Sound Good Gun Laws you would support?
- Thread starter Isaac-1
- Start date
- Status
Isaac-1
Member
Skeeziks, I can see your point about having a unified face when trying to educate the public, my concern is without such efforts as I mention above we may not have time to educate them. If anyone else wants to continue this feel free to, however I am now off to mount my new Surefire light on my AR and put it in its new hard case that arrived today after being backordered for about a month.
Isaac-1
Member
Don't worry I am not selling out, just looking at this tactically
morcey2
Member
There is no such thing as a tactical surrender. Even if it's just a minor surrender.
Pointshoot
Member
If the antis were sincere . . . and in my opinion they are not . . . their proposals make no sense. They look a the last shooting event, pick out one element of it, and conclude that it was about the kind of gun & its magazine capacity. There's where they place blame and 'the solution'.
They don't examine other elements. How was the shooter able to get around security measures ? How might he have been kept out ? How long did it take police to arrive (external response) ? What could have been done if armed response from the school immediately met the shooter ? (internal response) In the case of more armed responders in the school - they act alarmed at any such suggestion, and try to squash it immediately.
And some of the most important questions are - Would any of their proposals made any difference ? What actually caused the shooter to act - might psychiatric drugs played a role ? The killer murdered his mother and took her rifle - so how might any of these proposals mattered ? And finally, how likely are such events to occur ? (Less probable than being struck by lightening.) Why take measures that are ineffective to prevent highly unlikely events ?
Why ? Because one either is unaware of the realities and caught up in emotionalism driven by the media. Or - youre taking advantage of that emotionalism to drive an agenda of attacking the 2A and disarming the American citizenry. Some antis have begun floating the notion that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is 'obsolete'. They can dare this now, because people haven't been taught about the US Constitution & our history in the 'schools' for 50 years.
You can't give in to ignorance, emotionalism, or agenda driven lies and manipulation.
It only encourgages more of the same.
They don't examine other elements. How was the shooter able to get around security measures ? How might he have been kept out ? How long did it take police to arrive (external response) ? What could have been done if armed response from the school immediately met the shooter ? (internal response) In the case of more armed responders in the school - they act alarmed at any such suggestion, and try to squash it immediately.
And some of the most important questions are - Would any of their proposals made any difference ? What actually caused the shooter to act - might psychiatric drugs played a role ? The killer murdered his mother and took her rifle - so how might any of these proposals mattered ? And finally, how likely are such events to occur ? (Less probable than being struck by lightening.) Why take measures that are ineffective to prevent highly unlikely events ?
Why ? Because one either is unaware of the realities and caught up in emotionalism driven by the media. Or - youre taking advantage of that emotionalism to drive an agenda of attacking the 2A and disarming the American citizenry. Some antis have begun floating the notion that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is 'obsolete'. They can dare this now, because people haven't been taught about the US Constitution & our history in the 'schools' for 50 years.
You can't give in to ignorance, emotionalism, or agenda driven lies and manipulation.
It only encourgages more of the same.
Last edited:
Ivy Mike
Member
This type of no compromise nonsense is what is going to sink gun rights in the long run.
The only part of the legislature the gun lobby holds sway in is the house and most Americans disagree with you on what gun laws are acceptable.
Your battle would be fight much more effectively in other fronts like ending the drug war. Sadly you will have to vote against most republicans to do this which means many of you won't do it.
So good luck to you all.
The only part of the legislature the gun lobby holds sway in is the house and most Americans disagree with you on what gun laws are acceptable.
Your battle would be fight much more effectively in other fronts like ending the drug war. Sadly you will have to vote against most republicans to do this which means many of you won't do it.
So good luck to you all.
Pointshoot
Member
Clean97GTI - - - and on what do you base your opinions as to what 'most Americans' want ?
Record numbers of them bought guns and ammunition. Record numbers have been going through the background checks.
Be very careful about accepting what you hear in the mainstream media, including the results of 'polls'.
And if your definition of 'compromise' is that we give them what they want and lose what we stand for either quicky or in the long run . . . well thats what got us to this point.
Record numbers of them bought guns and ammunition. Record numbers have been going through the background checks.
Be very careful about accepting what you hear in the mainstream media, including the results of 'polls'.
And if your definition of 'compromise' is that we give them what they want and lose what we stand for either quicky or in the long run . . . well thats what got us to this point.
bushmaster1313
Member
Only politicians who have served in the military are allowed to vote on laws that would regulate firearms.
I recall Karl Rove saying the same thing a few months ago.
