Helpless Venezuelans lament losing guns, right to stand up to government

[ATLDave]

Silent’, nobody here is telling you that they know how to run your life, liked HRC, or any of the other stuff you seem to be arguing against. A couple of us are pointing out that while YOU may know few people who dislike Trump, such people are not hard to find in large numbers nationally.

As to polls: consider chronographs. Chronos often report velocity down to a single FPS, yet few are capable of actually measuring that level of resolution. When your chronic says 890 FPS, your bullet may have actually been travelling 885 or 895 just as easily. Does that mean your chrono is “rigged”? No. Now, a chrono certainly CAN be systemically skewed. If you have one that reads 30-40fps higher than 4 others you have access to, it probably is skewed.

But that doesn’t mean that chronos have no value, does it? No. It does mean you have to use your brain, ask whether the results make sense, look for patterns, and try to cross-check with other chronos. Same with polls. If your test/standard is perfection, then they fail. But that’s a silly expectation.

 

[ATLDave]

Attached is a link to a NY Times article following the Newton shooting as well as as article regaridng Jan Schakowsky discussing the banning of guns. They don't often show their hand, but do so enough so that the truth comes out. Maybe I'm just a little more jaded, as I live (for now) in the belly of the beast.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/il...-opportunity-and-seeks-to-ban-handguns-70067/

Again, the comment was about the party platform. You are definitely correct that there are people who want to ban all guns for citizens.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

You are mixing up a direct democracy with a representative democracy. Obviously, a direct democracy is not workable for a country the size of America (or even for a large city). America is still a democracy, although a representative one. I'm arguing against those who are contending that the U.S. is not a democracy. That statement has become a meme of the far right, as a blanket justification for stymieing the will of the majority. In a way it's a forlorn hope, because they know that they are weak. "A Republic, not a democracy." Frankly, it's sickening.

Still simple semantics. The United States HAS democracy, meaning it has democratic elections. It is not A democracy. https://www.reference.com/government-politics/constitutional-republic-fb17d72fb1a1e9f4 You cannot call the USA a democracy, as there are far too many empty-headed gun-haters that will run with that, and say if a simple majority feels all guns should be banned, end of story. However, the simple fact is our Constitution and Bill of Rights stand in the way.

 

[TomJ]

Again, the comment was about the party platform. You are definitely correct that there are people who want to ban all guns for citizens.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Maybe the difference is the distinction between the party platform they put forward and what the current leadership really wants to do. They are two different things. FWIW, for other reasons I'm not real happy with the other guys either, but that discussion would be purely political.

 

[Walkalong]

I don't dispute that. The point I was trying to make is that the progressives/socialists are a minority among the Democrats in the House.

Then will the "centrists" you speak of please start outvoting them?

As far as bringing people up, you should note the "undeserving" speech in My Fair Lady. Taking from one and giving to another doesn't work when it is a lifestyle. It used to be a hand up that everyone could get behind, but it has turned into vote buying and a way of life.

 

[Walkalong]

You are definitely correct that there are people who want to ban all guns for citizens.

And the vast majority are in the Democratic party. Oust them please.

All the "Obama won't try to take your guns" folks have been very silent for some time now. He and the Democrats failed thankfully, but today's leadership in the Democratic party would take them all tomorrow if they had the votes.

The "all the people I know hate Trump" and the "all the people I know love Trump" folks need to get out more.

The Democrats failure at leading the country and pushing agendas not popular to the average American swept Trump into power. Is he doing the same now? We'll see, but the left is always trumpeting that call regardless of who it is at the time.

Trump hasn't tried, and isn't going to try, to push through gun legislation, so all the leftist who say he is no friend of the gun owner need to look themselves and their leadership in the eyes.

I get so tired of when pro gun people talk about anti Democrats all the faithful can do is say "your guy hates guns too, he just hasn't come out of the closet about it yet". Rubbish. We all know who the antis are and who the pro gun folks are, just look at their voting records.

 

[Sistema1927]

I don't dispute that. The point I was trying to make is that the progressives/socialists are a minority among the Democrats in the House.

I never thought that I would live long enough to see 9 avowed Socialists in the House of Representatives, let alone 96. They are the "Enemy, Domestic" that I swore an oath to protect this nation from.

 

[Tommygunn]

It needs to be pointed out that the Venezuelan government is not disarming everybody. It is arming its supporters while disarming its enemies. The lesson to be learned here is about the evils of class warfare more than about the evils of gun control. What might happen in the U.S., if the current polarization continues and worsens, is that the conservatives might try to disarm the liberals, and the liberals might try to disarm the conservatives. That's what happens when you demonize your opponents. If the conservatives take control, it's going to be the liberals who would be screaming about their RKBA under the 2nd Amendment. (We have a historical precedent for this -- post-Civil War, gun control in the South was meant to disarm the freed blacks.)

If either side tries to disarm the other in the light of increasing polarization, BOTH sides will be in need of relearning the old axiom, "hypocrisy is the tribute virtues pays to vice."
Personally I believe the current trend will continue; the left will continue pushing it's antigun agenda, and possibly succeed if leftists take congress .... or in 2021 should a Democrat win the Whitehouse.

 

[Tommygunn]

Actually, the socialists have not taken control of the Democratic party. In the new House that convenes in January, among the Democrats, the Progressive Caucus will have 96 members while the Blue Dog caucus has 24 and the New Democrats (centrists) have 89. So the conservative and centrist Democrats together will outnumber the progressives. The left wing of the party will have a really hard time getting Medicare for All, for example, through the House. To say nothing about draconian gun control.

You're right --- for now. The socialists might possibly become ascendant in the future should current trends continue .... and my crystal ball is not that good.

 

[Tommygunn]

Trump, because of his misgovernance, is causing a reaction that will sweep the Democrats into power in 2020. And he's really no friend of gun owners.

"Misgovernance?" Hardly. The economic boon since his election is testament to his good governance. If he would just STOP TWEETING......

The degree of anti Trump sentiment in the press and in politics is legion. Plus, it is true he is not the "pinata president" like Dubya and some prior presidents --- he hits back.
I think if the economy continues doing well, it's possible republicans will do OK in 2020. Plus, if Schumer and Pelosi go into kook-ville, that will help the repubs.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Can't believe this thread made it past page 2.

For a forum that doesn't do politics there sure are a lot of politics going on in this thread.

 

[lionking]

, but today's leadership in the Democratic party would take them all tomorrow if they had the votes.

.

That is true. There is only one Democratic party candidate during the primaries who openly said " the 2nd amendment is a individual right" and that was Jim Webb. He was met by scowls and cynical sounds by the crowd and other candidates.

I know there are Dems that support gun ownership, they may even be liberal. But the Democratic party in this day and age has made it clear there is no place for a person in position of power within the party unless they tow the ban and heavily regulate guns platform.

 

[The Liberal]

It needs to be pointed out that the Venezuelan government is not disarming everybody. It is arming its supporters while disarming its enemies. The lesson to be learned here is about the evils of class warfare more than about the evils of gun control. What might happen in the U.S., if the current polarization continues and worsens, is that the conservatives might try to disarm the liberals, and the liberals might try to disarm the conservatives. That's what happens when you demonize your opponents. If the conservatives take control, it's going to be the liberals who would be screaming about their RKBA under the 2nd Amendment. (We have a historical precedent for this -- post-Civil War, gun control in the South was meant to disarm the freed blacks.)

Hell, we’re already seeing this in the south, where the Republicans are trying to make things like getting an ID harder in predominantly-black counties. No ID means that legally buying a gun is harder, and I reckon that not a lot of tears are shed over it.

Plus the deafening silence we hear from conservatives when an armed legally-carrying black man is shot dead by police...

 

[AlexanderA]

However, the simple fact is our Constitution and Bill of Rights stand in the way.

Despite all the checks and balances, the Constitution is still basically a democratic document. Look at it from the worldwide perspective of 1787. The system that was set up was undoubtedly the most liberal and democratic in the world, at that time. Almost all other countries were monarchies. Some few, like Britain, had parliaments, but those were restricted to the powerful and wealthy. Only in America was there a reasonably open system.

 

[The Liberal]

That is true. There is only one Democratic party candidate during the primaries who openly said " the 2nd amendment is a individual right" and that was Jim Webb. He was met by scowls and cynical sounds by the crowd and other candidates.

I know there are Dems that support gun ownership, they may even be liberal. But the Democratic party in this day and age has made it clear there is no place for a person in position of power within the party unless they tow the ban and heavily regulate guns platform.

With respect, this is a discussion that needs to happen, and the politics definitely directly affect the RKBA/2A, gun culture, gun economics and ownership.

Gun ownership is an individual right and a cornerstone of a free nation. A firearm confers it’s bearer a weapon capable of delivering a projectile with a considerable, lethal amount of energy with minimal effort, low risk and little training needed. It is a freedom that directly affects life, in a far more violent and abrupt manner than any other. It is a not a crass or offensive word, an overreaching law or even a criminal matter. A firearm can kill. It’s a hefty responsibility, and honestly, a lot of what I see in gun culture makes me very skeptical that most of us should be trusted with that responsibility absent a greater degree of accountability.

I’m a Pelosi-voting, hardcore liberal. Beto, Kamala, Gavin, etc. Why? Because outside of the gun issue, they are the closest to my opinions and there’s a lot more to life than firearms. I firmly believe that we need real, American solutions to global problems (global climate change, pollution, ecological changes, water/food, economics) and national problems (healthcare, debt, student finances, etc), and we need them soon. The Democrats are the only ones willing to even attempt to have those conversations- the GOP actively avoids even researching or discussing those issues. Are the Dems what I want to see on guns? Not quite, but you have to remember that the gun communities public face has come out and is stereotypically associated with the GOP and Trumpian populists. Why help those folks when you can get a lot more votes by voting for stricter gun control? Like AlexanderA says, the active gun community will pay a hefty price for supporting the Republicans recently when the Democrats come back into power. If Ds can win big on a federal and big-state level without the gun community, it’s going to be bad for the 2A.

If the gun community wants actual bipartisan support and active engagement, we need to reach out to liberals and independents and stop using gun rights as our sole litmus test. The NRA and other advocacy bodies need to vet the whole candidate, not just their position on guns. Voting for and financing candidates that promise to offer vague increases in gun freedom but that still refuse to advocate clean energy or workable healthcare is not a win for the RKBA, it’s simply showing America that we prioritize hardware over real problems. And when those problems are finally addressed, I reckon we’d like to have some of those problem-solvers friendly with guns, not ignorant of them or viewing them as something to take away.

 

[Zerodefect]

Hell, we’re already seeing this in the south, where the Republicans are trying to make things like getting an ID harder in predominantly-black counties. No ID means that legally buying a gun is harder, and I reckon that not a lot of tears are shed over it.

Plus the deafening silence we hear from conservatives when an armed legally-carrying black man is shot dead by police...

What's the moral of the story '''The Boy that Cried Wolf.''?

I'm tired of libs crying like babies all the time. When it happens for real, I'm desensitized and could careless.

Pelosi is pure evil. Good luck with that.

 

[AlexanderA]

I never thought that I would live long enough to see 9 avowed Socialists in the House of Representatives, let alone 96. They are the "Enemy, Domestic" that I swore an oath to protect this nation from.

To put some perspective on "domestic enemies," let me once again refer to the Greek experience for comparison. During and after the Greek Civil War (1946-1949), the Communist Party (KKE) was strictly outlawed. The members were exiled or imprisoned, and people in general had to get non-communist "certificates of social views" in order to be admitted to higher education and to hold most jobs. In other words, it was hell to be a communist in Greece. Nevertheless they continued to organize, underground. Anyway, after the fall of the military Junta in1974, a decision was made to legalize the Communist Party. So what was the outcome? They consistently get between 5% and 8% of the vote in the parliamentary elections, which entitles them to about a dozen members (out of 300). They sit in one corner, they make speeches, and they don't cooperate with any other party. They're a complete non-factor politically, but they allow a certain segment of society to blow off steam. (Incidentally, the Nazis (Golden Dawn) get about the same percentage of the vote, and they are equally a non-factor.)

This is exactly what would happen to socialists in America if such a big deal wasn't made about them.

 

[entropy]

A firearm can kill. It’s a hefty responsibility, and honestly, a lot of what I see in gun culture makes me very skeptical that most of us should be trusted with that responsibility absent a greater degree of accountability.

You and Hillary have something in common then. Hillary and many like her believe that because they can't control their emotions, the rest of us can't either. (BTW, her generation and their 'Do what thou will' mantra are what made that a lot worse; they fostered the relinquishment of personal responsibility and accountability.)
I too, like a lot of what the Dems champion, though not all of it. But as long as they push the gun issue, and no other viable parties field candidates, I have no choice but to vote for Republicans I don't like, because although they champion a lot of things I don't like, they are the only ones who aren't overtly out to disarm the American citizen. I have voted for Democrats locally; our local WI Rep. is a Democrat, and a hunter, gun owner and farmer, as well as the county Medical Examiner. I know her personally, and she is definitely not anti-gun. If the whole party, or even a good percentage of it, were like her, I'd never vote Republican.

 

[Browning]

Hell, we’re already seeing this in the south, where the Republicans are trying to make things like getting an ID harder in predominantly-black counties. No ID means that legally buying a gun is harder, and I reckon that not a lot of tears are shed over it.

Are you serious?

Do you really expect thinking people to believe that black people are any less capable of getting an ID?

This isn't the comments section of Slate.

Plus the deafening silence we hear from conservatives when an armed legally-carrying black man is shot dead by police...

You mean the black guy with the CHL who decided to draw his gun and run through a store immediately following a shooting and was shot in a blue-on-green incident of mistaken identity after he failed to follow their commands? That one?

Sounded like he messed up, no sure how it was the police officers fault.

 

[Old Dog]

f the gun community wants actual bipartisan support and active engagement, we need to reach out to liberals and independents and stop using gun rights as our sole litmus test. The NRA and other advocacy bodies need to vet the whole candidate, not just their position on guns. Voting for and financing candidates that promise to offer vague increases in gun freedom but that still refuse to advocate clean energy or workable healthcare is not a win for the RKBA, it’s simply showing America that we prioritize hardware over real problems. And when those problems are finally addressed, I reckon we’d like to have some of those problem-solvers friendly with guns, not ignorant of them or viewing them as something to take away.

Curious as to your age group [never mind -- I see you're only 29 from your profile], level of education and where you live. "Reaching out" to liberals -- what does that look like to you? Sorry, we've tried that for years, only to see steady increases in anti-gun legislation. Yes, using gun rights as a sole litmus test is purely a defensive posture, but being as the liberals/Democrats have consistently demonstrated their unwillingness to compromise on any gun issues and gun-related legislation, unfortunately, it's all we've got left. You seem to believe that the current state of gridlock in our legislative bodies exists because of the conservatives (read: Republicans), and you admit to being a Pelosi supporter, but you haven't been around for long enough to witness the absolute smugness and supercilious attitudes of the liberal Democrats lo these past many years when it comes to any attempts from the Republican side to brook common ground and achieve even a moderate level of consensus/compromise.

Member Browning covered my disagreement with your other comments ...

 

[paulsj]

With respect, this is a discussion that needs to happen, and the politics definitely directly affect the RKBA/2A, gun culture, gun economics and ownership.

Gun ownership is an individual right and a cornerstone of a free nation. A firearm confers it’s bearer a weapon capable of delivering a projectile with a considerable, lethal amount of energy with minimal effort, low risk and little training needed. It is a freedom that directly affects life, in a far more violent and abrupt manner than any other. It is a not a crass or offensive word, an overreaching law or even a criminal matter. A firearm can kill. It’s a hefty responsibility, and honestly, a lot of what I see in gun culture makes me very skeptical that most of us should be trusted with that responsibility absent a greater degree of accountability.

I’m a Pelosi-voting, hardcore liberal. Beto, Kamala, Gavin, etc. Why? Because outside of the gun issue, they are the closest to my opinions and there’s a lot more to life than firearms. I firmly believe that we need real, American solutions to global problems (global climate change, pollution, ecological changes, water/food, economics) and national problems (healthcare, debt, student finances, etc), and we need them soon. The Democrats are the only ones willing to even attempt to have those conversations- the GOP actively avoids even researching or discussing those issues. Are the Dems what I want to see on guns? Not quite, but you have to remember that the gun communities public face has come out and is stereotypically associated with the GOP and Trumpian populists. Why help those folks when you can get a lot more votes by voting for stricter gun control? Like AlexanderA says, the active gun community will pay a hefty price for supporting the Republicans recently when the Democrats come back into power. If Ds can win big on a federal and big-state level without the gun community, it’s going to be bad for the 2A.

If the gun community wants actual bipartisan support and active engagement, we need to reach out to liberals and independents and stop using gun rights as our sole litmus test. The NRA and other advocacy bodies need to vet the whole candidate, not just their position on guns. Voting for and financing candidates that promise to offer vague increases in gun freedom but that still refuse to advocate clean energy or workable healthcare is not a win for the RKBA, it’s simply showing America that we prioritize hardware over real problems. And when those problems are finally addressed, I reckon we’d like to have some of those problem-solvers friendly with guns, not ignorant of them or viewing them as something to take away.

Sadly vote for a Democrat is a vote against gun ownership. They get away with it because they know those supporting fair wage for working class, environmental issues, consumer rights and healthcare reform will never vote Republican.

 

[JohnKSa]

The NRA and other advocacy bodies need to vet the whole candidate, not just their position on guns.

Absolutely ridiculous. This makes as much sense as having an actor, entertainer, or professional athlete provide political commentary on the basis of their proficiency and knowledge in areas which have nothing to do with being politically informed.

The NRA and other gun rights advocacy groups have no business getting involved in evaluating candidates on non-gun rights issues. They do evaluate and should continue to evaluate candidates based on ONE issue. That's what their membership pays them to do and what it expects from them. People who want to know about other aspects of candidates' platforms should research those based on information from the candidates or based on information from advocacy groups which are concerned with those specific issues.

A firearm confers it’s bearer a weapon capable of delivering a projectile with a considerable, lethal amount of energy with minimal effort, low risk and little training needed. It is a freedom that directly affects life, in a far more violent and abrupt manner than any other.

No, it is not. It is a freedom which affects lives in a manner which tends to generate more emotion than others. Vehicles are just as lethal, or perhaps even more lethal, with similarly small amounts of training (or at least training that virtually every person past their mid-teens has) and there are certainly historical incidents to show that this is true.

 

[paulsj]

Its up to individual voter to vet the whole candidate and vote for those that have their best interests in mind.

 

[hq]

A firearm can kill. It’s a hefty responsibility, and honestly, a lot of what I see in gun culture makes me very skeptical that most of us should be trusted with that responsibility absent a greater degree of accountability.

Oh please. Don't even start. No inanimate object has the capability to kill. People do, and it's up to their actions and choices, each and every time. I can kill. With somewhat high efficiency. My government gave me no choice but to spend initially about a year learning how to kill other human beings, with firearms, explosives, edged weapons and my bare hands. Mandatory rehearsals have been regular after that. In addition to that I have close to 40 years of background in martial arts, majority of which in military Krav Maga and Systema; no artificially noble, sporting pyjama ballet but practise sessions including anything from firearm analogs and blunt weapons to actual sharp knives.

None of these objects will actually kill. No gun, knife or baton. Or my hands for that matter. Because I choose not to.

Inanimate objects are always neutral and equal. People, their choices and actions are not. The definition of tyranny is what's permitted to the government but not to individual citizens. Freedom is the possibility to make one's own mistakes and having to bear their consequences as a result. Taking preventative action against the individuals who already have exhibited a high likelihood of violence - by their previous actions ie. crime - seems to be out of the question for those who see the entire population as a homogenous, faceless mass that needs a politically enlightened leader to nanny everyone.

Can you elaborate what do you mean by "a lot of what [you] see in gun culture" and how it manifests itself as something that would justify a government intervention of any kind? Something you simply don't subjectively like on a personal level and project that as "bad", I assume? Strawman?

You also brought other issues like healthcare and cost of (ie. having other people pay for yours) education to the table. I've personally been way too close to ending up as a part of mortality statistics of public health care three times to hold it in idealistically high regard some left-leaning "intellectuals" frequently do. While paying annually well over half of my earnings in taxes, mainly to finance it, along with all the "free" subsidies approximately a third of the adult population quite literally lives on. Still the ones who do crave for more, all the time, at taxpayers' expense, without bothering to do a thing themselves. They're also grateful to politicians who just tax and distribute wealth, while spitting on the faces of actual taxpayers who finance their socialist dystopia and 24/7 free time.

All in all these are stages of totalitarianism. Plain and simple. Government control over rights and freedoms of its citizens. Firearms are just one piece of the puzzle.

 

[Walkalong]

Hell, we’re already seeing this in the south, where the Republicans are trying to make things like getting an ID harder in predominantly-black counties.

Pushing voter ID is not the same thing, it's about not letting illegal immigrants vote, don't twist it into something it isn't. Anyone legally in this country, especially born in this country to American citizens can easily get an ID. The old time Democrats are the ones who tried to keep arms out of black peoples hands.

Voter ID is about not letting illegals etc vote. It has nothing to do with gun control or keeping guns out of the hands of African Americans. That is a ridiculous assertion.

People arming them selves against the fear of government taking over their lives is not a reason for the government to come in, kill people, and disarm them. They are not committing any crimes, they are simply disturbed about the direction politicians are taking and are preparing for the worst while hoping it never happens.

Meanwhile those same politicians are ignoring real criminals and trying to pass gun laws that will only affect law abiding citizens and not affect criminals at all.