A little refresher article on early gun control: The American Revolution against British Gun Control

[Herb g]

April 9th 2065

Time to start a pool. I smell some easy money.

 

[3MTA3]

Like ravenswood, I spent my whole life without an interest in guns (either for or against) until three years ago. At 54, I took a handgun safety class, having inherited my dad's 1911 and after staring at it for three years not knowing anything about how to properly use it.

So I understand the apathetic attitude towards our right to bear arms; I get the "if the 2A is eliminated it won't affect me" position, though I now think it's a viewpoint that expresses a fundamental ignorance of history and an overabundance of trust in one's fellow man.

People's views can change. Mine certainly have, and though I take ravenswood at his word that he doesn't consider the 2A critical to his existence, I can't help wondering if he's been seduced by the moral relativism so pervasive in our culture today. It's an attitude that is essentially solipsistic in its approach to… well everything. It essentially says that "I alone matter" and the only things that are important are the things that affect me. I'm sure he'd disagree with this characterization, but it's what I infer from his arguments.

The right to bear arms is not just some right that can be bargained away and life will go on just fine. In fact, there's overwhelming objective proof that once a nation and a people are successfully disarmed, anything can happen or be done to them. Everyone in power knows this very well, whether they say so or not. Even a poor student of history can see many examples of this, not just limited to Lexington and Concord.

Those of us who think this way aren't spittle-flecked kooks raving in the woods (Stomper notwithstanding), but instead are sober-eyed students of history and human nature.

Well said. The only thing I can add is the right to keep and bear arms isn't just about guns - it's about arms. Arms include firearms, but also includes any weapon we can use for our defense, the defense of our loved ones and our country. This means things like baseball bats, knives, axes, pitchforks, pepper spray, tasers - anything that's available and useful to staying alive when attacked or threatened.

The intent of the Second Amendment is that we the people have the inalienable (not granted by man) right to defend ourselves, our families and loved ones, and our country.

The Second Amendment is NOT about our right to go target shooting, hunting, or collecting or any other recreation. That stuff all falls under the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. This concept is why we have a Constitution designed to keep our government out of our lives as much as possible.

 

[Herb g]

Watch Democrat heads explode trying to classify THIS.

 

[Ownerus]

My schedule rarely lets me join these discussions in a timely manner so forgive me if I'm repeating what others have said.

2A is one particular Right I've never been all that gung-ho about.

I had gathered as much from reading other comments over several months. Perhaps you haven't recognized that if the 2nd can be violated, so can all the others since they'll be defenseless.

Sure, it's not a favored viewpoint, particularly on a firearms site! But I managed to go most of my life without. I didn't get into guns until about 4 years ago, and I'm 52. I went from being borderline anti-NRA, to a life member and certified NRA rifle/pistol instructor and coach.

I'm a few weeks short of 65. A gun owner for 55 of those years. Paying attention to the ongoing assault by anti-gunners for over 50 years. You admit to not being a historian. Perhaps a bit of study is in order so you can learn why you have managed to go about your life without.

When I read your comment, my first thought was "oh, one of those leftist guys who buys a couple of guns and gets some NRA certifications to establish some 'street cred'. The kind the media loves to find to interview when there's an atrocity committed with a gun." Realizing I could be wrong, I'll reserve judgement. Maybe you're still learning.

In other comments you've stated you're not worried the government is going to take away our guns. You're right, they aren't. But they ARE going to try. If you don't believe that, you're either disingenuous or really not paying attention.

You also stated "...pro or against, at the ballot box".

Rights are above any law. They cannot be legislated or voted away. They CAN be and ARE violated.

It appears to me the main factors promoting "gun control" are fear, ignorance, and power lust. Controlling crime is only the facade they operate behind. My guns are not a threat to anyone who is not attacking me. Taking them won't make anyone safer except criminals and tyrants. Yet every time there's another atrocity involving a gun, the first thing the anti's do is BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T DO IT and concoct yet another way to attack the tool used and the people who peacefully own them, IF it's a gun. Notice how there doesn't seem to be the same enthusiasm for banning splitting mauls in the aftermath of the recent horrific multiple murders east of Woodburn, Meanwhile, if they survive the event, the perps fade from the news and continue to live for decades at our expense.

