Quantcast

Community

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Justin.T, Mar 24, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    I saw in the last thread talk about the NRA alienating independents and Democrats that are gun owners, do you think they should be welcome or rightfully alienated in this community? What are the pros and cons of each approach?
     
    hso and EIB0879 like this.
  2. badkarmamib

    badkarmamib Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    VA
    I think we should welcome anyone who "supports the 2nd Amendment."

    I think we should turn awayattempt to educate anyone who "supports the 2nd Amendment, but..."

    The problem with the two (or even three) party system, is that while there are pretty much only 2 (or 3) sides to most issues, not everyone is entirely in 1 camp or the other. I believe in more freedom, less government, but I don't staunchly, blindly, believe in voting only Republican. They are usually, for me, the lesser of two evils, but the capacity for evil is still there.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  3. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    I would welcome any Pro-gun Democrats. The problem is the Democratic party is controlled by Far- Left Progressives, for whom eliminating private firearms ownership is a central pillar of their agenda.

    I don't agree with all the stances of the Republican party either, but when push comes to shove, I'll swallow that pill because they are the lesser evil. Would a Democrat vote against his own party just on the 2A stance of a particular candidate? Or would they have to accept the anti-gun platform because they want to see the other social initiatives advanced?

    My own father is a pro-gun Democrat.....he voted Hillary because he believes in socialized medicine. The 2A lost out in his priority structure. I fear it is the same for most non-leftist liberals.

    As far as Independents.......are there such things anymore? The handful I know to claim this were so disgusted with both parties behavior that they sat out the last election cycle.:(
     
  4. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    So I will tell you guys I'm a Democrat who owns 3 guns. I'm for some more regulations of firearms than what we have now but I do believe in a persons right to gun ownship, just simply a limited one and would be against a complete ban. I know there are plenty of others like me because I met and talked to them at the March today. I also am sure my beliefs and vision of what I would like to see happen won't be very welcome here but maybe there are even a couple more like me here as well. I understand this activism forum probably isn't for people who are moderate on the issue but I still hope I'm welcome here because I find this forum to be full of very knowledgeable people when I have questions about firearms and shooting.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  5. Mauser lover

    Mauser lover Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Location:
    East KY
    The question is not, "Is it regulated enough?" The question should be... "Are the regulations working".

    Until we realize that we need to teach personal RESPONSIBILITY for actions, all attempts at reducing crime of any sort will fail. Far too many people have the attitude of... "Oh, he was mentally handicapped, and that is why he did this" when "this" is anything from a child disobeying his parents to Hitler murdering millions of people (or pick your favorite mass murderer).

    We need to start holding people accountable for their actions, not worrying about what implement they used for their evil (note that I didn't say "misguided") deeds. As long as there continues to be evil people in this world (which means as long as there are people), there will be crime of all sorts. You can kill a bunch of people by running them over with a box truck, or you can use a firearm. Both ways yield similar results. Both ways are regulated in the USA already. More laws won't help. Murder should be treated as murder.

    Unfortunately neither the Republican or Democrat parties believe this. I have no party affiliation, and I vote my conscience, no matter what letter is in front of someone's name.

    On the bright side, while more publicized now than they were thirty years ago, mass murders in the USA seem to be a downward trend! On the even brighter side, I am only going to live on this earth for a few more short years!

    For me, I don't care who you are, you could be my worst enemy; but I will help anyone in any way I can! So, while I may not agree with you that we need more regulation; I will gladly answer honest questions that you might have!
     
    badkarmamib likes this.
  6. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    Welcome Justin! Please be assured I ask these things in all earnestness and only for the purposes of understanding your viewpoint. I would ask fellow members to refrain from assaulting Justin with vitriol or mobbing him in an attempt to change his position overnight. If he is the reasoning human being we hope he is, let him come to his own conclusions organically.

    1) Would you support a ban on private ownership of semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines?

    2) How do you interpret the role of the Second Amendment in American Society?

    3) What is your view of the NRA?

    Thank you for you time, and answers should you care to give them. If not, no haterade.:)
     
  7. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    I hate to think that we would be enemies, I just think that we draw the line in the sand and two different points. I appreciate your willingness to help fellow man. I try to live by that as well.
     
