The Millennial Point of View

[Owen]

1. I find it interesting that the OP thinks its the conservatives that do things like shoot up schools, nd engage in political violence. historically that's almost always come from the collectivist side of the political spectrum.

2. I also think the OP is young. Way too young to remember what the atmosphere was like for gun owners in the 80s and 90s, and just how far we've come. if he's 24, this is quite literally the first time he's experienced the full court media press on the anti-gun side. I'm 37, and have literally been involved in the gun-rights thing since '88 or so, getting dragged to legislative sessions in CT by my dad, etc. This current foofaraw isn't really all that bad. It's like playing football, and just quitting the game the first time the other team gets the ball, even though you're already up 50 points.

3. Why should we compromise when we're winning, winning big, and have been for 20 years. When the pro-gun side has been as successful as we have been, for as long as we have been, compromise is just a fancy word for losing on purpose.

 

[reggie_love]

I don't buy any talk of the armed people somehow not being able to resist tyranny.

Why do you think politicians are so afraid of confiscating guns? It will be a bloodbath, that's why. What army wants to face 100 million guns? You simply can't step on armed people. They will take your liberty through other means, like convincing you you never wanted it, but they will never do it through the barrel of a gun. There is value to that.

 

[Hacker15E]

This current foofaraw isn't really all that bad. It's like playing football, and just quitting the game the first time the other team gets the ball, even though you're already up 50 points.

Its even more like quitting the game based on the quality of the pre-game trash talk!

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Kansan, post 124 is one of the best posts, if not the best post in this thread.

Thank you for the respect you've shown, I am sure it is returned here many fold.

More importantly thank you for your service.






.

 

[larryh1108]

I've learned a lot about a lot of posters on this thread. Lots of good, common sense and a sense of reality. Some not so good. I'm glad I got to learn about how others feel on here.

 

[Hacker15E]

Had the Founders known about modern weapons and their potential for misuse in the hands of a tiny fraction of the populace, I doubt that they would have been as quick to allow modern firepower to be easily owned on the streets of the Republic.

Do you think, likewise, that had the Founders known about television, the internet, and iPhones, and their potential to spread messages of ignorance and hate to millions of humans in near real-time with the simple stroke of a key, have allowed such freedom of expression?

I suspect yes. I think they would have loved every bit of it.

 

[Sam1911]

Had the Founders known about modern weapons and their potential for misuse in the hands of a tiny fraction of the populace, I doubt that they would have been as quick to allow modern firepower to be easily owned on the streets of the Republic.

You do know ...no, you DON'T know, obviously ... that the Founders lived in a time when private citizens were supplying the ARTILLERY the the Continental army? Some of the Founders owned those cannons themselves.

I think your understanding of what the Founders thought about this matter is woefully, ghastly, startlingly, distressingly, and catastrophically misinformed.

Not to worry, the lives and writings of all those great men are available to read today, and you can spend a lifetime learning what they'd come to understand.

 

[-v-]

To the OP:
I'm a close mach to you, 27, white, sort of consider myself a gamer, male, no family yet (thankfully!), also worked in EMS, but I am now back in professional school bettering myself.

I agree with you on the points that throwing the first amendment under the bus is a non-starter. Just like my beef with the ACLU so is my beef with the NRA. To stand up for one right, you need to stand for all of them. Now, I take solace in that the anti-video game diatribe has been so over used that it has basically zero credibility. Its a OK distractor, but I still DO NOT agree with it.

Like you, I am also all for concealed carry and that teachers should have the option to have a sidearm in school. I may stipulate that a secured storage location should be provided in the class room to limit "shenanigans" from the students.

Also, I would agree with greater funding for mental health and creating a system (perhaps through Obama Care?) to ease access to it. Do I know what the perfect plan is to prevent another shooting? No, but planning, trial, error, analysis and planning is how we move forward and eventually create a system that does.

However, I markedly disagree with you with on any limitations on firearms ownership, period. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to let the people be able to defend themselves from the government. Hunting and personal protection were just side-benefits.

