Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,211
It's perfectly clear the militia is made up of us ordinary citizens. And the government can't regulate it because it is to protect us from them.
Last edited:
Antigunners are losing their minds over terminology
- Thread starter AlexanderA
- Start date
- Status
AlexanderA
Member
The reason the antis are "losing their minds" is that they (at least the more realistic among them) clearly see their defeat looming. It must be terribly frustrating to see their emotional appeals falling on deaf ears. In fact, the harder they push, the more people go out and buy AR's. The antigun push is one of the main reasons that gun sales have skyrocketed in the past few years. This has to be the "mother" of all unintended consequences.
I’m pretty sure they knew about murder. Hence, laws against it.
Jim Watson
Member
STATE laws against murder, robbery, rape, etc.
There was an old saying "Don't make a Federal case out of it."
But now it seems everything is a Federal case as the central government grabs more power.
There was an old saying "Don't make a Federal case out of it."
But now it seems everything is a Federal case as the central government grabs more power.
The first part is wishful thinking, the second has a lot of merit, but they don’t care about that, they just figure to collect them all one day
AlexanderA
Member
The more people buy AR's, the more they will vote so as not to have them taken away. This is really very simple. It's the "vested interest" explanation of politics. By pushing people to buy more AR's (and other guns) by their hysterical talk of confiscation, the antis are sealing their own electoral doom.
The smart antigunners are aware of this conundrum. They're in a trap of their own making, and they know it. No wonder they are becoming more and more hysterical. It's a vicious cycle they can't seem to be able to break out of.
Last edited:
Just because someone biuys an AR doesn’t mean they are automatically pro gun, or will vote that way. Many gun owners vote for anti gun politicians because of other issues thinking/hoping they won’t pass anti gun legislation. We have people like yourself here telling us all the time it’s ok because they won’t have the votes. Been a mighty close call more than once where another vote or two would have stripped our rights away. The antis use it as a campaign tactic, inferring or even saying they are not anti, but just look at their records. The anties laugh at us all the time gor being suckered that way. We are on the edge of the precipice as far as gun rights go, won’t take much to push it over, despite what you tell us here, wishful thinking or whatever it is.
The other issue problem is major. Some progun folks cannot understand that as the usual progun candidate is in accord with their other views. They don't face the problem of another threat to personal liberty equally unpleasant.
Also, I think (for what it is worth), current buyers assume grandfathering of their current legal purchases, so they can vote on other issues.
Also, I think (for what it is worth), current buyers assume grandfathering of their current legal purchases, so they can vote on other issues.
Ignition Override
Member
OP:
“…Losing their Minds?”
They never had them, are unwilling to use their minds/ critical thinking.
“…Losing their Minds?”
They never had them, are unwilling to use their minds/ critical thinking.
AlexanderA
Member
It's complicated. Being "pro gun" covers a pretty wide spectrum.
Bottom line: Someone who owns an AR is not going to vote for confiscation. That's the red line. They may vote for enhanced background checks, red flags, etc. The antigunners, to appeal to such voters, would have to carefully calibrate their program. They are not doing this. From what I'm seeing, the antigunners are openly calling for outright bans. The masks are off. And, they are reaping the backlash.
With every call for confiscation, gun sales spike. (This is well documented.) More gun owners means more resistance to confiscation. That's why the antigun movement is caught in a downward spiral. Don't let their temporary gains in places like Washington State fool you.
There are going to be some very surprising results in next year's elections.
They don't mind a string of losses, they just keep pecking away, you're teasing yourself that our gun rights are not in danger.
LiveLife
Member
This is true.
During my 26 years working for state government agencies of CA, I trained A LOT of people who were liberals/LGBTQ/progressive/anti-2A/anti-mass shooting and when threat of crime affected them personally, they wanted to buy guns and get carry permits.
While some of them converted to being pro-2A and to vote for gun rights, others remained anti-2A. When I asked them to vote pro-2A in 2016, some of them agreed to vote pro-2A/Trump to ensure future of gun rights. Some will continue to vote pro-2A but many won't.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,211
It has reached a level of brainwashing that the antis think gives them the advantage they need, they know it violates the Constitution but they don't care.
Old Dog
Member
Let's hope so.
In the meantime, while I generally agree that we too often get down in the weeds and allow ourselves to be needlessly distracted by definitions and terminology, I would point out that this often comes with the cost of our side (RKBA) allowing the other side to frame the narrative in big-picture ways. We'll quibble about the anti side constantly using the term "assault weapon" while not contesting their broad-brush hyperbole about how much more deadly high-capacity magazines are (we all know that skilled persons can perform rapid magazine changes) or how much more deadly the .223 round above all other calibers is because of the destruction it causes to tissue. My point is that we really need to stop arguing definitions and address the emotionalism behind the anti-gun faction's claims, rebut their claims about how much more deadly certain firearms are than others, and most certainly, attack that side's hypocrisy, lies, disinformation, misinformation, use of statistics and finally, just maybe, do some educating about U.S. history, the philosophy behind the founding fathers writings (Federalist Papers a good start) on the importance of bearing arms, the 2nd Amendment, and, of course, the racist history of gun control in America,
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,509
Until gun people can come to terms as to what the Founding Fathers intention was for the 2nd Amendment we will be in a continual battle of terminology.
