Quantcast

Just sharing my "tack" when debating people who want semi-auto rifles banned citing mass events

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Intox, Dec 22, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    So I'm sure we all do it every time some mental midget has one too many screws work loose, and goes on some form of rampage with a rifle. They cite these events and use "tug at your heart strings" based arguments. We've all heard them, "But if it only saved a few people...wouldn't that be worth it?" and ect.

    I've come to see these people differently, and have changed the way I talk to them. And believe it or not, I've actually had far more success than deadlock with this approach. I am bored waiting on my wife to get home from work, and thought I'd share it with you all. Feel free to ignore it, or use it.


    Firstly, I've learned to completely stay away from insulting them. The sad truth is, they..like many people on both sides of the political spectrum...have been conditioned to view the world and it's issues through the lens of a 30 second sound byte some politician they like said. So I approach them just like that....a fellow American who sincerely wants to find ways to protect other Americans from incidents like we see in these mass attack events.

    Granted, I know that not all of them are truly like this and VERY much have ulterior motives and are simply using the event as a springboard for their political gain. But by and large, most of them are simply uneducated people that honestly believe people can walk into a gun store without any ID or check and walk out with an M4 select fire rifle.

    Now I'm sure you've all done the "no one is buying military weapons" and explained the environment of real life gun owners and how gun laws apply. And I'm sure you're all met with the same response in that it is irrelevant and the weapons legally available still allow for too much possible harm for one person. But this is where I shift gears.

    Let me explain.

    This is where I acknowledge them. "You are right. If we could somehow magically ban the sale and possession of all firearms across America tomorrow, gun crime would fall to minute levels". But then I make sure they understand the people committing these mass events. They are not crimes of passion done in the heat of the moment. These are calculated and well planned events, where the shooters take weeks if not months preparing for.

    The reason they use firearms is because it's the least technical form of application. It's also why their kill counts aren't significantly higher, as more times than not these people have no formal training (take the Vegas shooter for example. I trained on the A2 in the Army, and even as support and not combat arms...with what I was taught in BRM? Given his elevated position, the cluster of his targets, and the length of time he had to fire....I can promise you I'd have killed WAY more than 58 people. I know he wounded close to 500, but that was incidental harm from his "spray and pray". Anyone with basic rifle training on the A2 or M4 given several minutes would have killed triple what he did). I point that out, and ask them if their main concern are these mass attacks, how will banning all semi-auto rifles stop them?

    This is when I explain what happens when you take away one avenue of execution from an individual who is motivated enough to plan his attack out meticulously, and emphasize that part of this well laid out plan more times than not includes the understanding that they will not survive. I am pointing out that they aren't going to prevent the attack because they are focused on the symptom instead of root cause. Root cause is what is causing these people to have the mental break they suffer and leads them to committing these mass attacks.

    I drive that point home by reminding them how easy one can make explosives and even chemical agents. I use an anecdote that I could walk into a Wal-Mart and buy everything I needed to make a crude form of nerve gas as well as the delivery system. I then remind them I wasn't combat arms in the Army nor am I an organic chemist. Sometimes I even poke fun at myself for being southern "If my redneck ass can do that, imagine what someone who actually dedicated themselves to the subject could do. More so with the internet and the many, many ways to hide your internet activity. I'll ask them to imagine the Las Vegas incident where instead of using rifles, he'd loaded up a minivan with homemade explosives and drove right up to those concert gates.

    Once I get them to understand that what they're wanting in no way will stop these attacks, and in fact could have the unintended consequence of escalating the casualties I bring it home.

    I tell them they'd be hard pressed to find any firearm owner who doesn't want to see these attacks stopped just as much as they do if not more. I tell them "if not more" because it allows me to explain to them just as they are trying to understand the why as well as having basic human empathy for those victims, firearm owners get the added delight of being told how we condone it...support it....don't care if someone is out shooting children, ect.

