jerkface11
Member
So who's paygrade is it? Bloombergs? Obamas? Hickenloopers?
A House Divided
- Thread starter mnrivrat
- Start date
- Status
So who's paygrade is it? Bloombergs? Obamas? Hickenloopers?
jcwit
member
God & Christ placed restrictions at to how I should behave, both are way above my pay grade.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'll take that as, "I have nothing further, your Honor."
jerkface11
Member
I'm going to take that as only God himself can restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
The underhanded actions and tactics of the Chicago politician are beyond insidious.
The current Administration is direct involved in such programs as "Fast and Furious" which tried to make guns and gun dealers the bad guys while ignoring the murderous drug gangs that used the guns THEY PROVIDED.
Operation Choke Point is government getting involved in banking and business forcing banks to REFUSE Services to legitimate businesses like, say,,, Gun Dealers.
Governmental Security Agencies purchasing HUGE amounts of ammunition at taxpayer expense has caused massive issues of unavailability and while the ammunition may indeed be used, if it isn't ten Democratic Approved Laws will ensure it NEVER reaches Civilian hands as surpluses must now be DESTROYED.
NEVER fall under the illusion that ANYTHING a Chicago Democrat ever does is for the good of the people.
They do ONLY what enriches them or furthers an ongoing control of population agenda.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
Wake up.
we are not amused
Member
Nanook
Member
Thirty-ought-six, even though it sounds like your leg is still tingling from the 2008 election, to believe that Obama is in favor of the 2nd amendment is at best, inaccurate.
His entire life, what little of it we can actually read about, has been loudly in favor of two things; removing guns from the populace, and redistribution of their wealth. It seems those two things are related.
If nothing else, he has been consistent.
If Saul Alinsky was for it, Obama is for it, and vice versa. There are very few dyed in the wool socialists that are comfortable with firearms in the hands of the "unwashed masses". It kind of puts a crimp in their totalitarian style. Even George Orwell, with his quote about a rifle in every cottage, would have been queasy about us peasants owning AR-15 rifles. "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
If he, or any of his fellow travelers are ever successful in their goals, how would we get the guns back? By writing a nasty pithy letter to the editor? Doubtful it would even get published by the lapdog press. And the 1st amendment is gone right after the 2nd is gone. Both of them are troublesome to totalitarians. I've never been able to understand why the so-called free press can't make that connection.
Gee, I guess that makes me a bitter clinger, as Obama put it a couple of years back. I can live with that.
Oh, and he signed an EO banning importation of semi-auto AK47s which is an extremely popular rifle in common use. There is one example of what he has done to limit ownership of guns. Another would be the Korean M-1 Garands that would have been coming back here and then sold to American citizens through the CMP. We can't have that, can we? Clinton didn't like those returning rifles either.
His entire life, what little of it we can actually read about, has been loudly in favor of two things; removing guns from the populace, and redistribution of their wealth. It seems those two things are related.
If nothing else, he has been consistent.
If Saul Alinsky was for it, Obama is for it, and vice versa. There are very few dyed in the wool socialists that are comfortable with firearms in the hands of the "unwashed masses". It kind of puts a crimp in their totalitarian style. Even George Orwell, with his quote about a rifle in every cottage, would have been queasy about us peasants owning AR-15 rifles. "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
If he, or any of his fellow travelers are ever successful in their goals, how would we get the guns back? By writing a nasty pithy letter to the editor? Doubtful it would even get published by the lapdog press. And the 1st amendment is gone right after the 2nd is gone. Both of them are troublesome to totalitarians. I've never been able to understand why the so-called free press can't make that connection.
Gee, I guess that makes me a bitter clinger, as Obama put it a couple of years back. I can live with that.
Oh, and he signed an EO banning importation of semi-auto AK47s which is an extremely popular rifle in common use. There is one example of what he has done to limit ownership of guns. Another would be the Korean M-1 Garands that would have been coming back here and then sold to American citizens through the CMP. We can't have that, can we? Clinton didn't like those returning rifles either.
we are not amused
Member
No one is against getting training in gun safety and the legal aspects of using deadly force to protect oneself or others. Or keeping people from misusing them.
The debate is how much and who says you have met the "requirements". And who is going to misuse a weapon and who gets to decide who is a danger and how.
