Gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
E-Gadz.... a guy comes on this forum asking a question, and it only takes four replies for the guy to be accused of being a troll. Then he is chastised for not doing his homework before daring to post a question.

So much for a friendly and approachable forum.

Way to go THR.
 
I for one, would not hunt in or visit a state with outrageous "gun control." Canada suffered badly from the requirement that visiting American hunters had to register their rifles.
 
E-Gadz.... a guy comes on this forum asking a question, and it only takes four replies for the guy to be accused of being a troll. Then he is chastised for not doing his homework before daring to post a question.
The question was a little round-about and probably difficult for most of us to catch the point of at first reading. It probably could have been asked a whole lot more simply, maybe like, "Would the money raised for states by hunting and gun sales taxes be a good argument against more gun control?" or something like that. The allusions to starting a flame war, and then the original poster's a bit surprising unfamiliarity with what "gun control" really IS probably set off warning bells for some members. It's not like we don't get the occasional troll or "AHSA" type here just trying to rile folks up.

But a little gentle questioning sorted out the point without any animosity needed.

So much for a friendly and approachable forum.

Way to go THR.
Hey, sometimes we're great. Sometimes we're just ok. We are no better than the members who make up "us." o_O
 
What you are talking about is one of many reasons why the 2A needs to be defended. It may not be the most important, but it's another reason to add to the long list of the potential harm of gun control.

To answer the question, I don't think it can be separated from the 2A issue as a whole.

A historic justification of gun control has been something like, "it's not harming legal gun owners" or "this won't impact hunting" or "we aren't going after hunters." But we can't separate it. Partly because gun control agendas negatively effect such a wide range of gun-related topics (including hunting) and partly because "minor" gun control legislation is just a stepping stone to something more repressive. Any time very restrictive gun control is implemented, the gun control lobby immediately one-ups the agenda. These gun control organizations don't then stop...they simply change their mission/vision when they reach a "goal". Their ultimate goal should be clear, and with the large bulk of these organizations, public safety has nothing to do with it. They don't care about people getting raped, so they certainly are not going to care about how their agendas harm industries & jobs that have been built because we have the 2A.

In regards to hunting, restrictive gun control can discourage new people from exercising their 2A rights as a whole-->hence fewer people getting unto hunting, drive up the cost of gun and ammo prices, drive up the prices of hunting-related accessories, result in the overpopulation of a certain species (that results in that species becoming unhealthy from population imbalance or the declining population of another), creating a nasty cycle.

So while it is impossible to speak percentages, it's certain that gun control initiatives will erode the 2A, damage gun culture, and this will damage hunting culture, and this will result in decreased revenue.
 
My thought was, sometime I think we have become so money driven. You know the saying, money talks and what walks. did not mean to upset any one.

There's nothing wrong with asking the question. This plays into a larger issue, which plays into an even larger one. Beyond the moral importance of defending gun ownership, there are jobs built as a result of the 2A and hunting. When gun control agendas attack the 2A, they don't just threaten government revenue or personal safety, but the many private sector industries here as well. These private sector industries correspond to American jobs, which are staffed by hard-working, honest Americans. Gun control initiatives threaten their economic livelihood and the wellbeing of them and their families.
 
My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let’s be clear: This is a Democrat story, not a case of “both sides do it.”

These forsworn official derelicts pretend that what they do is necessary in order to deal with critical situations that threaten the nation’s security and well-being. They contend that, whatever the Constitution says, to deal with terrorism, Second Amendment rights must be sacrificed; to protect our innocent children, Second Amendment rights must be sacrificed.

I suspect that most of the elitist faction leaders who make these false claims are purposely using various crises as excuses for destroying the authority of our Constitution.

When rightly understood, liberty is the way to safety, not something to be sacrificed in the false hope of securing it.
 
My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let’s be clear: This is a Democrat story, not a case of “both sides do it.”

These forsworn official derelicts pretend that what they do is necessary in order to deal with critical situations that threaten the nation’s security and well-being. They contend that, whatever the Constitution says, to deal with terrorism, Second Amendment rights must be sacrificed; to protect our innocent children, Second Amendment rights must be sacrificed.

I suspect that most of the elitist faction leaders who make these false claims are purposely using various crises as excuses for destroying the authority of our Constitution.

When rightly understood, liberty is the way to safety, not something to be sacrificed in the false hope of securing it.
I believe it was Rahm Emmanuel, then Obama's Chief of Staff, who said, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste."
 
No gun control regulations seriously impact sport hunting anywhere in the US that I am aware of. You could say that having a NICs check when buying a firearm might irritate some hunters. Bought a gun today; the check took 5 minutes. But for the most part, people are pretty comfortable with the instant background check when buying a gun from a FFL dealer. California has passed a law requiring a background check to buy ammunition which I think goes into effect in 2017. That does impact hunters to a degree with likely higher prices for ammunition. These kinds of things are more geared toward shooters versus hunters although you can be both.
 