    If you get them to this point, you've now humanized yourself and other firearms owners to them. And believe it or not, that is important because the anti-gun lobby has worked hard to dehumanize firearm owners. And once you've gotten them to understand that you, like them, want this to stop. But you don't want knee jerk reactions trying to fix it....more so when those knee jerk reactions involve limiting or removing civil liberties from Americans. (NEVER say gun rights. ALWAYS say civil liberties) Find anything that is considered a liberal view that you don't like...I use a few, one is our right to due process..."I think an American who commits domestic terrorism is absolute scum, but I don't support people who say screw his rights or what him to get 'enhanced interrogation'. Because they're an American and have innate civil liberties that can't be taken away from them. And the worst thing we as a people can do is allow the precedent be codified that our government can pick and choose who gets what rights. Because those aren't rights, they're privileges. And once it's done with one, all accepted civil rights are open to the same". I use that last group of text, "all accepted civil rights are open to the same" with "all accepted" as I lean towards the understanding that being as the framers based their political views on Natural Law, that means the Bill of Rights isn't an all inclusive list of our rights. They are merely ones the framers wanted to be 100% sure there was no ambiguity about. Both to the people as well as the Federal government.

    And this is when I get them to understand my position. I'm not some "pro-gun loony" crying about keeping a firearm. I'm a staunch pro civil liberties American who is trying to explain to them freedom can be ugly at times. And freedom's biggest enemy are knee jerk reactions done in the heat of the moment. I like to use the Patriot Act as an example, because when it was first passed in the shadow of 9/11 Americans broadly supported it. Anything to help catch the SOBs responsible. Of course, once the shock of the attacks wore off and people started to really look into what all the Patriot Act allowed....there was almost a national buck of the system in unison.

    As a personal aside, I always tell them something I don't understand is the fact that almost every single one (the Vegas shooter was the one exception) of the people who commit these attacks are either prescribed or recently were prescribed SSRI drugs. I also tell them that while I fully understand SSRI drugs help millions of Americans every day, that there is a very small percentage of people who take them who experience violent side effects. These people usually either wind up committing suicide, but an even smaller amount commit murder then suicide. I also explain that I'm not suggesting that SSRI drugs are the obvious root cause, but I use it as an example to drive home that I too want these attacks stopped and am actively looking for causes to the problem so we can stop them from happening. Because banning firearms will simply change the way the attacks are carried out, and the only cost we'll have suffered once it's realized they are still happening will be the removal of part of our civil liberties as Americans.

    It takes patience and can be frustrating (REAL frustrating, because I know some like to name call and insinuate things that were we face to face I would feed their teeth to them for), but I honestly have...not so much as "converted", but at least opened their minds as to how we should be addressing the attacks. Now, it won't make everyone you talk to suddenly decide they don't want gun control, but at least in my experience it does make them concede that gun control will have no impact on preventing mass attacks. Of course, I consider that a win because you're getting them to separate their political goal from the 'tug at your heart strings" approach equating your firearm to murdered people on the other side of the nation.

    Like I said...it's what I do when I get into these debates with people now. I do tell them I don't fault them or think they are stupid, because I'm not going to fault a fellow American for feeling empathy for murdered Americans. Nor am I going to call them stupid for trying to find ways to prevent those things from happening. It really disarms them when you start this way, and will open them to actual dialogue.

    Anyone else have any good narratives or talking points they've found to be useful when trying to explain to people promoting gun control that they are opening the door for all our civil liberties to be attacked?
     
    Growlers, David G., George P and 6 others like this.
  2. Danoobie

    Danoobie Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2017
    Messages:
    692
    I've gotten to the point I feel I am just shouting at the rain, when I talk to some PC butthead who
    swallows the MSM feed porridge, spoon and bowl.

    Try this- take a noob shooting. Use the 22LR rifles, maybe a soft shooting pistol or two. Have a good time,
    teach them safety and the basics. You will have a new shooter for life. Be sure they join the NRA.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  3. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    lol

    I'm hip. And Shooting is something we invite anyone who is interested or we want to for a specific reason as you're saying, providing they're close enough.