This topic had been beaten to death for years before many of you were even born. The trend has largely been in the wrong direction. The only peaceful resolution will be to start making lots of converts among the younger generations and getting them to vote for liberty. I'm not optimistic but we'll have to try. The other options are, shall we say, undesirable.

 

[Diamondback]

View attachment 542476 Watch Democrat heads explode trying to classify THIS.

SKEERY BLACK ASSAULTY THING BAN IT BAN IT RITE NAO!!!!

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Rights are above any law. They cannot be legislated or voted away. They CAN be and ARE violated.

I thought it might be worth repeating a post I made to the same member here. I think the thread lost momentum, so the post may not have been widely seen.

"... there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow "not a democracy, but a republic."

The two forms of government, Democracy and Republic, are poles apart. In lines with trying to sell us on a "living" Constitution, the left continues to misrepresent, in revisionist history fashion, the fact that these two forms of government are entirely different.

A Democracy is characterized by the majority having unlimited power over the minority. The people have no unalienable rights in a Democracy, only privileges that can at any time be revoked. Without limit and without protection, the minority can be tyrannized by the majority, by "mob-rule".

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Benjamin Franklin

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

A Republic is characterized by government, and the majority, being limited in power by a constitution. The constitution is only changeable by the arduous process of amendment. The people possess unalienable, God-given rights. The majority, no matter how large, cannot infringe on the rights of the minority, even a minority of one.

It's a country where (ideally at least) the majority wins. If the majority want's gun control, then, against my own beliefs, it should be so.

This is one of the most dangerous and repugnant statements I have yet to read on this forum.

Yet, here we are, fighting for our Rights.

The Democrats know what they are doing is unconstitutional, but they will do it anyway, knowing full well that they have unlimited resources to defend their position in the courts, whereas groups like ours do not.

 

[Diamondback]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch, Liberty and a Republic have a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

 

[American123]

All I did was give my point-of-view. Whether you're impressed or even care what I think makes zero difference to me. Vice-versa I'm sure. But thanks for the verbose attempt at educating me, although really unnecessary. It's just a difference of opinions, no need to be offended or irritated.

Oh, and FYI, "#1 there is no requirement..." may be true in WA, but in Oregon, a handgun safety class (or similar) is required for a conceal/carry permit.

I was not aware it was mandatory to take a conceal carry class in Oregon to conceal carry. That's unfortunate. It's amazing that the human species advanced this far without the government controlling every aspect of our lives and teaching society everything we need to know.

I believe our conversation has reached it's conclusion, however the apathy expressed toward second amendment rights is rather naive in my opinion since the rights we lose today aren't only our rights, but those of all future Americans to come. I think if people thought more in terms of rights from a generational perspective and less than a individual perspective, they would be less willing to give up what they presume to be "not something they really need." How sad it is that the overall trend generation to generation is for American's to be more controlled by government and experience less overall freedom.

 

[Frank RW]

I believe our conversation has reached it's conclusion, however the apathy expressed toward second amendment rights is rather naive in my opinion...

You seem to think that it's not possible to be "apathetic" regarding my own benefits yet the opposite for The People.

But I think you're right, there's little more either of us can say without beating the dead horse even more.

 

[nwslopoke]

Oh, and FYI, "#1 there is no requirement..." may be true in WA, but in Oregon, a handgun safety class (or similar) is required for a conceal/carry permit.

A class either in person or online is necessary, but actually handling a firearm us not necessary for an Oregon certificate to apply for a carry permit.

 

[Frank RW]

A class either in person or online is necessary, but actually handling a firearm us not necessary for an Oregon certificate to apply for a carry permit.