You claim that that is above your "Pay Grade", and not for you to say.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, IT IS YOUR PAY GRADE!
That is how we lose our rights! Letting others decide what we can do and think!
It is absolutely your job to think and make decisions on how you live your life, and how the Government works and make decisions !
It is up to you to choose who represents you in the Government, and that they represent your views. If you delegate or abrogate that authority, you are simply saying you are not responsible as a Citizen, and that you want other people to run your life as you are not competent to do so. If they decide you are unfit to possess a gun, you have decided that they are right.
As a responsible gun owner, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to engage in the decision making process!
Sorry for the rant. But you pressed my buttons with your "above my pay grade comment. That attitude really hacks me off.
In considering an issue raised here and in another thread, that of mandatory training prior to the exercise of the RKBA by a person, several thoughts come to mind.
1. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, who gets to choose the curriculum? How long and how stringent would the supporters of such training have it be?
2. What would happen to any folks unable to pass the class? Would they be stripped of their RKBA?
If you don't think that training/education will be used as a barrier to firearms ownership and possession, think again. IIUC, Illinois currently requires 16 hours and 30 rounds on the range to qualify for a CCL. At first blush, that doesn't seem to bad, but if the city has eliminated all of the ranges in the city limits through zoning (Chicago), then it can become an almost absolute bar to carry. I'm pretty sure I could find one single mother in Chicago with a couple of kids and no car. For someone like that, finding care for the kids, taking a bus or cab out to the range and everything that involves will simply stop her from trying to get her CCL. That's the point of zoning out shooting ranges.
3. What makes you think that the rights of others are yours to bargain away?
I'm not saying that training is a bad thing. It's not. Training is a good thing. Mandatory training is a bad thing.
1. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, who gets to choose the curriculum? How long and how stringent would the supporters of such training have it be?
2. What would happen to any folks unable to pass the class? Would they be stripped of their RKBA?
If you don't think that training/education will be used as a barrier to firearms ownership and possession, think again. IIUC, Illinois currently requires 16 hours and 30 rounds on the range to qualify for a CCL. At first blush, that doesn't seem to bad, but if the city has eliminated all of the ranges in the city limits through zoning (Chicago), then it can become an almost absolute bar to carry. I'm pretty sure I could find one single mother in Chicago with a couple of kids and no car. For someone like that, finding care for the kids, taking a bus or cab out to the range and everything that involves will simply stop her from trying to get her CCL. That's the point of zoning out shooting ranges.
3. What makes you think that the rights of others are yours to bargain away?
I'm not saying that training is a bad thing. It's not. Training is a good thing. Mandatory training is a bad thing.
jcwit
member
My post from another thread that was locked.
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.
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.
Not a bad thought on how to determine curriculum.jcwit said:
What about those that fail? Are their RKBA rights to be stripped from them.
What if I refuse to take the class?
That sounds very much like a push for appeasement.jcwit said:
That sounds like the 'compromise' argument. Let's see:
The 1934 National Firearms Act.
The Gun Control Act of 1968.
FOPA of 1986.
Brady Law 1993.
Various oppressive state laws.
How many more winters do we need to weather? We, as pro 2A advocates have made some progress in some areas, yes, but not enough to push the above legislation back.
And... Some states (N.Y.) have lost a great deal.
MachIVshooter
Member
A poor analogy for a weak argument defending a lousy suggestion.
I submit to you that unless we want to see our rights further eroded, we need to be the proverbial "old oak", which will neither flex or break, even in the face of a most vicious storm.
I will also patronize you with this old platitude: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
You need to either get on board with the RKBA movement or admit that you are a fair weather supporter, a fudd, which makes you a quisling of the antis. Yes, there is a line in the sand, and no, you cannot straddle it.
jcwit
member
No, it sounds like the guy that lives to fight another day.
Better dead than red
Better red than dead.
2nd one gives one the chance to continue.
Last edited:
jcwit
member
Maybe in your mind but not in mine.
Is your opinion the end all of all opinions??
Even the "old oak" ends up down in the end.
jcwit
member
So, it now comes to the point of name calling on your part.
djont57
Member
This "tree" has bent enough. There appears to be a couple of "wolves in sheeps clothing here."
Lycidas Janwor
Member
do you remember that bumper sticker that was popular around 30 years ago? It said something like this: "The role of the Federal government is to deliver the mail, protect the shores, and stay the hell out of my life."