    Personally though...I prefer Gun Owners of America. The NRA has been to quick to compromise with or flat out agree to legislation regarding gun control initiatives citing it's to avoid larger political fall out on another issue. Hell, almost every single major gun law in America the NRA either helped write or supported pretty much every single federal gun law we have. I could somewhat write that off as something in the past, but then the whole bump stock thing came up. The fact they were talking about how they supported either heavily regulating bump fire stocks or even outright banning them while saying in the next breath that Obama's administration were the ones who approved them in the first place was the final straw. Advocating for regulation and bans as a tool for political favor (The NRA is good! We want these things banned. It was the evil Obama who signed off on these instruments of death!), and risking opening the door to more regulation using that possible ban as a precedent only to help their public image should have made everyone's stomach roll.
     
    Polar Express, JTHunter and DoubleMag like this.
  4. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    That's actually a good point I never considered.

    Full disclosure, I like using the whole point of civil liberties because I'll link them to some history regarding my family. I am a direct descendant of William Blount (one of the signers of the US Constitution), as well as Cpt. James Blount who came to America in the 1640s. While "cool" family trivia, I'll admit I use my own form of "tug at heart strings" argument using my family tree for the ammo (My family literally helped settle this nation with sweat and blood, and made it attractive for your ancestors to want to immigrate a few centuries later...lol)

    Definitely a side note, but while I despise the welfare state (which is root cause to our illegal immigration problem) as well as illegal immigration...I'm not a big fan of a physical wall. It's not that I'm opposed to securing our borders. It's more of a concern how that same wall could be used to keep people in later with a different administration running government.

    I can be a bit overly worrisome I'll admit, but just the chance of it being used for the opposite makes my blood run cold
     
  5. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    56,233
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Good approach. Lead them to seeing us as people and not the caricatures we're depicted. Point out that the worst mass murder at a school was the Bath School Massacre (MI) using explosives, not firearms. Add the Oklahoma City bombing (if they mention ammonium nitrate regulations point out they're to help catch the perpetrator after the explosion). Add the government's estimates on defensive gun use range from 50,000 to 80,000 times a year while other studies range as high as 4,700,000 times a year. Somewhere between the low of 50,000 and high of almost 100 times that are the number of times a year firearms are used to stop a crime. Point out that roughly 30,000 times people died where firearms were used includes gang on gang, police use and suicides taking the murder numbers to less than half that for criminal on innocent. Even at the low end of defensive gun use there are many more times people are defended using firearms.
     
    Polar Express and Ramone like this.
  6. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    Sistema1927 likes this.
  7. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    Exactly. I only kept the bolded in the above quote because in all honesty (at least in my experience) the hardest row to hoe isn't data or facts with them, it's what you just said.....making sure that right off the bat they understand that just as they are...we are also concerned, sympathetic, patriotic Americans. And just as they do, we very much want as well to find a way to stop these events from happening. Well, at least stop them as best can be expected. Trying to prevent people from having a mental breakdown is something akin to trying to herd cats.

    I know at least for me there was no amount of facts and supporting data I could provide because to them everything I was putting forth was tainted by virtue of their misconceptions towards me and their understanding of who I must be. And sadly, it's not made easy because we have just as many name callers and dismissive attitudes towards their concerns on our side as they do on their's. I always try to remind my fellow pro civil liberties (I don't say pro gun, because we all should be pro civil liberties. The Bill of Rights has more amendments than the 2nd, and it irks me to see people say they are "pro 2nd". I'm tempted to ask them if they are inferring that they love the 2nd, but Christ they hate them some 1st and 4th amendments. Sadly, that is another topic that is disheartening is how accepted both political spectrums have become in being fine with certain civil rights being denied...provided the one denied was of an opposing political party..) that they have to approach those people if they're wanting to get off into that debate with the understanding hat the majority of them aren't Muslim Commies in school to be an abortion doctor. They're our fellow Americans and they don't understand many of the factors involved with the gun debate except for some talking points they've heard from a politician they think seems smart or some editorial given by a news person they assumed was fact and not an Op Ed.

