I've Lost My Passion For The 2A

Status
Not open for further replies.
uh, no.

I am a free, responsible, law-abiding person living in an allegedly free society where the government allegedly governs via my consent...why shouldn't I have the same means to defend myself and my family as I allow the government to have to defend our country?
 
So unpopular opinions constitute trolling?
I'll speak to this as well.

Unpopular opinions do not automatically get categorized as trolling. I've got some opinions, myself, that have proved to be unpopular here, and that's fine.

But opinions which appear to be formed and proffered in a vacuum, completely ignoring that those same theories have been discussed, debated, and logically refuted here at least hundreds of times, do raise the "troll" hackles of many folks.

I understand if you've not read, not followed, and not thought much about these issues in all the threads where we've picked them to the bone, over and over, in the five years you've been a member. Maybe this is really the first time you've struggled with these ideas and you didn't care to do a search and see what the answers to your points are. But most folks see a member with a few hundred posts and almost five years of participation here and assume that you've educated yourself on these matters before you drop a huge wad of chum into the shark tank.

[EDIT: Looking at your posting history, though, it seems that ... at the VERY best ... we might say you've been doing a lot of sayin' but not much hearin'. Maybe that IS a form of trolling.]

If you've just never thought that hard about why gun bans wouldn't do much to stop mass-shootings, the enormous flaws in even trying to implement your 'simple' solution (even if it was a useful one), and why mass shootings are not the wildly common danger the media presents them as, then no you aren't trolling. You just need to clear your head, read the more thoughtful responses here, and think deeply about the 'how' and the 'why' of your worries and proposals.

If you're already well-versed in the issue and you're just tossing out silly and vapid "pinatas" for the group to whale on, then that's as much trolling as posting "1911s are stoopid" or "9mm sucks!"
 
I cannot help but believe that the permissiveness of our current gun laws and the availability of firearms (specifically, assault weapons, and please don't give me the crap about full-auto vs semi, because there is essentially no difference in terms of use) enables mass shooters to an unreasonable extent.
OK - let's start by looking at the scope of the problem. First, let's start by discussing school shootings, since they're the most horrific examples of mass shootings. As of this spring, we had 45 shootings across the last 19 years, with 184 deaths. And while there is no hiding the fact that each one is a terrible thing, it statistically still isn't as much of a public health issue as, say, kids dying from the flu. So, based on actual data, mandating flu shots will probably save more kids than are killed in school shootings. Are you actively championing for flu control?

Moving on to studying mass shootings in general, I'm sure that John Lott's recent work on the subject will be useful:
An FBI report released on September 16th, 2014 makes the assertion that active shooter attacks and deaths have increased dramatically since 2000 – both increasing at an annual rate of about 16 percent. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal stated: “Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI says.” But the FBI made a number of subtle and misleading decisions as well as outright errors. Once these biases and mistakes are fixed, the annual growth rate in homicides is cut in half. When a longer period of time is examined (1977 through the first half of 2014), deaths from Mass Public Shootings show only a slight, statistically insignificant, increase – an annual increase of less than one percent.

Of course, you can always look at the rate of gun deaths in general, using the DoJ's statistics. Let's start with specific Firearm Violence statistics - sure looks like the rate of gun violence in general is NOT increasing, and has largely decreased across your lifetime. If you want more context around the problem, you can look at homicide trends in general in the US. It sure doesn't look like homicide rates are rising, regardless of weapon used, and the gun specific homicide data tracks with that.

So tell me again - what problem is it that you're trying to solve?
 
Last edited:
I suppose I just don't see the need for a gun to be a part of a school packing list or a prerequisite to go out to dinner. And yes- I am more scared of a mass shooting than a random thug mugging me.

I'll guess and say you've never been a victim of crime. I don't mean a stolen car or credit card fraud, I mean robbed or assaulted.

My fear of mass shootings is so far down the list compared to every day crime that I don't even think about myself being in a mass shooting.
 
My family tree has a big hole in it thanks to the Nazi's and their camps.

I'm not saying that being armed would of helped my family back then, but it sure wouldn't of hurt them.