Stating that a civilians are no match for the US military and your background, I find this either laughable or just willful ignorance on your part, especially as a combat veteran. Lets look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and lastly Libya. Going back to the second half of the 20th century, lets also add in Vietnam and Afghanistan with the Soviets in there. All started with nothing more then some guys with small arms, and other then Afghanistan and Syria, the little guy with just an AK has won.

Creating a NFA/Tiered system - all that does is say that if you are poor, you do not have a right to defend yourself. The irony being that that was the original intent of the NFA system. It was to make "dangerous" weapons to expensive for the average person to afford. $200 in 1934 was more then a brand new Thompson sub machine gun. Adjusted for inflation I have seen the figure of equivalent to $10,000 in today's money. Do you really want to open that avenue up? Also, do you really think it will stay at a fixed $200 fee?

First you say we should register any semi-auto's, how soon before someone else seizes on this and says any firearm, then the fees begin to climb, since that's just a "processing fee" issue at the ATF and they can arbitrarily set that rate. Lastly, how soon before the anti-crowd says that you do not have a need for any firearm, because after all, the police are there to defend you. Its a very dangerous avenue to pursue.

 

[Kansan]

76shuvlinoff: Thanks for the kind words. I'm kind of happy the OP made his case so strongly just to see the great responses from the rest of THR crowd.

 

[nazshooter]

Like you, I am also all for concealed carry and that teachers should have the option to have a sidearm in school. I may stipulate that a secured storage location should be provided in the class room to limit "shenanigans" from the students.

I think this idea of some sort of lock box with a gun in every classroom is unrealistic and far less secure than just allowing teachers to carry on their person. Inexpensive lock boxes and safes are easily defeated and yet, if someone burst into a classroom with a gun there still wouldn't be time for the teacher to retrieve it.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[G21NE]

A few comments in response to the OP:

1. I agree with you that we should stop accepting bigots and fools into our ranks. Considering your attitude towards your elders, I hereby do not accept you into our ranks.

2. I agree with your comments on the failure of mental asylums of the past century but I think your credibility as an advocate for effective treatment is weakened by your usage of the word "retard" as a pejorative.

3. You mentioned that militias are no match for the US Army. I too am a veteran and I'm writing this from Afghanistan. I hate to break it to you, but there are dudes out here running around in sandals and robes with AK-47s who are showing no signs of leaving after 11 years of getting punched in the face by the US Army. I bet some of the older generation could tell us something similar about the Vietcong, if we take the time to listen.

4. Speaking of old timers, Who are you talking to? Are you talking to the generation that saved Western Civilization from Nazis and Communists and invented sliced bread? Maybe you're talking to the generation that fought the Korean war or the Vietnam war? Or the generation that sent a man to the moon and defeated the Soviet Union? Or maybe you're talking to the generation right before yours who were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while you were still in middle school playing video games that an older generation invented for you. You're welcome. Respect is a two way street, young pup. Some of your generation have done real well, but I wouldn't put voting in Obama and "breaking" Mitt Romney on the top of your list of achievements.

5. One mass killing that I haven't seen mentioned is the Rwandan Genocide. One of the largest mass killings in recent history, somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed, mostly with machetes. People don't need AR-15s or semi-automatic weapons to kill large numbers of their fellow human beings, they just need to act on their evil nature. I wonder how many would have been saved if every Tutsi had had an AR-15 in their house...

Quoted just because it deserves to be read again!!

 

[commygun]

Love the part about "ultra-conservatives" shooting up schools. When has this ever happened? The OP is a moby, better informed than the average moby, but still just a moby.

 

[larryh1108]

Reading these threads has made me realize that if a lot (not all) of the gamers were as vehemently opposed to having our rights chipped away (compromise) as gun owners as they are vehemently opposed to having their games touched that we would be better off. I'll go as far as to say they'd give up their gun rights before their game rights. That's how it reads.