    To be completely honest, this basic fact didn't dawn on me either until after a few days after Newtown debates with me being accused of, and asked, why I was seemingly fine with these killings. I was infuriated at first because I assumed they were trying to use verbal judo to paint me into a corner of "if you don't support this, then by default you support this" move (which I'm sure many were). But after rereading some comments I realized that several people saying that was being sincere. And once I addressed that misconception, entire dialogues happened.

    Ironically, it's a two way street too. Notice how I commented on there are just as many false preconceived perceptions to be found on the pro gun side as well? And I say that as someone who was more than guilty of it many times. We've reached this weird point in America where Right and Correct have become two different things. People start arguing on something they don't like / do like and the correct evaluation and discussion goes right out the window....and instead it's all about being right. I know that sounds a bit circular, but the difference here is right has become something relative to us individually. We have our idea of how the world is, who is good and bad, who is friend and not. And that is right to us. And anything that challenges any of us regarding our personal perception of what's right usually evokes one very violent mental bucking fit.
     
  8. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    17,506
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Removed to avoid breaking a rule.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017
  9. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    But wait, these people you describe as "mental midget" often legally purchased and owned the guns they used in the commission of their crimes. Prior to the "rampage" how does anyone distinguish them from you?

    And in the case of shootings like Bono, Arkansas, the guns were legally purchased and owned, but had been stored where minors could - and did - obtain access to them. And while there may have been civil liability, the lawful owners of the guns faced no criminal sanction for leaving guns where minors could get access to them. The NRA's safety education program warns against leaving guns where kids can get to them. And some states make it a crime to do so, but for the rest, there's no criminal penalty for letting your kids get to your guns and become mass murderers. It's not "tugging at the heart-strings" to suggest that people who won't follow the NRA's gun safety advice should face criminal penalties when their improperly stored guns are used in a crime.

    So if you recognize this correlation, why aren't you in favor of tying the background check registry to the prescription database and denying people who are using these drugs - drugs you just admited are correlated to mass shootings - from purchasing or possessing guns?

    Aren't you? Your entire post is about how you engage people that want to ban guns, but in your arguments you don't concede that additional restrictions might contribute to a solution. You claim to not be "crying about keeping a firearm" (actually you cry about keeping ALL your firearms) yet you leave no room for concession to the other point of view.

    Face it, you are the "loony" that you don't believe you are.
     
    Phaedrus/69 likes this.
  10. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    The argument is that the founding fathers recognized that without an unfettered right of the population to keep and bear arms, the government could impose tyranny over the people.

    The Supreme Court (the only people the Constitution says get to say what it means - your opinions, however strongly felt are legally meaningless) has said the right conferred on the individual by the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. And the right - as it exists today - needs to be defended by its supporters. We cannot meet those who would diminish this right further half-way, but at the same time we need not defend our stand that the Constitution guarantees the right and nothing more needs to be said.
     
  11. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,194
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Not a bad start at all. Your approach does bring to mind a few comments, though.
    Yep. Every time there's a highly-publicized shooting, I know that we (gun owners) are about to enjoy the view from under the bus for a while. BOHICA.
    Correct. While more than a handful of the gun-grabbers are worthy of my insults, actually insulting one with whom I'm in a debate simply ensures that they will not hear what I'm saying.
    Let's not forget Oklahoma City.
    Not only that, but let's not forget the outright lies that the MSM spreads about guns & gun owners. For example, every time there's a push for Universal Background Checks, someone drags out the "40% of gun transfers" statistic. Check out that statistic. When you hear the phrase "Gun show loophole," don't hesitate to point out that no such thing exists. If the other person doesn't believe you, tell them to go look at 18 U.S.C. 922, and to let you know where the exemption for gun shows can be found. There's not one.
     