  8. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    25,158
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Rather than close this Im moving it to the activism discusion sub forum as this forum is for advancing activism plans
     
    Klint Beastwood likes this.
  9. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48

    I'm hesitant cause I'm not sure that this will be productive but to answer:

    Not a fan of the NRA. They've just become a lobby for the far right and mostly gun manufacturers. Their goal is to get paid and they do that lobbying to have the most guns possible sold. I disagree with their hardline stance.

    I don't really put much thought into the second amendment. I'm certainly not worried about staying armed to fight government tyranny. It's just not something I worry about. . I think we are evolved passed a point that that is a concern. The supreme courts already ruled that we can regulate without it being unconstitutional. I'd say keep the amendment, let congress regulate and the Supreme Court review the regulations.

    I'm not supportive of a complete semi-auto ban, one of the guns I own is even semi auto. I would support limiting capacities.

    Without going into a bunch of specifics I would support something in between Australia's gun laws and what we have now.
     
  10. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    Thanks Justin. While I may not agree with you, I appreciate the perspective. I'm not going to try to pick apart your world view right now and hope others here won't either- it is what it is. You've given everyone here something to think about with your answers. I just ask that you think about the views expressed here and judge them objectively as well.
    Good luck to you, sir.
     
    Justin.T likes this.
  11. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    56,621
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    That's the answer. Anything other than encouraging the most people to participate in shooting and showing them the value in self defense as part of self determination is a formula for failure.
     
    Justin.T likes this.
  12. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    That's really cool of you guys. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you guys because after all it is a pro 2a group and I really really don't think my beliefs are too terribly far off from the majority here. For example I fully support concealed carry because the idea of keeping bad guys guessing to me just makes sense. I just wondered if members pro 2a beliefs varied at all. I definitely think getting more people shooting and learning about guns and gun safety and respect for guns is a good thing.

    So I want to talk about something and I don't want to start another thread but I can.

    I've thought an awful lot about whether ar15s should be allowed to be owned by civilians. I was an auxiliary cop for a few years and owned one, trained, qualified and carried one in the car on duty. I know them well.

    Mechanical operation and ballistics aside, does anyone else see a psychological aspect to these "black rifles" and their appeal to mass shooters.

    Like I feel like a person prone to doing that gets a level of excitement and inspiration out of one that say they wouldn't get from a wood stock mini 14. I think it's because they are clones of military guns and they see them in movies and video games and it gives them a sense of badassery and power or something. Like it's chosen for more than just it's advantageous killing capacity, it appeals to something in their psyche.

    Does anyone else see this and have any solutions if they do?

    I'm not saying putting wood stocks or pink stocks or whatever on ar15s would stop mass shooters from using them to kill and hurt so many people but I think it's worth thinking about and looking into. It really goes along with the whole mental health part of this problem. It's crossed my mind every time this has happened recently.
     
  13. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    Oh and I will certainly look at everyone else's beliefs and judge them objectively and individually.

    Not doing so would be the exact definition of being prejudice and I try not to ever be that no matter the subject or person.
     
  14. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    Also, something that I feel really needs addressed by the pro gun regulation side is how we would handle the "slippery slope" concern because I do see why it is a concern. I have seen plenty of people argue to ban all guns without exception and disagree completely with them.

    I guess the 2a is the ultimate protection from that but I think finding another assurance that total ban is not the desired end result would be helpful for more open dialogue.

    Finally, I understand that there are those people who think the 2a should not be regulated period and while I will have to disagree I will not disrespect your opinions.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  15. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    That's part of it, I think- but AKs, MP5s, and the like are just as prevalent in movie and video game "badassery" yet aren't commonly used in mass murder incidents.

    Part of it, a big part, is economic. ARs are dirt cheap right now and commonly available. You don't see anyone going on a killing spree with with an M1A or PTR91, despite the much more powerful round they fire- few psychos have the financial stability to save up $1200.....

    The AR15 is just the cheapest, easiest way for these cowardly, lazy misanthropes to express their desire for revenge on society. But where there is a will to do harm, there is a way. Seize all the semi-autos and the next school murderer will use a shotgun. Take all the shotguns and he will steal a truck and drive it through a crowd. They will take the the path of path of least resistance, whatever it is, because they want the instant gratification.