 

[JustinJ]

1. I find it interesting that the OP thinks its the conservatives that do things like shoot up schools, nd engage in political violence. historically that's almost always come from the collectivist side of the political spectrum.

In recent times mass shootings seem to be almost entirely motivated by mental illness as opposed to political ideology. Yes, in the past there were terroristic attacks performed by members of marxists type groups but i think it very dishonest to lump such people in with the average left leaning american of today. Much of the violence perpetrated with guns has also been by those with a right leaning perspective against those with a progressive agenda from assassinations in the 60's to the more recent Norway shooter. Personally i think it wrong to try and portray one ideology as the main culprit.

 

[Sam Cade]

Love the part about "ultra-conservatives" shooting up schools. When has this ever happened?

Playing the devils advocate here, but most recent acts of true terrorism inflicted on soft targets are right wing,nationalist, conservative and religious in origin.


to wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein

 

[Warp]

The National Rifle Association is calling for limitations on the First Amendment to protect kids from video games and movies and television violence, on the grounds that it programs us.

I don't want to call BS on this claim, but...

Does anybody have any substantiation here? Because I certainly don't recall seeing that

I apologize if it was presented already in this thread and I didn't see it.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

You're correct. The NRA pointed to media and video games to talk about society's attitude towards and acceptance of violence.

The NRA did not call for limitations on video game sales or slasher flicks. Lots of people don't seem to get that.

 

[Warp]

You're correct. The NRA pointed to media and video games to talk about society's attitude towards and acceptance of violence.

The NRA did not call for limitations on video game sales or slasher flicks. Lots of people don't seem to get that.

Yes.

I watched the entirety of the NRA speech on Friday, twice, as well as the interview from Monday (I think it was Mon)

Nowhere has the NRA suggested limitations or legislation.

I think a lot of people are commenting without having actually watched/listened to the speech, and are thus simply ignorant on the topic.

I think others are being intentionally deceptive/misleading/lying outright

 

[nazshooter]

The NRA did not call for limitations on video game sales or slasher flicks. Lots of people don't seem to get that.

Unfortunately, far too few are able to see the distinction between what one ought to do and what one ought to be allowed to do.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Atbat82]

Kansan, post 124 is one of the best posts, if not the best post in this thread.

Thank you for the respect you've shown, I am sure it is returned here many fold.

More importantly thank you for your service.

^this +1


Sent from my iPhone

 

[kingvillien]

The Millennial Point of View?

I'm 22 and so I guess I'm a millennial(never really thought about it before). OP doesn't speak for me or for a large chunk of millennials. I think the NRA's response about having security on campuses is a good place to start. They have it on college campuses... why not on Elementary schools?

 

[morcey2]

I think that the NRA was telling parents "Get your kids off the video games and take them out shooting!" I don't think that violent video games should be banned, but I think it would be great if the demand for them just disappeared and they weren't selling and being played in the present numbers.

Matt

 

[larryh1108]

You want to buy porn, you have to be 18. You want to buy cigarettes, you have to be 18. You want to buy a handgun you have to be 21. You want to buy alcohol, you have to be 21. I can see making buying the violent video games a restricted item like the others mentioned. Why not? It puts them into the hands of more mature people who should know better by the later age. 10-12 year old kids do not need to be able to buy them.

 

[Warp]

You want to buy porn, you have to be 18. You want to buy cigarettes, you have to be 18. You want to buy a handgun you have to be 21. You want to buy alcohol, you have to be 21. I can see making buying the violent video games a restricted item like the others mentioned. Why not? It puts them into the hands of more mature people who should know better by the later age. 10-12 year old kids do not need to be able to buy them.

In some states, yes. In other states, no.



Also, every retailer I know of requires that you be a certain age...18 if I recall correctly...to buy M rated games (and may these days are M rated). Ordering online might get around that, but you need to use debit/credit to do that, which is often difficult for minors

 

[sleepyone]

I applaud the OP for being involved. Other than that, I disagree with virtually everything he said. He needs to brush up on his history, government, gun laws, etc... Maybe spend less time playing video games and more time reading.