    Intox, bikerdoc and Phaedrus/69 like this.
  12. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    56,233
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    If your post has disappeared it is because of a OT thread drift that was beginning to go back and forth.
     
  13. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,978
    Location:
    Virginia
    The strongest argument against banning semiautomatic rifles is that there are just too many of them (to ban), and they have become ingrained in the culture. In 1968, when I bought my first AR-15, they were very much a niche weapon. They could have been banned then without too much fuss. (In fact, at the time, I was surprised that they were available and that I could buy one.) But, back then, the ATF (working with Colt) ruled that they were OK, and it would be impossible now for the ATF to go back and revisit that ruling. Maybe if it had a time machine.

    We waste too much time arguing philosophy with the antis. Stick to utilitarian arguments. If we all look only at practical considerations, it becomes clear that the antis are living in a fantasy land. The situation in America is very different from that in Australia or Britain.

    ETA: The "readily converted" language (regarding the definition of a machine gun) was added to the law by the GCA of 1968. Prior to the GCA, that wasn't a criterion that would make something a machine gun, and it was under that prior law that the ATF ruled that the Colt AR-15 was OK to be sold to civilians. When the GCA was passed, the ATF could have ruled that all existing AR-15's were machine guns, and had to be registered in the November amnesty. But it didn't, and that one opportunity (according to the antis) was missed.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2017
    Intox likes this.
  14. Hasaf

    Hasaf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages:
    795
    Location:
    Kansas
    Thanks for the source. In general, when someone I know starts talking about "The Gun Show Loophole" I have a simpler tactic. I offer to take them to a gun show and tell them that we will try to buy a gun without a background check. I point out to them that we will probably not get arrested for trying; but that they have to accept that we will get thrown out. The word "Probably" is particular unsettling for most. However, it quickly drives home that, as a plan to get a firearm without a background check, it isn't going to work.

    Obviously, this only works if you really are willing to go to a gun-show with the person. I have only been called on this tactic once. When we got there she quickly backed down from the idea of trying to make a purchase. However, she is no longer in the solidly "anti-gun" camp and, while not a gun owner, now has a lot more tolerance and respect for "gun-culture." I suspect it was more due to the realization that someone she knew was an active shooter; that gun owners really weren't just a bunch of loons.
     
    Intox likes this.
  15. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,194
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The only problem I see with that tactic is that I can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. The catch is that the ability to do so has nothing to do with the gun show itself. I haven't looked into Utah's laws (your listed location), but in Arkansas, private person-to-person sales between residents don't need a background check. If I see an ad on the internet for a gun being sold by an Arkansas resident, I can go buy it. We can meet in a parking lot, or at the gun show, and make the sale. No FFL, no background check. Unfortunately, some private sellers set up tables at gun shows, and folks who don't know better may well assume that only FFLs have tables. If I buy from one of them, with no background check, it will appear to them that I've just bought a gun through the gun show loophole.

    Still not a bad tactic, though.
     
    Intox likes this.
  16. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    uhhh....I'm honestly not sure if this response is a case of sincere "I don't know how to read plain English and comprehend it" or you purposely cherry picked your quoted excerpt out of context to fit what you thought was going to be some spectacular counter point. So first I'll copy the entirety.....

    'I am pointing out that they aren't going to prevent the attack because they are focused on the symptom instead of root cause. Root cause is what is causing these people to have the mental break they suffer and leads them to committing these mass attacks." - Me

    You see Hdwhit, the answer to the question you seem to think I didn't address is right there in the quote you excerpted.....you just happened to leave that part out. I never have claimed in my life to know the true root cause although I have some personal observations that leaves me wondering why if my coon ass self notices it, why isn't is being discussed by the investigative and political groups. Meaning...I'm literally asking the same thing you just did....what is/are the distinguishing factor that makes those people different from you and I.