I know exactly what my AR15 is for, and anyone who hasn't had their head in the sand the past 8 years should know what it's for as well. This country is heading down the same path as the Roman empire, what comes out the other side, if there is another side only God knows.
I have no problem calling my AR15 a weapon of war, that's exactly what it needs to be in the minds our government. So is the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, K98, Swedish Ljungman, French MAS, FN FAL, etc. The people of the US afforded by the Constitution should have no rights restricted on weapons to mount a defense in efforts to ensure the peoples of US continue to maintain freedom. This is OUR country, less the politicians that SERVE us forget.
We the People, grant the powers to the government, NOT the other way around. Sadly, this idea has been long forgotten. It is an agenda for the politicians to help the citizens of the US to forget this. Is it mere coincidence that we do not nationalize foreigners coming to this country into the foundational beliefs that established this country, all the while our government pushes for those exact people to vote in elections?
Last edited:
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,211
Your right our empire is coming to an end just like all the other empires because we never learn from history.
LiveLife
Member
Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights was added to prevent majority mob rule imposing on the rights/liberties of the minority.
Back in 1776, there were those in governmental powers who wanted to impose on the colonists without representation and after 240 years, not much has changed for those who want to do the same in 2023 because people's desire to impose majority mob rule on minority hasn't changed.
That's why the founders chose Republic over pure Democracy, Electoral College over Popular Vote and 2 Senators for each state regardless of population numbers to overrule population based House of Representatives.
And why the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, has the ultimate voice over legislative and executive branches because the founders knew politicians could become corrupt.
Just as there are those losing their minds over terminology in 2023, I am certain there were those who lost their minds over terminology back in 1776.
And "We the People" spoke in 2016 to self govern to appoint "Originalist" justices to the Supreme Court.
Long live the Republic.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,211
Yes they knew that you can't trust government they lived it and history had also proven it. It's just as true today.Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights was added to prevent majority mob rule imposing on the rights/liberties of the minority.
Back in 1776, there were those in governmental powers who wanted to impose on the colonists without representation and after 240 years, not much has changed for those who want to do the same in 2023 because people's desire to impose majority mob rule on minority hasn't changed.
That's why the founders chose Republic over pure Democracy, Electoral College over Popular Vote and 2 Senators for each state regardless of population numbers to overrule population based House of Representatives.
And why the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, has the ultimate voice over legislative and executive branches because the founders knew politicians could become corrupt.
Just as there are those losing their minds over terminology in 2023, I am certain there were those who lost their minds over terminology back in 1776.
And "We the People" spoke in 2016 to self govern to appoint "Originalist" justices to the Supreme Court.
Long live the Republic.
AlexanderA
Member
What is really meant by that is that the founding documents were designed to preserve control by the ruling class (the American untitled aristocracy). It wasn't until the age of Andrew Jackson that the common people began to assert themselves. It was very upsetting to some, in the old order, that the hoi polloi could party on the White House grounds at Jackson's inauguration.
But in spite of that, the classic "mob rule" was never the real issue in America. Setting that up as a straw man was convenient then, and remains convenient (in some quarters) today.
Conelrad
Member
It all boils down to this: The 2nd amendment.
In order to repeal it: The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed, repealed, or modified by two-thirds of the House and Senate, OR by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment or remove a standing one, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it. This includes trying to change even one word of it.
Given this, all this talk of an emotional change, ban, or taking will fail under that constitutional law.
Providing the 2nd is held as law, and not in contempt, it will stand.
The loss of the 2nd could come as a long, hard road for anti's to travel, but not impassable.
After all, it is all done by other humans that we put in or deny positions as legislators.
In order to repeal it: The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed, repealed, or modified by two-thirds of the House and Senate, OR by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment or remove a standing one, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it. This includes trying to change even one word of it.
Given this, all this talk of an emotional change, ban, or taking will fail under that constitutional law.
Providing the 2nd is held as law, and not in contempt, it will stand.
The loss of the 2nd could come as a long, hard road for anti's to travel, but not impassable.
After all, it is all done by other humans that we put in or deny positions as legislators.
AlexanderA
Member
The only historical precedent we have for a constitutional convention is the original one, in 1787. It was called to "revise the Articles of Confederation" but quickly moved to a clean slate.
This is what the people calling for an Article V convention don't seem to understand. The agenda would be open, and a whole new document could be proposed. And the ratification process could be new as well -- perhaps a nationwide popular vote. What are the odds that a 2nd Amendment equivalent could be included in this? Not high. Yet many 2nd Amendment proponents are calling for exactly that.
The United States is an anomaly among nations, in that it has a basic constitution dating back to 1787. Most countries change their constitutions every few years. France is currently on its fifth republic (not counting the empires and monarchies in between). Greece's current constitution dates back only to 1975.
- Status
Similar threads
