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 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?
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.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.
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!
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.
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.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.
They should be welcome
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
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think you hit it on the nail, bro.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.
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.)I think we should welcome anyone who "supports the 2nd Amendment."
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)I would support something in between Australia's gun laws and what we have now.