Interesting rules on another site im on

You keep repeating nonsense there Steve.
More powerful rifles? LOL.

 

Boy, there are sure a bunch of "know it all's" on this thread... A few of you guys(and you know who I am pointing fingers at) are unknowledgeable of things and believe what the main stream media shoves down your throats.Instead of believing what lying and uneducated politicians and reporters tell you what they want you to believe is factual statements,why not actually research things for once. Google doesn't always give you the correct facts,but a few of you guys believe it,because you read it on the internet,so it must be true.. How about this,the 3-4 whiners on here,instead of trying to change minds (which you will NEVER do) just scroll past threads where we are having a good open and honest conversations about,just stay out of it. We will never change each others minds,so why come on the threads starting your bullshit. All you are trying to do is get these threads locked because you are immature and ingorant of many facts. It's always the same 1/2 dozen people it seems. I carry most days,none of my registered guns have never hurt,maimed,or killed anyone,but I sure will use them to protect me and perhaps you if the case presented itself. Our country has a bigger "legal" drug problem than a gun problem. It's sad when our kids and subjected to drug use in our schools. We have an epidemic of heroin use and fentanyl but it seems they don't try to work on fixing that,blaming guns takes the heat off the politicians who know they can't do anything to stop i,t and lawyers who get these people off with a slap on the hands..

 

Aren't opposing viewpoints and an exchange of ideas and beliefs an integral part of any "good open and honest conversation"?

 

Yea, a .556 is considered high powered? Huh. Did the few here actually see a round and compare it to say a .308 hunting round? My 9mm could do more damage just from being able to hide and maneuver it around much easier.
I don’t understand how a person can conceal a rifle to get it into places unnoticeable. But apparently it happens somehow

 

To the law abiding good people…

 

EXACTLY!
The majority of LAW ABIDING gun owners use guns for hobby, recreational shooting, and sporting, and I believe the LAST thing a LAW ABIDING gun owner wants to do is use their gun for self defense or protection.
The CRIMINAL on the other hand doesn’t care what or who he shoots, and if you try banning ANY firearm then ONLY The criminal will have them.
I have the mindset if you threaten me or my family your subject to anything I do to protect myself, and I don’t give a rats ass about your poor upbringing, no baseball games, you never were given a chance, etc.

 

Except your viewpoints go against the overwhelming majority here and you keep posting in the lively threads and/or likely reporting until a thread is locked or deleted.

 

As long as everyone is civil, no one gets into personal attacks, and no one makes generally offensive statements, there isn't much to report. It really isn't too complicated.

 

We need a "karen" counter just like posts and likes counter, it would show how many times a member hit the report button

 

That would be interesting and the results would be very predictable.
Mike Trom - 21 year member, Zero report buttons pushed.

 

Maybe a "I posted stuff that needed to be deleted because it violated board rules" counter would provide some insight too.

 

I will say that I am not at all a gun person.. Used to hunt a little, and go shooting with my Dad, who was an avid gun collector.. I have a bunch of them to sell off now..

I would contribute these thoughts:

We all have spent a lot of time arguing the many points around the meaning of the second amendment. It's important to look at the context of the times in which the bill of rights was written.

The then new union of states had just won a bloody war of independence from a Ruthless state power. Many of the framers wanted no central government at all, fearing that it would eventually be corrupted and work against the will of the people, for the benefit of those in power. A small group of our founding fathers convinced the rest of them that we needed a national government to regulate commerce/trade and for national defense. To win reluctant reps over, this group accepted 10 initial additional restrictions on government power, to insure individual liberty.

One way that the framers knew that they could ward off the central government was by having an armed citizenry. Hence the second amendment. It was not about hunting, national defense, collecting or anything other than that. The first amendment protects our right to vocally and peacefully disagree with the government. The second amendment secures that right. That is why it was in place in the 1780's.

It's often said that without the second amendment, the other 9 are irrelevant.. because citizens would have no way to enforce them, in the case of a subverted government and court system.