Sorry, but the polling data is real. Are people being manipulated by media? Probably.
But pretending data aren't to be trusted is a great way to lose your arse. Ask anybody who went to Vegas and bet against the house.
Pointshoot
Member
gossamer: "I recall Karl Rove saying the same thing a few months ago.
Sorry, but the polling data is real. Are people being manipulated by media? Probably.
But pretending data aren't to be trusted is a great way to lose your arse. Ask anybody who went to Vegas and bet against the house. "
Sorry, your statements don't make logical sense. What Rove said about an election or the odds at Vegas are irrelevant.
'Polls' . . . what polls specifically ? How did they word their questions ? What sample population did they ask them to ? What other polls are out there, and what methodology did they use ?
My warning was about being cautious about accepting the 'authority' of these sources, until youve investigated further.
If the numbers check out . . . they would need to be acknowledged and a strategy put together to turn them around.
P.S. - I've done statistical surveys before (in another subject area). How you frame questions and who you ask them to - - - makes a world of difference in the results.
Sorry, but the polling data is real. Are people being manipulated by media? Probably.
But pretending data aren't to be trusted is a great way to lose your arse. Ask anybody who went to Vegas and bet against the house. "
Sorry, your statements don't make logical sense. What Rove said about an election or the odds at Vegas are irrelevant.
'Polls' . . . what polls specifically ? How did they word their questions ? What sample population did they ask them to ? What other polls are out there, and what methodology did they use ?
My warning was about being cautious about accepting the 'authority' of these sources, until youve investigated further.
If the numbers check out . . . they would need to be acknowledged and a strategy put together to turn them around.
P.S. - I've done statistical surveys before (in another subject area). How you frame questions and who you ask them to - - - makes a world of difference in the results.
beatledog7
Member
Gun laws cannot be drafted in a way that is reasonable because the two sides are in intractable conflict. It would be easier to solve the West Bank and Gaza than to come up with anything both sides would consider reasonable.
But, to keep it simple, anything which puts more burden on and/or removes freedom from the sane and law-abiding American citizen is not reasonable to me.
But, to keep it simple, anything which puts more burden on and/or removes freedom from the sane and law-abiding American citizen is not reasonable to me.
helitack32f1
Member
I keep seeing in the gun press that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Agreeing to "acceptable" gun laws accepts the anti's premise that apparently 20,000 gun laws aren't enough. But, maybe law number 20,001 will be the one that ends gun violence! Compromising with the left has not worked to the conservative advantage in any way, on any topic whatsoever. The compromising needs to stop.
I am coming to the belief that getting away from the second amendment argument would serve us better than having and using only the one argument in every case. There needs to be an all out, no expense spared campaign to re-educate America, or at least what Rush Limbaugh calls the "low information" voter. We need to expose all the stats that WE know but are hidden from the average low info American voter. Things like the number of self defense uses of firearms per year and how few of those involve actually firing the weapon. People need to know how few murders are committed by guns compared to all other forms of murder, and then how few of those gun murders are committed with the dreaded and super freakin' deadly BLACK "assault rifle". It also needs to be pointed out that both Columbine and Newtown occurred under assault weapon bans and it also needs to be pointed out that not one single gun related law they have proposed or passed would have stopped this massacre.
It needs to be explained to the public how asinine it is to have areas full of innocent children designated as "defense free zones", where evil can count on doing its deeds with little or no opposition because law abiding citizens have had their right to self defense eliminated in these gun free zones. People need to realize that gun laws such as these make our children less safe and makes them prime targets for those wanting to be headlines in the salivating liberal media.
People need to be made aware of the difference between semi auto and full auto. It seems as though nearly every dope that thinks we should ban AR's think they are full-auto and the exact same gun used by our military. People need to be educated. Or they need to be de-educated of their mis-informed and completely wrong beliefs. And these people include every hunter or non AR gun owner who says or thinks "well, ya don't need an assault rifle to hunt and I have no need for one so doesn't matter to me if they are banned". People with that mindset need to realize that after AR's are banned, there could be a school shooting with hunting rifles. The Dems and media will say "We banned AR's because they are so dangerous yet hunting rifles are far more powerful! Why should people be allowed to have guns more powerful than an assault rifle?!" Or, just wait 'till the anti's start harping on the fact that Columbine was done mostly with shotguns, and so too were most of the Batman theater killings IIRC. Clearly shotguns must be banned as well.