We don't have mandatory background checks on private transfers but the voluntary $30 private transfer background check applies to all firearms including hunting rifles and shotguns, not just self-defense or military guns. The current 1968 Gun Control Act applies to all post-1898 cartridge firearms and does affect hunting guns. Dealer background checks are mandatory and cost $10 for all new or used guns in a dealer's inventory. The original 1934 National Firearms Act put a $200 tax on the 12" barrel .410 pistols and short barrel rifles used by trappers including many Marbles Gamegetters and other Trapper Specials. UBC will affect privates sales, swaps and trades of hunting guns not just "scary-looking" or "gangster" weapons.

The anti-gun propaganda I read on the 1950s and 1960s often disparaged hunting as much as they attacked self-defense and civilian marksmanship training, especially The Nation, The New Republic, -- anti-hunting, anti-self-defense, anti-military volunteerism. [sarcasm] True dyed in the wool anti-gunners are vegans against self-defense and the military who cite Hobbes and Webber about the necessity of an absolute state ruling through a monopoly on force. [/sarcasm]

For decades Marlin sold their Model 60 .22 with a 22" barrel and full length magazine (18 rounds); then New Jersey banned magazines holding 15 rounds or more. Marlin responded with a short magazine tube holding 14 rounds. This was before the 1994-2004 federal AWB.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/hopes-raised-strong-arms-trade-treaty-2012-07-27
Hopes raised for strong Arms Trade Treaty
Slide show: "Can you spot any real difference?"
In promoting the current Arms Trade Treaty, advocates pointed out that there is no "real difference" between an armored vehicle marketed for police use and the maker's military armored vehicle (just a paint job); or between a civilian long-range target rifle and a military/police sniper rifle; or between a civilian deerslayer slug gun and the military/police riot control/combat shotgun; therefore, the trade in all had to be treated the same under international arms trade treaties.

I believe advocates for gun control very often treat hunting guns same as military guns because they hate guns period as symbols for other things they hate: war, crime, violence, meateaters. We are just in their way.
 
Last edited:
I do not see where hunting for 2 weeks of the year is biggest money maker for the state. booze cigarettes lottery tickets are bought every day not a few days a year. look at how much tax on a pack of smokes
 
My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values.
The areas they control have steadily progressed to a position well outside those essential values, that is why. Four to eight generations of welfare, gun control, crime, drug use, one-party rule, and the inability to find legitimate gainful employment. The result is an existence where brute force and corrupting influence govern every action of society. It's hardly a new phenomenon either, since ghettos of various colors have existed since before the Revolution. Turns out Hobbes' Leviathan is not so much a solution to society's ills, as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

TCB
 
The areas they control have steadily progressed to a position well outside those essential values, that is why. TCB

Perhaps you meant to say regressed to a nihilistic and amoral subculture that revels in lawless and violent behavior and adopts a very perverse rejection of conventional social norms.

The most telling indication of the elitist faction's determination to overthrow self-government in the United States is the fact that in this regard, they seek by all means to destroy, rather than strengthen, the moral fitness of the American people. In the formal institutions of learning and in the informal education derived from games, movies, television shows, and other entertainment media, elitist agents of corruption encourage people to believe that the essence of freedom is selfish gratification and self-indulgence. They induce them to reject all discipline except the scourges of fear, sensual desire, greed, and the human will to power.

Ignorance and folly may lead susceptible people to accept the poisonous stew of lies that identifies this noxious view of freedom as "progressive." In effect, however, it is exactly the opposite. It aims to mute the twin voices of reason and conscience, thereby intentionally promoting human degeneracy. As these twin voices fall silent, people become less and less capable of standing apart from the compulsive stream of merely sensual perception and experience. Their inner life becomes a montage of preoccupying images and impressions, devoid of logic and the conceptual perceptions it makes possible. Eventually their consciousness becomes barely distinguishable from what appears to be the consciousness of beasts, deprived of all but the most rudimentary capacity for self-conscious thought or action.

Bill Clinton: “When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly. … When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”

It is both correct and inevitable to conclude that people in whom distinctly human consciousness is thus virtually extinguished cannot be trusted to make right use of liberty, or the arms required to defend it. But when people like Clinton voice this conclusion, it's imperative that we remember that they are the ones who have been and are most willing to be instruments of the elitist agenda that purposely and systematically seeks to degrade the moral intelligence and self-discipline of the American people.

They looked forward to the time when, by exploiting the rotten fruits of this decadence and corrosion, they could once and for all deprive people of the freedom that is their birthright when their human nature is preserved, as intended by their Creator.
 