Now, the real question is this:

Are you an originalist when it comes to the constitution, or do you believe that the constitution should be interpreted in light of the current times?

Here's an interesting read that discusses this:

https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delive...04124073004027079114082081&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

Personally, I think it's a very slippery slope when you start shading the meaning of something as important as the bill of rights. Where does it end? Who is the arbitrator? Today, it's guns, what's it tomorrow.. your ability to disagree with the government and talk about that on the internet? Your ability to post dissent on V-8 Buick.com?

I think it's best that we leave those foundational rights alone, and interpret them literally. There is plenty of room to play in the grey area, to conform our laws to the times, and we have.. to say we have no gun control in this country is incorrect. We do. The average person cannot own a machine gun.. this law was put in place during prohibition, when bootleggers took full advantage of the (then legal to own) machine guns, against the treasury agents.

That's common sense, and I agree with it. Because it only prohibits a type of firearm action, it does not disarm the citizenry. Playing around the the grey areas.

Assault Rifles?.. if you want to ban them, then start your legal action against semi-automatic firearms, because that is all they are.. they are used widely out west for varmint hunting. My Dad has a couple knock off AR-15 style rifles with big scopes on them, for such a purpose. That's no less a hunting rifle than anything made by Winchester or Browning..

What needs clarification here, is that there is a movement now, whose eventual intent is to ban guns completely. Groups like the NRA know this, and they fight the battle against it, at the very beginning, as they should. These anti gun groups conscript the media, and well meaning citizens, by first offering what is a reasonable enough deal.. whether that be background checks, magazine limits, types of firearms base on how they look. Once they get those limitations, the outright bans and "voluntary turn in" of firearms is next.. and after that, the legislation against owning any firearm.

I guess I can't get onboard with the idea that we should have a gun free society, and be completely unable to protect ourselves against the evil that exists in the world. I would suggest that those who think that way, might be a bit delusional. They probably also think that a boy can be a girl if he decides that he is one.. (speaking of celebrating mental illness in this country.. yowza).

But in the real world I live in, I understand and plan for all possibilities. I said I am not a gun enthusiast, which is true, but I have always had a firearm (Loaded, and properly secured) in my home. My Dad gave both my sister an I a firearm, after teaching us how to respect and use it properly. Come try and threaten me or my family, and we will see how big a hole a 12 gauge magnum loaded with buckshot will make in you.

I can accept a lot of points of view here on this issue, and see merit or well meaning it most of them.

But I will tell you what really pisses me off.

Those groups who would continue to sacrifice our children, to further their cause. Common sense for decades has told us that mentally ill gunman pick a target of great importance to everyone, that is basically unprotected, so their cause or plight is well publicized. They go shoot up a school to get on the news..

Schools should be fort Knox.. locked down and guarded with men/women with guns. A hard target. Once that fact seeps into the common knowledge base, then the school shootings will stop, except for those individuals who wish to commit "suicide by cop". As long as the kids are unhurt, I am ok with accepting that unpleasant fact.

The anti-gun groups argue that "kids would be traumatized", which is a ridiculous argument.

First off, we are not going to have swat teams in full tactical gear roaming the halls of the elementary school.. We are going to have Mr Johnson and his friends, who for some reason always wears a windbreaker inside (hiding his bulletproof vest and firearm). Kids are educated that the purpose of these guys being here, is to protect them. I refuse to believe that would traumatize any child. That's utter nonsense.

Secondly, older students will understand the dangers of the world we live in, and appreciate the efforts that adults are undertaking to keep them safe. Oh sure, some are going to "rebel" against it outwardly, but in their heart of hearts, they appreciate those folks with guns protecting them. And it's a good life lesson illustration about how you have to have eyes wide open when it comes to the threats that exist in our world today.


The real reason they won't harden schools, is that gun control is a wedge issue, and they need it to convince folks to elect them. Simple as that, and they are willing to sacrifice our children to keep that issue. Ask yourself, how long does it take for a politician to spout off about gun control, after a school shooting? They used to be smarter at it, and would let a few days go by, but not anymore... that time frame can be measured in minutes now.