    Understand, the NRA has done more to put our current firearm laws on the books than any President or political party. Period. I prefer GoA because they aren't willing to play the game of "I'll trade you this legislation on restricting and regulating firearm sales and ownership for a favor" like the NRA does. I understand that they do some good things so I don't knock anyone who supports them, so that's not an attack on NRA members. I'm simply saying this because the NRA should have about as much say in what I do with my firearms on my property as any level of government should have.....which is none.

    But to be clear....you think should a firearm owner have their weapons stolen it is their fault those stolen weapons are used in a crime? Because you're stance isn't recognizing the issue of who gets to define what "properly stored" is? Or the fact that once a legal concession is allowed and it's codified into law that firearm storage has to meet criteria that hard part for the anti-gun crowd is behind them. Now they can use committees in the Congress to tweak language or add new language. Not to mention.....how would that law be enforced? How can the state insure that firearm owners are meeting laws in their firearm storage? How do they know who is expected to have firearms stored to their legislative code?

    There is a saying that I don't think you've ever heard before. It is, "Locks are meant to keep honest people out". I'm confident that every member of this forum whose worked in law enforcement can tell you story after story of people having locked locations broken into. Of locked boxes being broken into. Of $1k gun safes being broken into. And I'm speaking to breaks in committed not by some master cat burglar but by teens as well as adults who used a little common sense and force, and "tools" like a butter knife, screwdriver, and an axe. Maybe the government could contract out a safe that is built well enough with redundant locking mechanisms ($10k starting range if we're lucky) to keep people like that out, though yeah? Because federally mandated gun safes to insure proper storage in a private home that gun owners are mandated to buy as part of owning a firearm is completely ok if it just saves on life, amirite? And since the ONLY way to enforce some kind of firearm storage law(s) would be on sight inspections people need to start understanding that it's not just the 2nd amendment we need to have redefined but we're going to need to throw the 4th amendment in there as well. And of course we'll need a centralized database of the locations of these firearms to facilitate we're insuring compliance.

    I'll be honest in that this is nothing more than me skimming all the unintended consequences that your stance (and I guess the NRA's as well if they are saying this same crap) would lead to. Hell, not lead to but demand as part of basic procedure to enforce. I mean....you do realize that this position is based on the exact same logic as anti-gun people use. You know, trying to stop possible future illegal activity and/or actions of one group through legislating to another group legal responsibility and restrictions as well as requirements to exercise civil liberties? It's a lot like the new trend of these "free speech zones" (which I love. We have the right to peacefully assemble and protest our government provided we assemble in a small roped off area away from the event/person being protested sanctioned by the same government...lol), that seems to think our rights are defined by the government. If you need permission to exercise a right then it's not a right. It's a privilege. I haven't read this document called the Bill of Privileges that I'm sure has to exist as I see so many people explain or view civil liberties that way.



    Because the thought of anyone having their rights left to the whim of a government agency and denied their right to due process makes me sick. That is the definition of a tyrannical government. And since you want my input on it....anyone who supports the notion that our rights can be granted or taken by government or the people by denying people their Constitutional right to due process and be able to face their accusers and make a case for defense is a traitor. If someone is adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court where the person with the mental deficiencies was given his right to defend himself, I am all for those people being denied firearms. But the people who want others denied rights via some list generated by databases who take certain prescriptions, political views, or any other criteria instead of giving those people due process? They should be shot in the back of the head on national tv.



    LOL

    You REALLY want my attention, don't you? Ok.....

    First off...my entire post is about trying to make people on the anti-gun side that their proposed fix not only will fail to stop these people committing these mass attacks but also cause irreparable damage to our rights as Americans. It's about reinforcing that due to the nature of planning and commitment these shooters have won't stop if they have their access to one tool of implementation limited or completely taken won't stop them, but instead will simply lead to a different tool of implementation. I am not an organic chemist but I am able to walk into Wal-Mart and get everything I need to make a homemade nerve gas and a simple delivery system. A timed or signaled explosive device is even easier. And that's without me using the internet to educate myself better and more effective solutions.