Evil will exist on this planet until the Second Coming. Until then, I will be armed.
 
As for the original post I don't think you ever had any passion for the 2nd Amendment. If you are this willing to forgo a God given and natural freedom for the illusion of security you will forgo anything for percieved peace and safety. I am old and disabled, I can't run and I am not going to be expendable because you want carry restrictions. No thanks I'd rather be pushing up daiseys than live as anyone's slave. And if you look at the statistics gun deaths are down, way down, you are just a customer of the gun hating communist left.

Next question is what happens when you gun buybacks and new laws on the law abiding citizens fail? Are you prepared to go door to door with mid-night raids, if so your death toll on American lives is going to sky rocket. The storm trooper goons you send will take losses and families who just wanted to be left alone will take loses. Is it worth all the blood and death you would institute with these actions to make you feel good about yourself?
 
The left wing politicos with the help of our mis-informed news media keep calling for more gun control laws while loosing track of the fact that EXISTING legislation is truly ignored , especially in our larger cities where violent crime is rampant. Example: Chicago posted 62 homicides in Sept. 2015.
 
So, over the last two years, I have found my faith and belief in the 2A badly shaken by the depressing and continuous string of mass shootings. I've heard the calls for mental health screening (which would disqualify hundreds of thousands of Americans on the basis of medical conditions from 2A rights and would likely be opposed stringently by the gun-rights lobby), and to be honest, I do not believe that any reasonable alternative to gun control exists. Sure, almost all of us are safe, law-abiding citizens, but I cannot help but believe that the permissiveness of our current gun laws and the availability of firearms (specifically, assault weapons, and please don't give me the crap about full-auto vs semi, because there is essentially no difference in terms of use) enables mass shooters to an unreasonable extent.

I really don't think we need semiautomatic weapons, so here's my idea: a voluntary exchange of semiautomatic weapons for a bolt-action or other manual-action longarm or revolver plus the weapon's MSRP in cash, the addition of all semiautos to the NFA list (and the reopening of the registry and an increase in the tax stamp to a more reasonable number like 5k), universally-recognized concealed carry on a shall-issue basis marked via a DL endorsement, mandatory gun-safety training in schools, and a standardized system for removing weapons from people reported to be a danger that would require the state to provide an independent and unbiased psychiatric examination with a fine of $1000 per gun per day that they are confinscated in the event the seizure is unwarranted.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the people to fight the federal government if necessary.

Here are some things that would actually help

1) black on black murders (the majority of gun murders) - fix welfare to allow people to start working without immediately losing benefits. Right now people lose benefits so have a disincentive to start working. Giving people a path to a brighter future is key.

Allow people on welfare to get married without losing benefits - having sons with father figures around will help enormously

Pay for welfare moms/dads to have tubal ligations/vasectomies. 40K if they have 1 kid, 20k if they have 2, 10k 3 5k 4 (or something like that)

Create a system of competition for education with large cash prizes so that kids can compete and win thousands, 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars (national level). Televise the contests and make learning on par with the excitement of sports. Putting large cash prizes will draw 10X the value by getting people to compete. This can turn around the anti education culture in the inner city.

2) suicides - a very large proportion of gun deaths are suicides - personally I think if people are ready to check out they should be able to. Your proposal does nothing to fix suicides.

3) accidents - this is a very small number. Punish gun owners who let kids have access to guns that hurt others. Your proposal does nothing to stop accidents

4) mass murders - miniscule - have state/local governments actually keep nics up to date. Almost not worth responding to except through existing channels. In israel right now they are having a ton of mass stabbings. In sweden they are having mass shootings and bombings. Crazy people will kill no matter what. All you are doing is making us less able to defend ourselves.

The solution has nothing to do with guns and has everything to do with subcultures. Blacks have a murder rate of 51/100K while whites have a murder rate of 2.9/100k. Hispanics have a murder rate of 17/100K.

this is what madison wrote in federalist 46

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
 
Last edited:
If your posts have disappeared consider that they did not address the topic or they did not adhere to the civility rules of the forum.