I never understood that sticker as a child. But now, I understand it. The federal governement is a monster, a huge leviathan that just keeps growing. We can say that we are in the golden age of owning firearms but the fact still remains that the monster in DC is still growing and growing and growing. I find it poetic justice that at this point in time in our history, when the fed gov is at its largest and most intrusive, that we are currently allowed to own semi-auto rifles and pistols. The liberal intelligentsia (oxymoron) will not stand for this and they will do everything in the power to see that this type of freedom goes away, IMHO.
Lycidas Janwor
Member
well said.
MachIVshooter
Member
Because you seem to think like a progressive.
My opinion is irrelevant; we're dealing in facts here.
Show just one example where such appeasement ("compromise", as you call it) has not led to further erosion of gun rights.
So you've already given up? Is that what you're saying? You're able to enjoy your guns today, but you have resigned yourself and accepted that your grand kids will not have RKBA?
That's the fundamental difference between us. You like guns, but don't really value RKBA. I'm ready to die for the right of my children and my children's children to defend themselves against common criminals or tyrants.
Conversely, let's modify this one:
First they came for (AR-15s), and I remained silent because I was not (an AR-15 owner). Then they came for (semi auto Handguns), and I said nothing, because I was not (a semi-auto handgun owner). Next they came for (repeating firearms), and I kept quiet, because I was not (an owner of repeating firearms). Finally, they came for (my single shot 12 gauge), and by then, there was no one left to speak out for me.
If you're not familiar with the provenance of the original quote, I suggest you research it, as it pertains both to the principle of this discussion, and exemplifies what happens as a populous allows themselves to be gradually disarmed, first through regulation, then registration and finally confiscation.
Nice try at deflection, but calling a spade a spade does not insult the spade. If you collaborate, you are a collaborator. "Compromising" WRT RKBA is collaboration, plain and simple.
Lycidas Janwor
Member
I have this same argument with posters on other boards, that is, the 2nd Amendment is already heavily restrictive. Here's a list of "arms" that the Fed Gov can have via the military yet I cannot own nor operate legally:
ICBMs (for starters)
Tanks, armored vehicles, etc.
Apache Hellicopters or Cobras or all such hellicopters, etc.
Stinger missles
Grenade launchers
Supersonic jets (I don't think civillians can own them, correct?)
F/A jets that are armed, of any sort
Etc., etc., etc.,
There are limitations on the 2nd Amendment folks. The above list might be silly, but it's just the obvious examples of what you cannot own in our nation that has "the right to keep and bear arms."
Now, I'm not proposing that your next door neighbor should have the right to own an operation tank, or fighter jet. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there are already all kinds of restrictions as to what you and I can own and what we cannot own.
MachIVshooter
Member
You can have armor and you can possess a grenade launcher. There are people who lawfully own Sherman or M60 tanks with fully functional main guns.
I'm not very familiar with FAA regs, but I'm pretty sure SS aircraft are also legal to own privately.
I don't know enough about armed fighter jets or attack helicopters to comment, but I'm guessing there are ways if you have the finances.
Of course, these things are heavily restricted/regulated and prohibitively expensive. Some are falsely inflated due to regulation (machine guns), others are simply spendy because of what they are (aircraft).
I do know that a lot of military hardware in current use is off-limits, though. I don't think there is any way for a private citizen to legally procure an M1A1 MBT or F22 Raptor in the USA.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against civilian ownership of ballistic missiles and the like; that is wholly another debate and really not even tangentially in the scope of THR. I'm just stating that some of the things you have suggested we can't have we actually can get........... just not easily or cheaply.
krupparms
Member
How can this be above any citizens pay grade? As a citizen of this country & a veteran, it is not above your pay grade! It is not only your right, but your duty! And several would have us shirk this duty & hide our heads in the sand! Background checks & training all sound great! But they are still controls! Sam 1911 said it best! And you do need to study this issue more! But unfortunately I hear minds closing with a loud Clang! If you want gun control, please move to G.B.or Australia ect. But don't shovel that on us! 
Lycidas Janwor
Member
fair enough, but the point is, the stuff you suggest we can have are not easily accessible, even if you have the money to buy these things. And again, I'm not saying we should be able to own this stuff, I'm just saying, there are already lots of restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, and rightly so.
- Status
