that, if you bought a gun with a debit card, credit card or check, they have a record of purchase as well.

It's called a bound book, and you clearly do not have a good understanding of lawful firearm transactions or the Volker-McClure act

4. No, I think it's stupid. If I really wanted to kill someone, I don't think some 24 hour period is going to change my mind, I would find a different way to do it.

Holy moly! Maybe you really are starting to understand!
 
This is the issue I have several members here think the 2A has no compromises and should be either for or against it.

They think the 2A operates like a light switch, it's either on or off.

There are some people who are on the fence about certain issues with gun control.

But they think once you move that switch just a little bit down, it's going to slam down and turn off.

If you go all the way back to the constitution, and the 5th Amendment.

You see, there is something called "eminent domain", which means if you live in a house you spent all that time growing up in, raised a family in, and spent time restoring...

The city can tear that house down and built a skate park there, as long you are paid for it.

This view was supported by James Madison, who wrote the 5A.

However, Thomas Jefferson disagreed with this, and wanted land ownership to be completely non feudal, so the city could not take your land AT ALL, even if you were paid justly for it.


James Madison was a "moderate" he wanted the best of both worlds, the city can take your property, as long as you are paid for it.

He was, for all intents and purposes "in the middle".

No one ever called James Madison a "coward", or a "tyrant".

However, everyone here seems to think you are either "on" or "off" and cannot be "in the middle. "
 
The seizure rate for registered firearms in Australia was 100%. I personally had to surrender seven guns.
The official estimated compliance rate in one non registration state was 28%.
Registration is a required step before confiscation.
The ban was incremental.
First there was licensing, for life.
Then licensing for 5 years and a justification required for semi autos.
Then an attempt at an all encompassing national ban, which saw the sponsoring govt. thrown out. His parting shot was it 'would take a massacre in Tasmania' to get a gun ban in Australia.
There was a massacre in Tasmania, by a known psychotic & ward of the state, using a gun that had been confiscated from it's legitimate owner by the police.
A ban on semi auto rifles and shotguns quickly followed. In the fine print pump action shotguns were also banned, worse still, licensing, mandatory range attendances, club memberships and permits to acquire were brought in. It can take up to a year to buy your first pistol for example and a club official must sign off on it.
The big one is that the national firearms agreement, on which all states base their legislation, states that firearms ownership is a limited privilege, not a right, and that firearms may not be owned for self defense.

The ban on semi auto rifles and shotguns was followed by an attempt to ban all handguns. We fought and lost all short barreled and most over .38 caliber guns.

The next attempt was on pump action and lever action rifles. The fine print would have banned any repeating rifle with a capacity of more than three rounds. We killed that dead the night before it was to be announced. That was 2204/2205, IIRC.

Since then there have been several attempts to implement further bans. None have gained traction, but they are ongoing and continuous.

I lived through all of the above. I am not writing to inform 30-06, who is not here to be educated. I am writing to inform those who wonder if there is anything to his arguments that 'a ban is not a ban unless its a total ban'.

One thing I have noted over the years, is that political partisans from both sides will attempt to disrupt pro-gun message boards with their operatives. This occurred on Glocktalk, prior to Bush II being elected, where a professed Republican party operative tried to take over the board, and even ran a mirror board for a while. It happened on Berettaforum in a similar way. On Canadiangunnutz, a maniac was trying to split the practical shooting community and have all members quit their associations. All three sites calmed down after they banned the trouble makers.

When looking at a poster, evaluate their actual contribution to the community, not what they say they have or do, but what is evidence before you. Do they contribute or do they disrupt? Then decide if it is worth responding to them.
 
It's called a bound book, and you clearly do not have a good understanding of lawful firearm transactions or the Volker-McClure act

The Volker-McClure act has to do with transporting firearms. It basically stops a cop from stopping you from taking a gun across state lines.

But what does that have to do with handgun reg?
 