Let's not dumb down the discussion to yelling troll.


Rocketmedic has fielded a radical and extreme position. It provides an opportunity for us to dissect it and either support or discredit it . Since he has made exceptional claims he is obligated to provide exceptional proof supporting them and we have the opportunity to provide proof of the inaccuracy of those claims. This will benefit every one of our readers because we can cite authoritative sources for the facts in the process.
 
That's okay, we don't need your passion.

2A battles are being won in the courts and the latest polls show strong positive opinions of gun ownership.

We literally do not need your help.
 
I suppose I just don't see the need for a gun to be a part of a school packing list or a prerequisite to go out to dinner. And yes- I am more scared of a mass shooting than a random thug mugging me.

This is because your brain reacts disproportionately to new/rare events. School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Statistically insignificant. There are more child swimming pool deaths than all child gun deaths combined.

You are scared, but that fear is completely irrational it is not based on reality. It might be that you need to see a counselor.

You should be most scared when you drive your car on the highway as that is when you have the highest chance of death. You should also be worrying about the flu since about 700 people age 35-44 die from the flu. Are you wearing a mask? Do you religiously wash your hands? Do you get a flu vaccine?

Something like 300 people die a year from "mass shootings". Probably 10/year from the kind you see in the news.

40 people/year die from bee stings. Better stop people from keeping bees.
 
Last edited:
There is a bit of a fallacy. All murders are dropping, but gun murders are dropping more slowly. Over the past 40 years, gun murders have increased from something like 45% of murders to 70% of murders. So the proliferation of guns probably has slowed the rate of decrease of gun murders compared to other types of murder.



You're a member here so unless you've not read the threads pointing to the published facts from the government about the continuously falling homicide rate in the United States and how the rate here is falling faster than in other countries I am assuming you're reacting the the politicians and popular press depiction of the arguments around "gun control" and jumping to an endpoint conclusion just based on the inflammatory news reporting and political rhetoric. No one, on either side of the argument should base an opinion on firearms on that.
 
I'm not saying that being armed would of helped my family back then, but it sure wouldn't of hurt them.
The ONLY reason to wish that the the Jews, Gypsies and everybody else that was murdered in the Holocaust were NOT armed in their self and mutual defense is a desire to protect NAZIS.
 
Last edited:
The process to amend the Constitution is very clear. If Anti's were confident that they had a majority, and that public opinion were in their favor, they wouldn't mess around with all this piddly incrementalism.

The fact that they do, and the fact that there are quislings acting like King Canute, tells you all you need to know.

Stay vigilant, donate to the NRA-ILA and SAF, lead by example, teach your kids gun safety, take an Anti to the range.
 
He is the "gun owner" they'll interview on TV though.
Back in the '90s, NPR did a week long series on the 2nd Amendment and guns.

Their initial "pro-gun" spokesman was a trap and skeet shooter who said he'd NEVER own a handgun, and who admitted that if people REALLY wanted him to give up his shotguns, he'd be willing.

They're the Judenrat of the "gun owners", willing to kick as many onto the boxcars ahead of them as they can so that they can be last out of the station.
 
RM doesn't get it. The Second Amendment protections are not about Sporting Purposes as he alludes to, they are about personal defense and the defense of the Republic from Tyranny, the exact thing that RM is purposing the government should become.

RM, please look at the actual facts. Facts which many have posted in this thread and you continue to ignore, they do not support your rhetoric in the least.
 
Last edited:
1) The 2A is not a hobby

2) Homicide rates have been dropping for the past 20 years while there are more firearms purchases than at nearly any time in history. It is counterintuitive and contrary to the facts presented by the government criminal justice and health agencies for Antis to claim that we have a public health risk that requires anything exceptional to be done.

3) High homicide rates in specific urban centers like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit are cluster problems and not national problems. Remove those clusters and the statistics for homicides in the United States plumet.

4) Regional data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows NE states like Maine and New Hampshire have lower homicide rates than states like Massachusetts even though they're in the same region and Maine and New Hampshire have liberal gun laws with few restrictions and Mass has restrictive laws for gun owners.