I am comforted by my belief that there is a special place in hell, reserved for those individuals that could do something to stop the slaughter of innocent children, but don't..... for political gain.

Peace out

JW

 

I pretty much agree with you Jim, But bear in mind that the second amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The definition of infringement is "limiting or undermining something." Since making it illegal for me to own a machine gun, tank, or cannon is an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms (it limits it, which fits within the definition of infringement), Do you really think that we should take the bill of rights literally?

 

BS

 

I have never met, nor talked to a person that has ever proposed banning guns completely. That is the boogeyman the NRA tosses out when they need to feel like the good guys.

 

One important aspect of the second amendment that isn't mentioned by Jim, is that when it was written there was no standing army in the US. The army that fought for independence against the British was formed from militias drawn from the nascent states.

The second amendments clearly states this. The idea the gun ownership is a right in order to protect us from our own government is NOT clearly stated in the text, so much for originalism.

In my opinion making schools hard targets is not a reasonable or desireable concept.

There are way too many of them and it would be WAY too expensive. Locally, our schools cannot afford their existing needs.

Reality is, these incidents are extremely rare. As other point out, drugs kill more US citizens than guns (2x currently). Our society tends to not care as much, because we tend to blame drug users for their own demise, and it's much less dramatic (ie not news worthy).

The point of this thread was, we can all be civil to each other and that's the only real rule we need.

Sad that many posters don't seem to get that.

 

Hardening schools is indeed a difficult issue, and most states are simply uninterested in spending the money necessary to do.

One door only? Uh, serious fire / safety hazard right there. Sure, the other doors should all be locked, but people make errors, doors malfunction, etc. In Uvalde the door was theoretically locked but evidently it didn't hold. Heck the latest school shooter shot out locked doors to get in.

Armed guards will stop things? Many school security / resource officers do carry weapons, though there does not seem to be evidence that doing so deters violence. Then again, it might -- I'm not sure about this one, though many experts say stats show no reduction in violence.

Also, many many teachers would tell you they will not carry guns under any circumstance. And having guns available where a kid can get at them, i.e. overpower a teacher or a guard, or grab an unattended gun -- may not be too wise either.

Somehow in New Zealand they banned large ammo clips and automatic and semiautomatic weapons and they have not had a mass shooting since. Hmmm.

Long story short: yes, we can make improvements at schools. But maybe, just maybe, a tandem effort involving gun access might work too.

 

You’d be amazed what gun owners (myself included) hear.
This nut job in Santa Barbara when we were there for a wedding latched onto me when my family and I were walking down the beach.
She was spouting off to my kids how “she and I (our generation) ruined the planet and it is up to our kids to take over and save it. Don’t necessarily disagree with all her sentiments but I started picking up on the talking points and could tell she was gaining speed so I let the family get a little ahead of me as she stayed on my heels.
I knew arguing with her wouldn’t help either of us so I agreed on limited points where I could which I think emboldened her.
At the end of her ranting & stories about protesting this and that when she lived in Chicago she then switched to gun control. About that time my eldest son called to me to wrap it up and stay with them.
The lady sped up her spiel realizing she was losing her North Carolina audience.
As I am telling her it was nice talking to her and went to catch up with everyone she moves around in front of me and launches into this spitting mad tirade on gun control and concealed carry.
I started to tell her I had a conceal carry and that I practiced that ever day as I live on a large farm property and had come in contact with rabid animals that needed to be put down & properly disposed of etc etc but she then went into the ears completely shut and mouth wide open,hateful screeching (uglier than ANY gun I have ever seen) and ended it with giving me the bird right in my face (while telling me THIS (the bird)is what she told someone else who supported conceal carry).
I had a kind of Steve Harvey look on my face so I just told her yes there are differing views on that,was nice talking with you and thanks for letting us visit with your dog,have a great day.
Should have seen the venomous hate coming out of that lady.
Believe me we hear LOTS of hateful “I don’t care we just want your guns” talk as owners.