    Timothy McVeigh is still the most deadly domestic mass murderer- and he didn' t use an AR15, though they were certainly available to him. All of these monsters had the necessary will to commit evil, he just had a bit more money and patience.o_O

    I'm not going to try to beat you up on this, because your heart is in the right place, obviously. But I think sick/evil people will still be sick/evil if you take their guns, knives, or sharp sticks. They will still be stewing in their parents basements playing PUBG or GTA and obsessing about the girl who dumped them or how unfair life has been to them and plotting their revenge/cry for attention/whatever. Some will get help, some will be caught before they can act- but there are always going to be those that will not be stopped because they have the will to succeed.

    For those the only defense we have is vigilance and preparedness to confront them- with armed force of our own.
     
    Growlers likes this.
  16. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    It really doesn't matter if they 'throw in' with one party or both, so long as they stay on message. It's not the NRA's fault the Democrats have completely purged gun rights voters and officials from their ranks. Frankly, we all should see it as their loss, and go with whoever is willing to take our votes. That was the Republicans, but now that they've betrayed this critical voting bloc of theirs, that should possibly change.

    The problem is when the NRA starts compromising its message in order to stay 'in' with one of the political parties. A few weeks back, LaPierre decries Socialists, then advocates for more gun control. Way off message. "Good guy with a gun" was as on-message as the NRA ever got, and the result was no federal legislation after Sandy Hook despite a Democrat president. Now much of the NRA membership is in disarray, and the (still) A-rated politicians are pushing & voting for gun control. NRA is afraid to down grade them, since such a move would lose them lobbying access to these same turncoats.

    The convention in April to elect the board of directors is going to be very entertaining, to make an understatement.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  17. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Holmes (Aurora, CO) did use a shotgun. Pump action IIRC. Apparently his betamag jammed quickly, and most of the casualties were from buckshot. The loser in CA who sparked the Restraining Order nonsense; stabbed his room mates to death, and drove his car over the majority of his remaining victims while shooting I think two of them. That terrorist in France with the freight truck killed more people than Pollock and his dozens (and dozens) of rifles, a thousand bullets, and a sniper's perch.

    Frankly, there's much, much more in common with the consistent anti-gun responses to these attacks, than there are to the attacks themselves. It's almost as though the responses are following some pre-planned storyline, a "narrative" if you will, that is simply waiting on random casualty events with even the barest resemblance to exploit.
     
    Growlers likes this.
  18. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,221
    I'm an independent who usually votes Republican. I have a hard time understanding why any serious gun owner would be a Democrat, but guns are not the only issue in people's lives. I think we need to accept all people into our "community" who value gun rights in the ways that most of us do. If we push these people out, we aren't helping the cause. I've taken hardcore liberals to the range before, knowing that they may not agree with me on many subjects. But, they were showing a real interest in guns, and guns were the issue I was trying to connect with them on.

    Consider this: If 75% of Democrat voters became pro-gun and pro-2A, the whole gun control debacle in the legislature would cease to be. We may never accomplish that feat, but we sure won't do so if we're always pushing those individuals away from the very activities and groups that would tend the strengthen their beliefs in gun rights.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K and Justin.T like this.
  19. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48

    Fired 6 rounds from an 870 and then after fired 65 rounds from an ar15 with a 100 round drum, then it jammed.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting
     
  20. Justin.T

    Justin.T member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    I do agree we must be ready to confront them with armed force. I am against arming teachers though, it seems like a silly idea because 1. They went into the profession of teaching not security and 2. The pragmatic reason of what level of retention holster they would carry, because if they are concealing I don't believe they will have the proper level of retention and I don't like the idea of a gun being able to get loose in the school. I do 100% support armed resource officers or security professionals in schools.

    I want to say this response was one of the best I've heard. It was well though out instead of just regurgitating the same talking points over and over. It was completely genuine.

    I think for me I guess what my inclination tells me is limiting what's available would act as "damage control."

    The economics is a really really good point. It makes me think about columbine because I believe they used those crappy 9mm carbines, hi point I believe, but it was during the AWB and that was probably the cheapest next best thing.

    Maybe instead of supporting a total ban I would consider supporting something that just made them more difficult to get.