But they think once you move that switch just a little bit down, it's going to slam down and turn off.

No, it will not slam down. But the anti's will not stop with one step forward and will keep moving that switch little by little until it is all the way down. See Radagast's post above.
 
Hand gun registrations are pointless, time consuming, tax money wasting piles of feces that have yet to help solve or prevent even 1% of crimes. My state has a handgun registration, and MSP has even admitted it serves no purpose other than to fill a tax payer funded job position in the annual budget. But they still fight every time it's suggested we get rid of it.

At the same time, the primary way to unregister a handgun you no longer own is to hope the new owner of a private sale bothers to register it in the first place. There is nothing I can personally do to prove the gun is no longer in my possession. Anyway, there is a reason Canada dropped it's long gun registration. It proved worthless, a drain on the tax payers, and solved nothing and prevented nothing.

You also need to educate yourself on the process needed by Law Enforcement to acquire an 'FFL transcription'. They need more than just the desire to check and see if you legally bought a gun from a licensed dealer. Even then, it proves nothing. I've bought many guns through licensed dealers only to later sell them in private sales. I don't have them, despite my name being the last on the FFL paper trail, so unless they can prove otherwise, the 'trace' ends there.

Personally, I would be more afraid

I hear this phrase from anti gun folks in their dialogue more than anything else. Every argument they present is rooted in this phrase. Education and experience yield understanding. It seems you have neither. All your posts have led me to believe one thing... We, the pro 2A community, are not getting our message out there well enough. We're being beaten by the anti's slow but sure brainwashing with those who rely on others for their information.
The moment you break the chains of your educational bondage and start thinking for yourself, rather than regurgitating what others have told you is true, is a monumental step forward. You are afraid of other gun owners potential actions, despite being a gun owner yourself. You own guns, but want to restrict what guns other people own. That, at best, is a Fudd, at worst, a hypocritical gun grabbing anti (guns for me, but not for thee).
 
Last edited:
But the anti's will not stop with one step forward and will keep moving that switch little by little until it is all the way down.


Yes, and I understand where radagast is coming from.

I do want the switch a tiny bit down, but that's as far as I want it. That's as far as I ever will want it.

Yes, there are anti's who want to want to even as I put it "take little bites of freedom away".

But I get tired, worn out, and generally pissed off when I get labelled as an anti.

Yes, I do want a slight amount of gun regulation. But that's it, the switch is down a tiny bit.

As I showed with the charts earlier, over 80% of gun owners (not just people) want the switch down a tiny bit.

That's all the farther I want. But I am still with the "you will have this gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" group.

There are extremists on both sides of any issue. The 2A is no different.

Realise, that I do not fall all the way to the right of gun control, I do not fall all the way to the left of gun control, I land in the middle.

All I ask is that you don't agree to, but rather respect, that I am in the middle of the 2A, well the upper middle in fact.

I support guns, within the confines of common sense. I do not support, will never support, and even with a gun to my head, will NEVER support "no guns at all".
 
What someone posted in a comment on gun control sums up my view perfectly.

--------------------------
There is no real good reason for owning high-capacity, high powered, semi automatic rifles. In a home defense situation they are nearly useless, they are big and clumsy and the barrel is too long, a handgun is far more effective. Second the range of these rifles is up to two miles making collateral damage more likely. Third, no self respecting hunter would ever use a 30 round clip with an open sight, not to mention the ammo while plenty large to kill a human at close range it is not optimal to kill larger animals at a distance, at least not cleanly. In fact semi-automatic, small-cal weapons are almost useless for hunting. I am fully in support of the 2nd amendment but the continued defense of these weapons is frankly disingenuous. The fear gun owners have is that the slippery slope will start, but unless rational compromises are reached the slipper slope will end up being steep cliff and far more weapons will be banned when a fed up public turns on the NRA.
--------------------


Right now a middle ground needs to be reached. The issue is such hotly debated that one group could overthrow the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top