    Am I against more laws mandating and legislating firearm ownership? You better believe it. Of course, that is my stance on any right and it's application to any American. Period. But speaking to the 2nd amendment? As I've said in a couple of threads in this forum, this "fluid interpretation" of the 2nd and it's meaning shows me how the vast majority of people are either completely ignorant of our founding documents (pro tip.....if one reads the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates there is no doubt as to the intent of very clause and amendment contained within the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights), or simply prefer to selectively apply their view of those rights in an attempt to embolden their personal view.

    The framers knew then, as ANY person whose served in any capacity within any military branch knows and will tell you, the only way any force owns any place is when they have physical boots on the ground. All the aircraft and ordnance in the world doesn't mean anything if you don't have infantry. That is why the 2nd amendment makes mention of both the militia and the people, to insure the people always have their own infantry should they need. It's also why the aforementioned supporting documents that go along with the Constitution and Bill of Rights reinforce that the people have a right to be afforded "all the instruments of war" used by the infantry. The only people wanting to debate intent of the 2nd amendment are either foolish or disingenuous scum.

    I say the above paragraph to address your assertion about my supposed lack of willingness to make concessions. Point of fact, my stance (that I make very clear to anyone that I find myself debating this topic with) is that I support background checks when someone attempts to purchase a firearm. The mantra of "Universal Background Checks" is a fancy way of saying they want background checks mandated to include all private sales as well. My issue with that isn't the notion in itself, it's the fact it is an unenforceable law unless more "concessions" are made to allow for it's enforcement. So now we're back to a need for a firearm owner database and the need for an inspection mechanism to insure compliance. Which means entertaining the idea stops as it meets my other stance that the rights of the American people are in no way available as a bartering tool to appease other groups. I don't care if every single American in the nation was ok with it because our nation is set up to protect the minority from the majority when it comes to rights, and the individual is the ultimate minority.

    Which puts us back at square one in that any action either taken or supported without first applying basic problem solving to identify *** is making these people go off the deep end is nothing more than people wanting to apply their personal beliefs onto everyone because they know better than everyone else. And anyone who claims to be a "pro gun person" supporting new implementation of laws and regulations in an attempt to make the other side happy as well allow more legislation on our rights? People who want to play with the rights of me and my children because their response to any possible danger that might happen later in the future is to concede more legislative control of our rights in exchange for "keeping us safe" (by the way, it is not the government's job to keep us safe. Their job is to defend the borders, protect waterways used for trade and trade between the states, and insure our rights aren't being subjugated by the individual's state) instead of insisting on investigation into this phenomenon to determine root cause? Well, I'l just be honest in that those people disgust me. I have more respect for some dog crap I scraped off my boot than I do them.

    So to recap!

    I support background checks, but can't support checks for private sales as the danger of what would be needed to make checks on private sales viable is simply wide open for all kinds of violations and the rewriting of our rights. I support a limit of the types of arms people should be able to purchase/own, but that limit is set by our founding documents and is already illegally constrained. I support people who've been legally adjudicated mentally incompetent being denied the purchase or ownership of firearms, but not having people's right to due process ignored or violated because they are having problems and sought out help which includes taking medications and that virtue alone puts them on a list.

    So I am all for proactive steps to assist in keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. I'm all for stopping the mass attacks which is why I am all for finding out what's causing them instead of trying to use laws to take away their preferred implementation tools. Because I dare say telling someone their child died from an explosion or chemical exposure in no way sounds better than telling them it was a gun shot that killed them. And that's all that would be accomplished if the current anti-gun movement did away with all firearms tomorrow. And even though while I may fully support those things, I cannot support anything that involves the stripping or curtailment of the rights of any American for any reason. More so when viewed through the understanding that these mass shooters are a relatively new event in our history (I know there have been previous events here and there throughout the past 240ish years, but not as reoccurring as they are now) even though access to firearms has changed dramatically over America's past.