Me, I think it's wise to require some education or show experience. We have a lot more ignorant potential firearm bearers in this country than we did even 50 years ago. And ya can't really depend on folks to self-educate.

 

[nwslopoke]

Me, I think it's wise to require some education or show experience. We have a lot more ignorant potential firearm bearers in this country than we did even 50 years ago. And ya can't really depend on folks to self-educate.

If my eyes had not seen the direction Oregon is headed and even where we are currently I might agree. I am less worried and what some legal gun owner might do as opposed to what Oregon law makers have done. One thing is they cowardly have gone to children and ask them to write legislation so they can hide behind and say it's what the children wanted. That happens no place else.

Next Oregon (along with the west coast) has given up on punishing criminals for actual gun crimes and are going after the legal owner that are victimized by the criminals. The criminal, especially in Portland, are having their gun penalties reduced while victim of the theft is now a felon (if Portland officials get's their way).

Bottom line, there is no requirement outside of not being a prohibited person to purchase a firearm in Oregon. Oregon is peppered with municipalities that have rules counter to the state laws. None of those rules makes anyone safer from a person intent on doing harm. Training is advised but should not be required because even that gives away more authority than this current group in Salem can handle.

 

[mrblond]

Me, I think it's wise to require some education or show experience. We have a lot more ignorant potential firearm bearers in this country than we did even 50 years ago. And ya can't really depend on folks to self-educate.

I totally agree with you, anyone writing a law should have some education on the subject they are writing about, as of now most lawmakers are totally ignorant on the subject of firearms and it shows,
They should also take a few classes on the constitution as well.

 

[Diamondback]

I totally agree with you, anyone writing a law should have some education on the subject they are writing about, as of now most lawmakers are totally ignorant on the subject of firearms and it shows,
They should also take a few classes on the constitution as well.

There's an idea... Before being eligible to take office, all Legislators-elect should be required to take and pass a Con Law course, with their grade required to be published in the Voter Pamphlet. Candidates may CHOOSE to take the same course at their own expense, and if they do so to request their grade be published in the Voter Pamphlet. Legislators-elect or -appointed shall not be eligible to take the oath of office and serve until they pass.

 

[gunsmithkinks]

 

[jim97701]

I think kids should be able set up a safe target in their back yard and learn firearm safety and marksmanship with a bb gun. Unfortunately doing such will most likely result in the police paying a visit as discharging an air gun in city limits is against the law. Seems a kids only option is a nerf or rubber band gun, at least until they make that illegal too.

 

[sabasarge]

I've never been attacked by paper. Oh, well, there is the occasional cut, but that's my fault.

One shouldn't underestimate a pellet gun! The right setup and you can take (rather quietly and inexpensively) down small game.
(one of many sources)

Indeed. I had a project in Botswana that lasted a bit over two years, and while I had a .308 and 30.06 with me, I kept the baboons away with a Ruger (.177) air rifle. They were very much a hassle until a number of them felt well-placed zingers. They became less and less of a problem over time. It got to the point where they'd just see it come out and they were history (very smart little buggers)

 

[billdeserthills]

Sheriffs disobey New Gun Laws--Refuse to Disarm Citizens
'I'm Not Going to Enforce That': Sheriffs Disobey New Anti-Gun Laws—Refuse to Disarm Citizens

 

[GWS]

Either pro or against, at the ballot box. If that weren't so, there'd be no new gun laws. And probably a bit of anarchy.

Well... No!
You see, the United States is a Constitutional republic which is supposed to protect us from mob rule by having enumerated rights such as the Second Amendment. These rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of the mob and scheming politicians who appear to deliberately ignore their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..

 

[Frank RW]

You see, the United States is a Constitutional republic which is supposed to protect us from mob rule...

Ideally, yes. But what's the reality? Those loudest and well-funded seem to direct our Country more than ever before.

What surprises me that anti-gun folks have more pull than pro. It's one of the reasons I think the NRA has become so neutered compared to "influencers" on the web. We're just too busy playing at the range than we are creating million-plus followers on YouTube.