Somehow, we need to figure out how to introduce firearms to kids and get them interested in shooting sports . Maybe introduce it back into the curriculum of schools. Shooting sports need to be seen as a positive. Kids need to learn the dangers of firearms and how to handle them properly and this would take the mystery out of them and kids would be less likely to want to play with them. In offering an introduction to firearms to kids, there first needs to be an emphasis and instruction on the second amendment, what it means, what the intentions of the founders were and why it is still relevant today.
Last but not least, we need to expose the liberal agenda and it's effects. There is no shortage of progressive liberal gun law utopia's out there to use as examples. We can point to Chicago, New York and Washington DC as well as others to show just what happens when they get their way and then ask the question: "If this is what happens, without fail, when Democrats take away gun rights on a small scale, what makes you believe it will work on a national level?" And then contrast the murder and crime rates with those of States and cities run by thinking, intelligent conservatives.
If we do not start changing minds rather than trying to work with THEM in hopes that we will win hearts and favor with them, we will lose what is left of our dwindling freedoms. NO MORE COMPROMISING!
I am coming to the belief that getting away from the second amendment argument would serve us better than having and using only the one argument in every case. There needs to be an all out, no expense spared campaign to re-educate America, or at least what Rush Limbaugh calls the "low information" voter. We need to expose all the stats that WE know but are hidden from the average low info American voter. Things like the number of self defense uses of firearms per year and how few of those involve actually firing the weapon. People need to know how few murders are committed by guns compared to all other forms of murder, and then how few of those gun murders are committed with the dreaded and super freakin' deadly BLACK "assault rifle". It also needs to be pointed out that both Columbine and Newtown occurred under assault weapon bans and it also needs to be pointed out that not one single gun related law they have proposed or passed would have stopped this massacre.
It needs to be explained to the public how asinine it is to have areas full of innocent children designated as "defense free zones", where evil can count on doing its deeds with little or no opposition because law abiding citizens have had their right to self defense eliminated in these gun free zones. People need to realize that gun laws such as these make our children less safe and makes them prime targets for those wanting to be headlines in the salivating liberal media.
People need to be made aware of the difference between semi auto and full auto. It seems as though nearly every dope that thinks we should ban AR's think they are full-auto and the exact same gun used by our military. People need to be educated. Or they need to be de-educated of their mis-informed and completely wrong beliefs. And these people include every hunter or non AR gun owner who says or thinks "well, ya don't need an assault rifle to hunt and I have no need for one so doesn't matter to me if they are banned". People with that mindset need to realize that after AR's are banned, there could be a school shooting with hunting rifles. The Dems and media will say "We banned AR's because they are so dangerous yet hunting rifles are far more powerful! Why should people be allowed to have guns more powerful than an assault rifle?!" Or, just wait 'till the anti's start harping on the fact that Columbine was done mostly with shotguns, and so too were most of the Batman theater killings IIRC. Clearly shotguns must be banned as well.
Somehow, we need to figure out how to introduce firearms to kids and get them interested in shooting sports . Maybe introduce it back into the curriculum of schools. Shooting sports need to be seen as a positive. Kids need to learn the dangers of firearms and how to handle them properly and this would take the mystery out of them and kids would be less likely to want to play with them. In offering an introduction to firearms to kids, there first needs to be an emphasis and instruction on the second amendment, what it means, what the intentions of the founders were and why it is still relevant today.
Last but not least, we need to expose the liberal agenda and it's effects. There is no shortage of progressive liberal gun law utopia's out there to use as examples. We can point to Chicago, New York and Washington DC as well as others to show just what happens when they get their way and then ask the question: "If this is what happens, without fail, when Democrats take away gun rights on a small scale, what makes you believe it will work on a national level?" And then contrast the murder and crime rates with those of States and cities run by thinking, intelligent conservatives.
If we do not start changing minds rather than trying to work with THEM in hopes that we will win hearts and favor with them, we will lose what is left of our dwindling freedoms. NO MORE COMPROMISING!
Pointshoot
Member
helitack - - - I understand your opinion on lessening the emphasis on the 2A in making our case to those who are undecided on this issue. But from what I've heard/seen, the arguments to others are pretty balanced. They talk of violent crime prevention in general, being able to defend ones self & family, the intent of the framers & the 2A to preserve Liberty, looking at mental health & psychiatric drugs, etc It seems to me that there has been more talk about the purpose of the 2A to curb tyranny this time around. Maybe thats only biased wishful thinking on my part.
Where I think the importance and nature of the 2A needs to be emphasized, is in talking among ourselves. As others have pointed out, there are thousands of gun laws currently on the books. We put up with the prior AWB, whose ridiculous restrictions on irrelevant external rifle features did nothing that the antis claimed it would. Too many, IMO, on our side think 'compromise' by our side will satisfy those who would want Americans disarmed.