5) Semiautomatic firearms have been common since 1906. The homicide rate peaked in the U.S. in the mid '70s and the early '80s. Homicide rates are down since.

6) Semiauto rifles are a statistically insignificant factor in homicides. Any restriction is not based on risk based decisions.

7) The mass murders you've cited (and those you haven't) make no statistical difference in the homicide rate. The murders are dramatic and tragic and captivating to the news, but they are actually rare. The government studies have identified them as rare events that don't influence the rate of homicides. Why use rare events that don't represent a public health risk for the basis of a broad confiscation scheme imposed on the millions of gun owners?

8) The number and therefore the rate of mass murders has gone up recently, but there's no trend. They're still very rare. The fact that the number of very rare events goes up doesn't stop them from still being very rare even if the rate of those rare incidents is doubled. Statistically, they still don't constitute a risk to the population. Fear of them is like fear of sharks because of reporting on shark attacks even though those are very rare events (more people died due to "selfie" accidents than shark attacks).

9) The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime provides homicide rates for reporting countries. The latest report shows that the US has a greater DROP in homicide rates than Canada and many European countries. While we have a higher overall homicide rate we are dropping faster than countries often pointed to by Antis as "better" than us. This, again, in the face of a clear increase in sales of semiautomatic firearms.

10) There are an estimated 300 million firearms in the U.S. 1/3 of the households have those firearms, i.e. over 100 million. The CDC recently reported that firearms are used defensively anywhere from 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year to protect people. You are 50 to 150 times more likely for a firearms to be used defensively than in a suicide and 100 to 300 times as likely for it to defend a life than be used in a murder. There FBI and CDC data do no support the common anti myths.

11) Highly politicized and emotionalized issues often lead to emotional and political discussions that aren't fact based because of the emotionally targeted propaganda. It is the obligation of anyone that wants a rational discussion in that arena to get the facts and to try to understand them before presenting draconian controls for a problem that may not be significant enough in reality to impose them on the general population. Emotions may motivate, but they aren't a good basis for decision making.

12) The CDC has pointed out that "gun control" measures have not shown a clear benefit. Nothing that is proposed in the original post is workable considering it constitutes confiscation of private property in the face of the Constitutionally guaranteed right. Individuals do not comply with these approaches in the states that have implemented them, States would not comply with a Federal effort to do so, workable percentages of law enforcement and military personnel would not willingly enforce such a prohibition and confiscation. Any proposals that are unworkable are emotional pandering instead of practical risk based mitigation to a recognized threat.

Perhaps a review of these threads that touch on your fears would be helpful settling your mind.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=789590
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=789654
 
Last edited:
Based only on the posts in this thread, rocketmedic is afraid of a mass shooting more than reality. More children die annually from drowning in their family back yard swimming pool, or are killed in traffic accidents in cars piloted by their parents.

What we are reading is someone who's ignoring the facts of where most of the deaths are occurring because they are giving more importance to a much smaller slice of the statistics. One that is politicized and certainly one that has been manipulated on the national level.

Advocating for the same kind of heavy handed mandatory buyback Australia enacted isn't the solution. First, the fear level that supports it isn't being a responsible adult - focusing on the minority of deaths and ignoring the much larger reasons isn't rational thought, it's exactly what rocketmedic says it is: fear. That is an emotional response not grounded in reality or an appreciation of the facts.

He wants to enact a violation of the Constitution to remove guns from the hands of law abiding owners to force the 2% of violent offenders to stop using them. First fatal flaw, rocketmedic, it won't do any good. They ALREADY ignore the existing laws, which is the problem - taking away guns from their victims won't stop them, it only ENCOURAGES them.

Had some thought been taken to how the confiscation actually works out, some research into the crime rate of Great Britain and Australia after the laws went into affect would result is seeing criminals running rampant with a defenseless public. The facts are that passing confiscation won't stop school shootings - it will INCREASE shootings overall as criminals realize they have an even bigger base of victims to exploit.

To think otherwise if the face of the evidence isn't rational thought.