    Tim Mcveigh was also quite smart if I'm not misinformed which coupled with being a monster is like worst case scenario. He was going to probably succeed as long as he didn't slip up and get caught first. Luckily they are not all that smart and capable.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  21. Mauser lover

    Mauser lover Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Location:
    East KY
    I don't think anyone wants to "arm" teachers. I think most of us here want to allow teachers who want to get training and the permit to be armed. Should these teachers be trained? Absolutely! Should it cost the teachers an arm and a leg (figuratively speaking) to get training? Absolutely not! I think there would be plenty of firearms instructors who would allow these teachers to take a class at a greatly reduced cost, if not for free, if the "Gun free zone" thing went away. I think the failure of the "Gun free zone" ideal is definitely a bi-partisan issue. When it comes down to it, in the state of Kentucky, the police and the concealed carry permit shooting test are identical; so a teacher who chooses to be legally armed and trained would be basically equivalent to a legally armed and trained police officer; as far as likelihood of accidents or missing the bad guy and hitting a student.

    "I'm certainly not worried about staying armed to fight government tyranny. It's just not something I worry about. . I think we are evolved passed a point that that is a concern."

    This statement has me concerned. While my religious convictions prohibit me from armed uprisings (I'll gladly discuss this with anyone who wants to send me a PM, but NOT going to get into that here in this thread!) I cannot realistically disbelieve the statement that "power corrupts, and absolute power leads to absolute corruption" (I've read too much history!). The second amendment is there to make our elected employees think twice about making people angry; because their job is to do what we want, not what they want. Historically, government control of weaponry has always resulted in the persecution or outright massacre of some minority group. This is what makes me confused about the current Democratic party, because while they champion the rights of everyone to take part in the governmental system, the higher you go in the party, the more firearm restrictions you find that they desire!

    Not really a Trump fan, but to steal his concept... I'm a fan of what works. The reason to study history is that those who refuse to learn from the mistakes made in the past are bound to repeat them. As an illustration... If "gun reform" is passed by a group of perfectly innocent and perfect leaders (they don't exist, but if they did...) who did everything right and somehow crime was reduced to a minor fraction of what it normally is; eventually those leaders would still die and be replaced. You cannot count on the actions of one generation to be passed on to the next generation. The next two or three generations of leaders will not be as perfect as the ones who instituted the reform "necessary", and a minority group WILL suffer.
     
    entropy, badkarmamib and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  22. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    I think we shouldn't be naive. More gun owners who tolerate gun control or encourage it, isn't very useful in the long run either.

    Teach new shooters, but make sure they understand the importance of 1) opposing new laws if they'd like to keep shooting, and 2) the utter implacability of the antis & how appeasment only emboldens them.

    That's frankly more useful than them learning the difference between full & semi-auto
     
  23. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,380
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    I think you hit it on the nail, bro.

    Turkey is a prime example of how the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today. It was a modern(ish) democracy who until recently was a decent example of different ethnic and religious groups living together. The Turkish Republic's founder, Kamal Atatürk really was cast in George Washington's mold and had a similar vision for his people. BUT, here's the rub- Atatürk set up the Army to be the hedge against Government tyranny, rather than an armed populace.

    This worked, for awhile- three times the Army overthrew the government when it got too radical and set the country back on course.

    Now, here comes Erdogan. He has learned well from the mistakes of the past, staging a false flag revolt to identify and purge the disloyal elements from his military. The Turkish Army is now firmly in his control as he turns the country into a theocratic dictatorship. Seriously, this guy is reading from Emperor Palpatine's cliff notes- turning the Kurdish minority into public enemy No.1, imprisoning political prisoners (some American!), persecuting Christians and invading and occupying Syria next door.

    Could this happen in America? I don't know, but it certainly is still a thing in our world.
     
  24. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,088
    Location:
    Virginia
    The people we should be reaching out to -- inner-city residents who want guns to protect themselves from the thugs in their midst -- probably don't even know about the 2nd Amendment, much less have an opinion about it.. Even the entire Constitution is not very relevant to them. They live their lives on a much more basic level. (What Oprah says is more to them than the Constitution.)

    We can debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment among ourselves, but such legalities are not persuasive to the fence-sitters.
     
  25. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,088
    Location:
    Virginia
    The problem is that once you start down that slippery slope, there is no stopping. The dedicated antigunners want a completely gun-free America. Even an Australian-style confiscation would not be enough for them. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." (Dianne Feinstein)

    "What we have now" is already too much. I want the Hughes Amendment, for example, repealed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice