Rocketmedic
Member
Yeah....but I'm not going to lie, I feel sick thinking about the chaos someone can wreak with even a fairly benign weapon.
Are We Fighting Gun Control Wrong?
- Thread starter giggitygiggity
- Start date
- Status
1stmarine
Member
Does anyone talk a lot about what type of cars or bombs are used when they use those?
Lets talk about mental health, drug abuse, proper and effective security measures in any gun free zones specially in these massive concerts.
We know these gun free zones are the modern versions of human hunting fields that lunatics and terrorists target for obvious reasons.
Remember the attacks in Norway in 2011? A pretty civilized country with substantial gun control.
Nobody close by could be found with a gun to defend people who were systematically hunted down by a lunatic and extremist.
As a result 77 lives were claimed in something that perhaps could not have been 100% avoided but at least could have had a chance to
drastically reduce the nr. of victims should the security measures had been in place.
We need to demand more security in all forms in terms of personal defense and also organized. I think the organizers of this concert are going to get a lot
of heat. They failed with proper security measures.
We see how politicians and celebrities are well defended at the same time are demanding less guns, but not around them.
Blackstone
Member
One could say, go the nuclear option aka the UK route. Ban semi-auto centrefires and all handguns. You take out all of the law-abiding citizens, but will also take out some criminals too by reducing the number of guns in circulation. It would feel good to the antis, but it would get "some" result. After all, we need to DO SOMETHING, right?
(To be clear, I don't condone the above for one moment)
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I think both parties' members are finally beginning to realize that the government doesn't even begin to represent the views of the American people. Unless you're a nationalist or globalist extremist, your vies are not currently represented in our government.
There's no such reality of a government with mixed interests like that. You're either an individualist or a collectivist, despite what your personal views might be on the minutia. Either you believe the government should protect the rights of the individual, or they should forfeit the rights of the individual for the good of the collective. It's that simple.
You can't empower the government to enforce collectivism on one issue, then expect them to respect your individual rights on another issue. It's an all or nothing proposition.
The American people were bamboozled into accepting the current parties. Both parties are collectivist, it's just that the Republicans are nationalists, while the Democrats are globalists. Which is essentially a fascist vs. communist status quo, the same dialectic that was forced on Germany post WWI.
Again, you can't have it both ways. The bait used to draw people into the current system was both parties promising their voters that they would enforce mutually exclusive ideologies, which necessitates usurping the rights of the individual on some issues, while preserving them on others.
Both parties made the mistake of thinking they could control the demon once summoned. The reality is that a big, powerful government will only serve to make sure that everyone is equally oppressed and miserable.
Last edited:
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
double tap.
Note that I said "Creator" not God. We own ourselves and thus have the right to defend ourselves simply by being born. If the government grants us the right to defend ourselves, we do not own ourselves and have no rights. We only have privileges granted to us by governments and are not, nor shall we ever be, free.
Either we have rights granted to us by our Creator, or we are nothing but possessions and do not have free agency
mljdeckard
Member
Even if, philosohically speaking, there is a lot of grey area on both sides, if one were to seek it out, the category in which there is no grey area at all is in court nominees. All recent court nominations by Democrats have been dreadful for gun rights. All federal courts, not just the Supreme Court. Gorsuch could have been another Kagan or Ginsburg. (Not to mention any upcoming nominations.) One of the biggest problems with how our government functions right now, is that the legislature is failing to act decisively, and the courts are making far more policy than they were ever intended to. This means, that for the forseeable future, this fight is in the courts.
I would concur except that I would change the word "losing" to "alienating". It's not that we "lose" as in fail to attract 2A supporters because of our attitudes on other issues, it's that we "alienate" or actively drive away people from the 2A camp who don't pass a whole lot of other "litmus tests" that seem to get imposed upon them.
If we lose out 2A rights, it will be, at least in part, because we tied the 2A to a whole lot of other social issues and thereby diluted our influence. Anyone who says that another cannot work with them in support of the 2A because they don't agree about religion, abortion, gay rights or transgender bathroom rights, or whatever, deserves what they get.
goldpelican
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 259
If it comes to light that something aftermarket like a bump fire stock or gat crank were used, then they might be up for being shunted onto the NFA list. Neither have a hunting or personal protection purpose, I'm not aware of any competitions that call for their use, effectively they're just range toys (and wouldn't be allowed at many ranges that don't allow rapid fire). Just being a range toy though shouldn't be grounds for removing 2A protection from an item - but if we just had 500+ people shot (I don't know how many were shot vs hurt in a stampede), then we really should pause and consider.
Back to the original question - for my own reasons, I cannot bring myself to join the NRA, and a free range bag won't bribe me to. It's the nature of the beast though - to remain apolitical, an organisation would be relatively powerless to effect change exactly because they are apolitical - mobilizing members to vote for particular candidates because of their 2A support almost automatically results in being "supports GOP", defeating the goal of being apolitical. It's like asking a sheep to be neutral on the subject of whether grass or wolves present a bigger threat to their existence.
I wasn't aware of the Liberal Gun Club (not sure I would fit in there), but there are certainly many more organisations in this country beyond the NRA - if you were gay I would encourage you to join the Pink Pistols, if you were liberal I would encourage you to join the Liberal Gun Club, or Democrats for Gun Owners - I'm a member of Florida Carry, because they are a voice in my state that directly affects me. Does that help? I don't know, but it helps give me a voice. To be honest I don't have an answer for the original poster, but damn yes it would be nice if this wasn't always cast as a partisan issue.
everydefense
Member
Not that I think putting items on any list would actually stop anyone that's determined (the system will always be circumvented by private sales), but I can see how those could be added to the NFA list, if those items were used. I'm not saying I'd agree with that action, but what you said makes sense.
AlexanderA
Member
"Creator" = "God," no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it. I personally believe in God, but I don't depend on Him to assert my rights for me vis-a-vis the government. (Jesus didn't even get into this -- He said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.") When you get right down to it, both "government" and "rights" are human constructs. Just as we humans have set up governments to serve our purposes, so too we have limited these governments when they get too powerful. These limitations on governments are what we call "rights." There is nothing metaphysical about this. When you think of the struggle for rights as a human struggle, then that's something that both atheists and believers can agree upon.
Rights are not "grants" from the government, but the exact opposite -- limitations on the government. Nevertheless the source of these limitations is quite human. When you say that rights come from God (or a Creator -- same thing), you denigrate the struggles and sacrifices of the patriots who strived to gain us those things. It's as if those sacrifices and struggles were in vain, because we would have received our rights anyway, as gifts from on high. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
AlexanderA
Member
I disagree strenuously on this. In fact, seeing everything as an all-or-nothing proposition is exactly what got us to the current degree of polarization in this country. Absent this "tribal" mentality, most people would have a mix of positions on various issues, ranging from individualist to collectivist. And successful political parties, in the past, have always been coalitions of people with varying, and sometimes conflicting, interests. (I could go into more detail, but this isn't the place.)
I'm not saying we have rights because we have a Creator that hovers over us like a helicopter parent. I believe in God but I don't expect Him to protect my rights. That's my job. God sent me here to exercise my free agency. So, while I have God given rights, it's up to ME how to handle them. Since they are God given rights, no government, no person has the right to deny them to me. I have to agree to having my rights taken away. We have every right to tell another "You cannot take away my rights". We have every right to resist tyranny. That does not mean God or our Creator will swoop down and protect us form the consequences of our choices. If that were the case, we wouldn't be free.
It's not metaphysical. We do not belong to the government. They do not grant us rights. Our government is supposed to protect our rights, but we can't rely on the government for that, either. Knowing our rights belong to us, knowing we own ourselves does not denigrate the struggles and sacrifices of patriots. It defines them. It defines why we fight and die to protect our rights. Because if these rights are not ours by birth, we are fighting for nothing.
It's not metaphysical. We do not belong to the government. They do not grant us rights. Our government is supposed to protect our rights, but we can't rely on the government for that, either. Knowing our rights belong to us, knowing we own ourselves does not denigrate the struggles and sacrifices of patriots. It defines them. It defines why we fight and die to protect our rights. Because if these rights are not ours by birth, we are fighting for nothing.
Polar Express
Member
To the mods, thanks for letting this thread happen.
To the point of the Bill of Rights, I believe there are substantial writings on the founding fathers that clearly show that they did collectively have a strong belief in a single Creator. And in their chosen verbiage for the documents that frame our government, they clearly state that our individual rights are grated us by that Creator, (not by voting of men) and as such, they cannot be taken away, except by due process of law.
^^^ Mistwolf, well stated! I would offer that we actually have an obligation to resist tyranny, not just an option. But I really love how you wrote what you did.
What a tragedy LV was, as was Florida last year. Evil people are among us, and they are constantly trying to do evil deeds to others. Many times they are thwarted, sometimes they succeed. I for one, believe that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must all be on the lookout for evil among us, all the time. Even then, sometimes, it will succeed.
PE
1st Marine, I respectfully disagree with how you worded this. Because this was an open-air event, the person who wished to do harm had vantage and access via their weapon(s) of choice, without any security restrictions. I wasn't there, so I don't know if concert-goers were searched, or put through metal-detectors, or any other method of security screening. In this case, the evil-doer was not in that area.
To the point of the Bill of Rights, I believe there are substantial writings on the founding fathers that clearly show that they did collectively have a strong belief in a single Creator. And in their chosen verbiage for the documents that frame our government, they clearly state that our individual rights are grated us by that Creator, (not by voting of men) and as such, they cannot be taken away, except by due process of law.
^^^ Mistwolf, well stated! I would offer that we actually have an obligation to resist tyranny, not just an option. But I really love how you wrote what you did.
What a tragedy LV was, as was Florida last year. Evil people are among us, and they are constantly trying to do evil deeds to others. Many times they are thwarted, sometimes they succeed. I for one, believe that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must all be on the lookout for evil among us, all the time. Even then, sometimes, it will succeed.
PE
Last edited:
Isn't it really enough that over 55 million lawful US gun owners are targeted while the vast, nearly absolute majority of them never even think about committing a violent crime? The whole premise of gun control is completely distorted; targeting people who are not a problem because they abide the laws in the first place while those who don't aren't affected because they intentionally commit far more serious crimes than breaking a few gun laws here and there. What really motivates many of them? Notoriety and immense free publicity that's brought available by the media may be one of the more recent root causes.
But I digress. As far as profiling a stereotypical gun owner is concerned, the OP has a point. Keeping the gun rights separate from other social and political beliefs has become increasingly difficult in some circumstances. People have a tendency of defining themselves through stereotypes and while not initially having an opinion (or enough knowledge to form one) on a subject, many take the easy route ie. see what their peers have to say about it and go full blown lemmings on it. The "ban everything I don't care for" -mentality through virtue signaling has gained traction. Many people are intentionally blind to the fact that an increasing number of legislative actions serve no other purpose than blowing smoke, manufacturing false credibility to politicians and abusing the willingness of people to belong into different groups. "Us vs. them", combined with demonizing "them". Nothing new, really. The history of the world is full of horrifying examples what it'll eventually lead to.
Deviating from the norm and group mentality is a good start. More people should try to find courage to be individuals instead of trying in vain to fit in to a group defined by a collectivist mindset. In the age of social media that's a tall order, though.
Polar Express
Member
The founding fathers did not intend for our political system to be only a two-party system. It was intended to be a 'many-party' system, with a peaceful revolution every 4 years. This concept would result in less of a linear continuum, and a more balanced and collective approach. Also, it was not intended for people to be career politicians. They were business owners, who put their lives on hold to go SERVE, and then returned to their lives and families after their term of service was complete. Heck, it wasn't until after the civil war when the former presidents would get an annual pension.
1stmarine
Member
We are at war abroad and here domestically.
The sooner we put this into our heads the sooner we can start taking measures that are going to be effective.
In these large events they need to consider all threats not just the obvious ones that come through doors and metal detectors.
Don't tell me this would be the first time we would have a professional team on site working proactively like we
have in Olympic games, super-bawl or when the politicians / elite, etc... come to town.
Urban sniper teams train in spontaneous precision response tactics to reduce an active shooter in no time.
Where were all these measures?
We need to pull the heads out from our derrieres and start thinking more like if we were living in Israel and not lala land.
We are constantly being caught totally unprepared to respond and we continue with the politics mambo jambo debate. Somebody
should be very mad about this non sense, put stop to the political correctness and get to work at last. Take the politicians
out of the equation and leave it to professionals and start educating the communities how to efficiently and proactively participate in
their own security. We can teach other countries to do it so we should be able to teach our own.
The thugs, terrorists and lunatics know that Gun Free Zones are great opportunities for human hunting often totally unprotected.
The organizers failed to secure the perimeter. The rest is history now. They are going to get a lot of heat.
Blind hate is lurking and comes in many forms and from anywhere.
God bless those poor people and their families.
Michael Tinker Pearce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 1,575
My friend Tony said it best- "We don't have a tool problem, we have a cultural problem."
It is well known in law enforcement and security circles that you can't stop a mad-dog killer. If someone is even reasonably intelligent they can plan and execute an attack like LV or the Boston Marathon bombing. Hell, even a complete moron can drive a car or truck into a crowd. Mad-dog killers will find a way regardless of any law or regulation. You cannot and will not entirely stop them. Ever.
What we have to acknowledge is that we have created a society that breeds them. Often we have helped this along by simply refusing to admit that we have problems. For the last couple of decades we have been buying into the politics of fear, creating totalitarian political tribalism. Turning us against each other, hammering single-issue campaigns, playing to our fears have all been part of this. The collapse of the public mental health system has certainly not helped. There are a whole wealth of issues that contribute to a culture that produces mad-dogs- there's no quick or easy fix but we as a society need to stop scapegoating any single cause and start addressing them all.
I haven't a clue how to go about it, but I am pretty sure losing our 2A rights is not going to help. I think we need to embrace any reasonable, law abiding person that supports the 2A regardless of if we want to quibble over details in the rest of the political arena- because frankly if we lose those rights sooner or later we're going to lose the right to argue.
It is well known in law enforcement and security circles that you can't stop a mad-dog killer. If someone is even reasonably intelligent they can plan and execute an attack like LV or the Boston Marathon bombing. Hell, even a complete moron can drive a car or truck into a crowd. Mad-dog killers will find a way regardless of any law or regulation. You cannot and will not entirely stop them. Ever.
What we have to acknowledge is that we have created a society that breeds them. Often we have helped this along by simply refusing to admit that we have problems. For the last couple of decades we have been buying into the politics of fear, creating totalitarian political tribalism. Turning us against each other, hammering single-issue campaigns, playing to our fears have all been part of this. The collapse of the public mental health system has certainly not helped. There are a whole wealth of issues that contribute to a culture that produces mad-dogs- there's no quick or easy fix but we as a society need to stop scapegoating any single cause and start addressing them all.
I haven't a clue how to go about it, but I am pretty sure losing our 2A rights is not going to help. I think we need to embrace any reasonable, law abiding person that supports the 2A regardless of if we want to quibble over details in the rest of the political arena- because frankly if we lose those rights sooner or later we're going to lose the right to argue.
larryh1108
Member
How do you secure the perimeter of a hotel across the street with the nut job shooting from the 32nd floor? Do you search every hotel room on every floor that faces the park? Impossible and highly inappropriate for all the visitors who are staying there. The promoters and security can't stop something like this. They are not at blame for anything.
As for the OP, I have to ask....If one party has proven they wish to take away our guns and/or gun rights and have many vocal and powerful representatives in place (think Pelosi, the CA officials, the CT officials, the NY officials, etc) and you have the deepest of pockets (see Bloomberg and Soros) how do you combat them? With Hillary leading the charge to attack gun rights (see her AU comments pre-election) and the Obama administration fighting for 8 years to eviscerate us, how do we combat Democrats who boldly state they want us unarmed? It has become a Dem vs Rep thing because the leaders of those parties have made it a Dem for Rep issue, not us.
Did anyone read Hillary's initial comments about the tragedy in LV this morning? Wow, talk about someone who is clueless.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...fter-las-vegas-shooting/ar-AAsNnPW?ocid=wispr
Cliff notes version:
1stmarine
Member
That is what professionals are for. How do you get 10+ rifles and perimeter surveillance equipment in a huge hotel or casino w/o anyone seeing anything?
Innocent people were exposed for a long time.
Like I said urban sniper teams train in spontaneous precision response tactics to terminate an active shooter in no time. Where were they?
After the attacks in concerts in England and and Paris didn't we learn anything?
Why are they in the Olympic games, super bawl or when the politicians visit town and not to defend the average American when he/she goes to a large concert?
We are at war but people seem to resist recognizing this and undefended gun free zones are very dangerous places because they
are the favorite targets of terrorists and lunatics, specially large venues like this.
We need to start getting into the mid set more like if we were living in Israel and stop fooling around.
Hilary is our best weapon. Let her talk. She doesn't understand that a supersonic round even after suppressed still makes a loud crack.
The shooter could have killed a lot of people with a huge number of subsonic calibers and weapons because he was not using aimed precision fire.
All he needed to know was the estimated trajectory and could have been shooting much longer and precisely w/o disclosing much of his position to the untrained eye.
goldpelican
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 259
You do understand that uppers and lowers are pretty compact when separated, right? You could probably fit 10 ARs into a single suitcase and it would weigh under 80lb, and all of the ammo into another. Wave off the bellboy and lug it yourself.
1stmarine
Member
I know so many things are possible. It might take a long time before we find out what really happened and why. Although true evil has no reason.
Like I said we are at war and the sooner we understand this the sooner we can take more appropriate security measures and people are not going to like them but
everyone needs to be educated and contribute.
You are right we absolutely have been doing things wrong. We need to take as many noobs shooting as we can. Bring the 22LRs, show them
a good time. Stop arguing with the antis. You are wasting your breath. Track incumbent voting records, and vote those little anti-gun terds out of
office. Take friends and pro gunners to vote. Be sure to stay politically active.
And join the NRA. Stop being a cheap-ass. 140 million gun owners, and only 6 million are in the NRA? Come on, people.
This statement makes it seem like these viewpoints are random and disconnected viewpoints that someone just threw together into a single basket to try to build a political party from scratch. It's not really like that at all.
What party are these people supposed to vote for? So we divorce anti-abortion from gun rights. What party supports gun rights and is pro-abortion? So we treat pro-capitalism as a totally separate issue from gun rights. What party is it that pro-socialism and also supports gun rights?
I'm happy to have people with varied views and backgrounds join the gun community, but if we want to progress past the warm fuzzy stage and make political progress then at some point the rubber has to meet the road and votes have to be cast for existing candidates and parties.
The only way this is going to work is if the political parties change first.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