Secondly, lets be very clear: Any act of wholesale confiscation will be met with armed resistance. What Ms. Clinton proposes as an example of gun confiscation can't and won't happen. Once again, the evidence is very clear if you bother to look at the facts - the CA AWB, NY Safe Act, and others has a very low rate of compliance. The laws state that semi auto weapons of a military nature be registered to the local authorities, and the result is that the laws are a laughingstock of non- enforcement. Most NY Sherriffs are on record in print and public utterance they refuse to support or force anyone to comply with the SAFE act. It's simply wording on the books - a joke law. It's estimated less than 25% of the citizens are complying, and the general consensus is that the majority aren't because they see the law unconstitutional. It has the same perception as enacting a law of slavery, or forcing us to house the military in our homes. It's not going to happen.

By that meaning when a state or local government starts to searching homes house to house confiscating weapons, there will be resistance, and it won't be cardboard signs or people following the teams along with the press to video it. The public recorders and media won't even be in sight to avoid gunfire.

Confiscation will start a shooting war - and kids will still be drowning in their backyard pools, getting killed in car wrecks, or gunned down on the street walking to school by a drive by gangbanger who will hide their guns and never give them up anyway.

It's a fool's notion - which is exactly the point. It will never be tolerated in America and will divide our country just the same as it did when the British locked up weapons in Boston hundreds of years ago.

Ponder on the facts longer and realize that allowing fear to cloud thinking is exactly how these "plans" get passed around. Only the fearmongers support them, and they clearly have no support for individual rights. They completely fail to consider the long term consequences, which are evident where it's attempted, nor do they reflect on history, which is a compendium of examples of why it does not work.

Don't plan on standing idly by while your paid enforcement officers search your neighbor's home for firearms - because even among the rank and file, it's not supported. Very few will muster to carry out confiscation knowing they will face armed owners willing to shoot it out.

But, that's ok by you? It's not by me - which is exactly why it's approached so seriously among gun owners. We don't like to see insurrection and the overthrow of our government proposed by fearmongers who can't prioritize the real causes of violent death in our times. Making a few "feel good" at the expense of creating less law and order isn't a good idea at all. Nobody wants it.
 
The trend line for homicides in Australia has remained on a fairly constant downtrend for years before and after the semi auto ban. The Australian institute of criminology found the seizures had no effect.
Although mass shootings with firearms (other than by incompetent cops shooting hostages) have not occurred, a can of petrol, a lighter and a few door wedges have made effective substitutes.
In reality mass casualty events of any form are a statistical blip. 3.75 million Americans will die every year. Even event's such as 9/11 don't move the graph. They simply provide propaganda for those who have an agenda for destroying liberty.
 
I just don't see why your hobbies are more important than the lives of Americans.

Fred Fuller, there really aren't any alternatives. "Mental health" is so vague a subject and diagnosis as to be useless from a gatekeeping point of view, and I don't think that it is reasonable to expect Americans as a whole to continue to tolerate the easy availability of gun owners to amass arsenals capable of depopulating schools when misused- and we all kbow that spree killers don't give a care for the consequences.
First of all the vast majority of people with "mental health issues" are not violent and are much more likely to be a victim. Second, the determination of mental health is so subjective that just about anyone could be so labeled. For example, some doctors claim that anyone who wants to own a gun has mental health issues so should be denied.
The current law that requires a "court of record" to have a finding to remove civil rights is probably about as good as can be expected. However, it is still the case that people that have money are above the law and the people that do not have money become "victims" of the law.
 
We're not all Cruz-loving conservatives.

I hope others will remember this thread next time the topic of appeasement and bringing others under the 2A big tent comes up.
I feel the OP is the poster child for the alternate political gun owner and you can see where his loyalties lay.
 
Based only on the posts in this thread, rocketmedic is afraid of a mass shooting more than reality. More children die annually from drowning in their family back yard swimming pool, or are killed in traffic accidents in cars piloted by their parents.

What we are reading is someone who's ignoring the facts of where most of the deaths are occurring because they are giving more importance to a much smaller slice of the statistics. One that is politicized and certainly one that has been manipulated on the national level.