No one knows how this will all turn out. But we need to fight as hard as possible on every single point. Hasn't our past experienced proven this by now ?
Only power is respected.
Where I think the importance and nature of the 2A needs to be emphasized, is in talking among ourselves. As others have pointed out, there are thousands of gun laws currently on the books. We put up with the prior AWB, whose ridiculous restrictions on irrelevant external rifle features did nothing that the antis claimed it would. Too many, IMO, on our side think 'compromise' by our side will satisfy those who would want Americans disarmed.
No one knows how this will all turn out. But we need to fight as hard as possible on every single point. Hasn't our past experienced proven this by now ?
Only power is respected.
1911 guy
Member
Somehow i think we'd be a different country today if Patrick Henry had called out "Give me Liberty or I'll compromise!"
Compromise is when two sides have a mutual goal but disagree on details. The hard left has a goal of disarming the populace. If you agree with the goal, compromise to your little hearts content. But if you do not agree, what is there to compromise about?
I would much rather talk loud and get people to think rather than roll over and give up because I might hurt someones feelings.
You want my opinion of a good gun law? Don't overdraft your account to buy gun stuff or you'll get nicked for kiting checks. Bad idea to max out a credit card. it'll take you forever to pay it off. That's pretty much my idea of "gun restriction".
Compromise is when two sides have a mutual goal but disagree on details. The hard left has a goal of disarming the populace. If you agree with the goal, compromise to your little hearts content. But if you do not agree, what is there to compromise about?
I would much rather talk loud and get people to think rather than roll over and give up because I might hurt someones feelings.
You want my opinion of a good gun law? Don't overdraft your account to buy gun stuff or you'll get nicked for kiting checks. Bad idea to max out a credit card. it'll take you forever to pay it off. That's pretty much my idea of "gun restriction".
Diamondback6
Member
Let's go all the way... Constitutional Amendment.
"Effective immediately upon this Amendment's ratification by 3/4 of the several States, ALL legislation introduced in either Chamber of Congress shall require upon passage by both chambers, and ALL Executive Orders issued by the President, shall require Judicial Review from the Supreme Court to confirm or disprove Constitutional authority before implementation. The Supreme Court shall assume all Acts of Congress and Executive Orders submitted for such Review to be Unconstitutional unless and until proven otherwise."
Result, no more gun control, and may cut down on a lot of the other crap to boot.
"Effective immediately upon this Amendment's ratification by 3/4 of the several States, ALL legislation introduced in either Chamber of Congress shall require upon passage by both chambers, and ALL Executive Orders issued by the President, shall require Judicial Review from the Supreme Court to confirm or disprove Constitutional authority before implementation. The Supreme Court shall assume all Acts of Congress and Executive Orders submitted for such Review to be Unconstitutional unless and until proven otherwise."
Result, no more gun control, and may cut down on a lot of the other crap to boot.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Here's a suggestion.
Instead of wasting time quibbling over which pound of flesh we should relinquish to the forces of anti-gun bigotry, perhaps it would be better to spend that time engaging in a bit of activism.
If you're lazy, both the NRA and Ruger have systems that will allow you to send messages to your elected representatives automatically, you don't even need to be able to write a letter.
NRA:
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
Ruger:
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
Otherwise, you can write/call/email/snail mail/fax/carrier pigeon your legislators yourself, if you actually have the desire to take minimal action to preserve your rights.
If you're really lazy, then go to the websites for the NRA-ILA, Second Amendment Foundation, and/or Gun Owners of America and make a donation.
If you still have money after that, find the information on your state-level pro-gun organization and give them some money, or (gasp!) donate some time to them.
Instead of wasting time quibbling over which pound of flesh we should relinquish to the forces of anti-gun bigotry, perhaps it would be better to spend that time engaging in a bit of activism.
If you're lazy, both the NRA and Ruger have systems that will allow you to send messages to your elected representatives automatically, you don't even need to be able to write a letter.
NRA:
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
Ruger:
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
Otherwise, you can write/call/email/snail mail/fax/carrier pigeon your legislators yourself, if you actually have the desire to take minimal action to preserve your rights.
If you're really lazy, then go to the websites for the NRA-ILA, Second Amendment Foundation, and/or Gun Owners of America and make a donation.
If you still have money after that, find the information on your state-level pro-gun organization and give them some money, or (gasp!) donate some time to them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