    But I'm the loon......
     
    somethingbenign, Hasaf and armoredman like this.
  17. Intox

    Intox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Location:
    Dothan, AL
    As I said in an other thread, I agree with your statement.

    To be sure, the only times I find myself going into political philosophy as it applies to understanding our founders almost always starts with them wanting to take a position of things like "the 2nd is for the militia only", "the founders had no way of knowing how firearms would advance, hence the 2nd applies to things like muskets", or one of my personal favorites "the people have a right to be safe and not gunned down" trying to cite the premise of the "General Welfare" as Constitutional grounds. Basically, making sure they understand that they are in fact asking for government interpretation and application of our rights which will set the precedent that they can do so with all rights.

    Because like you, I prefer the facts to validate that firearm ownership isn't the danger as well as the logistics involved were an attempt to ban/confiscate weapons were tried.
     
  18. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    17,506
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    I had a sound bite - the crimes of the few do not outweigh the rights of the many.
     
    Intox likes this.
  19. Danoobie

    Danoobie Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2017
    Messages:
    692
    IMHO, it seems our legislators have some difficulty factoring guns out of the criminal/violence equation.
    Now, they're either monumentally obtuse, in making laws which sweep up law abiding gun owners, while
    allowing criminals to dance away Scot free, or they are purposely misusing their power, in a very regular,
    organized way.

    Boils down to : Either they know what they are doing, or they don't. SO, are they intentionally evil, or simply
    abysmally stupid?

    HMMMM....

    (Seems like most of them are smart enough to finish college, and pass a bar exam.)
     
    Intox likes this.
  20. Kendal Black

    Kendal Black Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,648
    I'll go for monumentally cynical for the win. They are not stupid but lots and lots of voters are!
     
    Intox likes this.
  21. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    56,233
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Danoobie,

    The topic isn't legislators as much as the people who aren't well informed and instead have based an opinion on common propaganda. Politicians are informed, but adopt a cynical position for political gain and are generally immune to civil argument.
     
    Kendal Black likes this.
  22. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,174
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I dismiss all of the gun violence statistics. There is no such thing as gun violence anymore than there is baseball violence or knife violence. Police and FBI stats don't hover around the crimes committed with just firearms, they focus on homicides because that is what each and everyone is, a homicide. A homicide investigation looks at many different elements, including mental illness, drugs and gang affiliation. To blame it solely on a firearm seems pretty foolish to me.

    I agree with you. One needs to focus on the real problem of homicide. If a person isn't sincere enough to look at the big picture and the total homicide stats then they aren't really trying to solve the problem. All they want to do is address what looks to them to be the root cause (firearms). People trained in the field of sociology will tell you to dig deeper as it more than likely is a cultural problem. For instance in 2015 Mexico's homicide ranking was #22 in the world while the US was #94. El Salvador was #1. Different cultures, different homicide rates. There are far fewer guns in Mexico per person than the US. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
    bikemutt, Intox and boom boom like this.
  23. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,194
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I don't dismiss them. I'm just far more concerned with the stakes than the odds. Governments care how many people die. Individuals care who dies.
     
    Intox likes this.
  24. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,777
    Location:
    GA
    You will also find vast differences between the lack of gun deaths and violence in Vermont despite constitutional carry versus Chicago and restrictive Illinois laws. What you cite above about national figures, also applies to the U.S. with a number of U.S. states comparing quite favorably with European nations.
     
  25. E.D.P

    E.D.P Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2017
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm from Las Vegas, I live less than 5 miles from the largest mass shooting in our nation's history. The man that carried out that act bought his guns legally, he followed all the rules. Nothing was going to stop him. My argument with people since that fateful October day has been "guns don't kill" "people kill". Like intox said guns are just an easy method to carry out a cowardly act. He could have used many methods, he took the easiest. Gun control isn't the answer, respect for guns and human life is the only answer. I will raise my children to shoot and hunt and they will always know the responsibility that comes with owning and firing a firearm, I wish everyone could have that.
     
    Intox likes this.
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