Advocating for the same kind of heavy handed mandatory buyback Australia enacted isn't the solution. First, the fear level that supports it isn't being a responsible adult - focusing on the minority of deaths and ignoring the much larger reasons isn't rational thought, it's exactly what rocketmedic says it is: fear. That is an emotional response not grounded in reality or an appreciation of the facts.

He wants to enact a violation of the Constitution to remove guns from the hands of law abiding owners to force the 2% of violent offenders to stop using them. First fatal flaw, rocketmedic, it won't do any good. They ALREADY ignore the existing laws, which is the problem - taking away guns from their victims won't stop them, it only ENCOURAGES them.

Had some thought been taken to how the confiscation actually works out, some research into the crime rate of Great Britain and Australia after the laws went into affect would result is seeing criminals running rampant with a defenseless public. The facts are that passing confiscation won't stop school shootings - it will INCREASE shootings overall as criminals realize they have an even bigger base of victims to exploit.

To think otherwise if the face of the evidence isn't rational thought.

Secondly, lets be very clear: Any act of wholesale confiscation will be met with armed resistance. What Ms. Clinton proposes as an example of gun confiscation can't and won't happen. Once again, the evidence is very clear if you bother to look at the facts - the CA AWB, NY Safe Act, and others has a very low rate of compliance. The laws state that semi auto weapons of a military nature be registered to the local authorities, and the result is that the laws are a laughingstock of non- enforcement. Most NY Sherriffs are on record in print and public utterance they refuse to support or force anyone to comply with the SAFE act. It's simply wording on the books - a joke law. It's estimated less than 25% of the citizens are complying, and the general consensus is that the majority aren't because they see the law unconstitutional. It has the same perception as enacting a law of slavery, or forcing us to house the military in our homes. It's not going to happen.

By that meaning when a state or local government starts to searching homes house to house confiscating weapons, there will be resistance, and it won't be cardboard signs or people following the teams along with the press to video it. The public recorders and media won't even be in sight to avoid gunfire.

Confiscation will start a shooting war - and kids will still be drowning in their backyard pools, getting killed in car wrecks, or gunned down on the street walking to school by a drive by gangbanger who will hide their guns and never give them up anyway.

It's a fool's notion - which is exactly the point. It will never be tolerated in America and will divide our country just the same as it did when the British locked up weapons in Boston hundreds of years ago.

Ponder on the facts longer and realize that allowing fear to cloud thinking is exactly how these "plans" get passed around. Only the fearmongers support them, and they clearly have no support for individual rights. They completely fail to consider the long term consequences, which are evident where it's attempted, nor do they reflect on history, which is a compendium of examples of why it does not work.

Don't plan on standing idly by while your paid enforcement officers search your neighbor's home for firearms - because even among the rank and file, it's not supported. Very few will muster to carry out confiscation knowing they will face armed owners willing to shoot it out.

But, that's ok by you? It's not by me - which is exactly why it's approached so seriously among gun owners. We don't like to see insurrection and the overthrow of our government proposed by fearmongers who can't prioritize the real causes of violent death in our times. Making a few "feel good" at the expense of creating less law and order isn't a good idea at all. Nobody wants it.
I agree that such drastic actions are not viable today, but after another progressive liberal in the White House, maybe.
Who would have thought that the NY SAFE act or WA UBC law could exist in the US a few years ago?
 
Coincidence?

ROCKETMEDIC, it appears your proposal is aimed at decreasing mass shootings in this country. I am surprised that no one brought it up(and if they did I missed it), but...


Do you think it is a coincidence that almost all of the mass shootings in the last 50 or 60 years have occurred in a "gun-free" Zone?


By almost all I mean over 95%. I can only think of one that was not and it was outside in a grocery store parking lot.


That tells me that these murderers have enough forethought to attack innocent non-defended vicitms. For the most part when they are confronted by an armed person (either a civilian or police) they almost always commit suicide. The obvious answer to me is to quit pretending there are "gun-free" zones and allow any licensed adults to defend themselves everywhere...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top