Just as a reminder, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting (or other recreational uses). Theoretically, then, Fudd (hunting) guns could be banned without running afoul of the constitution. No one is proposing that. The antigunners are going after the "scary" guns, precisely the ones that are protected by the constitution.

The second amendment is not about hunting; agreed. I can't agree with the rest of your statement, however. How can you make the argument that banning guns we typically associate with hunting is any different than banning guns that are commonly called assault weapons? Especially in the context of "scary guns" (i.e. guns that are political targets due to their association with crime), a hunting rifle can be used in a crime and an "assault weapon" can be used to hunt. How does that change the status of a right?
 
My responses are in-line. Hopefully context is preserved despite my quote-trimming. Please do say if this is not the case.

Perhaps you meant to say regressed to a nihilistic and amoral subculture that revels in lawless and violent behavior and adopts a very perverse rejection of conventional social norms.

Are laws and morality necessarily in lockstep? What of immoral actions that are not illegal? What of illegal actions that are not immoral?

...elitist agents of corruption encourage people to believe that the essence of freedom is selfish gratification and self-indulgence. They induce them to reject all discipline except the scourges of fear, sensual desire, greed, and the human will to power.

Who is this elitist faction? That implies a small, organized group, and organization implies leadership. I certainly don't feel there is a single political party that could not be said to hold responsibility for what you describe.

Is not the essence of freedom the right to do as one pleases as long as it does not affect the freedoms and choices of others?

Bill Clinton: “When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly. … When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”

It is both correct and inevitable to conclude that people in whom distinctly human consciousness is thus virtually extinguished cannot be trusted to make right use of liberty, or the arms required to defend it. But when people like Clinton voice this conclusion, it's imperative that we remember that they are the ones who have been and are most willing to be instruments of the elitist agenda that purposely and systematically seeks to degrade the moral intelligence and self-discipline of the American people.

Respectfully, sir, your rights don't come with footnotes describing their revocability in the event of their abuse by other parties. Are you saying you agree with limiting personal freedom when faced with evidence of its widespread misuse? Where are these terms of use codified?
 
Antonio Gramsci is a familiar name to very few Americans. That is to be regretted because the work of the late Italian Marxist sheds much light on our time. It was he who first alerted fellow revolutionaries to the possibility that they would be able to complete the seizure of political power only after having achieved "cultural hegemony," or control of society's intellectual life by cultural means alone. His was an incremental, rather than an apocalyptic, revolution-the kind, that is, that we have been witnessing in the United States, and the Western world generally, since the 1960s. With this in mind, we ought not to treat the contemporary "culture war" lightly; the fate of what remains of civilized life may well be decided by its outcome.

Not many present day leftists still adhere strictly to the original tenets of Marxism, or even to those of Marxist Revisionism, but, what is every bit as dangerous, they, like Gramsci, often succumb to a temptation that appears to be irresistible to those who dream utopian dreams: the passion for negation that often shades into nihilism. Utopianism and nihilism may seem to be antithetical, but they are not; both derive from the same source—undying hatred of the world as it is.

Much of contemporary American culture has as its aim the trampling of moral and aesthetic standards that were once all but universally acknowledged, even when they were being violated. With few exceptions, contemporary movies, television shows, and popular music portray Judeo-Christian morality as laughable at best and tyrannical at worst. To hear them tell it, America is in danger of becoming a theocracy governed by the "Religious Right." This despite the fact that the reigning culture is pagan through and through.

It’s easy enough for these bond slaves of passion to believe that guns constitute an irresistible temptation to do violence, for they see their own actions as proof of the masterful power of material things. The gun seems fearful to them because they suspect that, at the behest of their own chronically uncontrolled passions, they would willingly abuse the deadly power it represents. They are easily convinced that people can’t be trusted with arms because they quietly believe that, in this respect, they are themselves untrustworthy.

There’s the rub, as Hamlet says. For people thus easily convinced that they cannot be trusted with the deadly power of arms will soon be persuaded that they have no right to control the power of government, which includes, by necessity, control over arms in their most organized and destructive form. So, in the end, by inducing Americans to accept the abrogation of their right to keep and bear arms our would-be progressive despots such as Obama and Clinton prepare the people to endure the abdication of their Constitutional sovereignty.
 
Well put, Yokel. They achieve their ends by incrementalist means; each new law and regulation moving the agenda forward one click, never to be reversed. California's new plethora of gun laws is a prime example. They plan to make gun ownership so complicated that people will grow tired of complying and just give it up or move away. Those of us who are opposed vote and write letters, but we are swamped by the many who on the dole or on the government pay role, those who fear force of any kind, even self defense, and those who are rich enough to avoid the inconveniences.

Jefferson said the states are the laboratories of democracy. They may also be the laboratories of tyranny.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top