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

[Member 52301]

I believe that we are under attack when it comes to firearm ownership - already in their sights, ammunition - already in their sights and reloading supplies (Next on their agenda - reloading supplies.) BIG time.

I believe that the RKBA issue defends ALL of our other rights.

I can't understand how any person who really follows the news from ALL (R/L) sides does not see this attack on a daily basis.

Maybe they need to meet some of the people that many of us knew (Me included!) growing up from all parts of the world whose family, friends and mentors endured WW1, WW2 and other assorted conflicts.

The funny or rather SAD thing is that some of the people who had family murdered, raped, tortured and/or their homestead stolen from them AFTER they had no other means to defend themselves or their loved ones from tyrants, dictators, kings, mad men, etc. - don't get it or they seem to live in la la land where they think that if all guns were banned or destroyed... the world would be free of murderers, rapists, crazy and evil people.

There will ALWAYS be EVIL, mean and sane/insane people in the world until Jesus returns. And they will use their BARE HANDS or any other tool to commit their dirty deed.

Old Lady Cate

 

[Member 52301]

It's a business as well as a hobby. Even now I still offer CHL classes. And I've not missed the point of the 2nd Amendment. I support it, and will continue to do so. But I didn't get into guns to exercise my 2A Rights. Nor do I think we're all going to completely lose them someday.

I'm not quite as whimsical as you make me out to be, but I'm also not a zealot. There are bigger concerns in my life than being armed.

So WHY do you EDC a handgun? Why not only take it with you when you TEACH A CLASS?

Why continue to teach firearm classes? Only for the money? Nothing wrong with making money so don't misunderstand me when it comes to that issue.

So you believe that a person who strongly believes in the RKBA issue even if they don't own or shoot their own gun or bought their own gun/guns late in life or only used their husband's gun for the MAIN reason of the Second Amendment and for SELF DEFENSE issues is a 'zealot'?

I am a law abiding zealot (Aka as hard core supporter on another forum.) for the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution.

I am more concerned about the HATE FILLED whack-a-doodles - pink hatted women and men - zealots and extremists in the ANTI GUN movement because of what has already been proven in history when it comes to disarming the population in any country around the world. They want to steal your rights and goods (From firearms to x, y and z.) since they don't LIKE, RESPECT or AGREE with you, your politics and your STUFF. Yeah, the stuff that you (Not meaning you specifically.) worked your butt off for unless a person was a trust fund baby. Socialists, communists, anti gunners, taxation thieves, yes sir ree… we got them all in the District of Criminals aka Crazy Land.

Smoke and mirrors = gun control = people control.

Cate

 

[Member 52301]

I think you are dissimulating here (I'll wait while you look that word up - I just found it myself).

Yes, a LOT happened before April 19, 1775. But we aren't talking about underlying causes and arguments that led to the American Revolution; we're talking about how it started (in your words, "how the AR began").

Gun Control is the reason, the spark that lit the "shot heard round the world". Here's a clip of the previous History page I linked to before. I'm sure you know this, but I'm including it here for context:

View attachment 542242

You can certainly maintain that the overall American Revolution was not about gun control, but there's no real argument to be made that "how the AR began" had nothing to do with gun control. It was the reason the redcoats were marching. Seizing arms and leaving the patriots defenseless was the whole point.

Thankfully the patriots recognized what you do not.

This!

Thank you.

Cate

 

[nwslopoke]

I find myself more "moderate" than most. For instance, I'd be just fine without bump-stocks, but leave magazine capacity alone.

You can't have both. You are dealing with the same people that were happy to let nearly a million citizens go without pay to make one person look bad. No, you can't have both.

If you give away the bump stock you give away it all and they will be more than happy to take it. Show me where they have shown restraint. SB501? Feinstein? Kamela Harris stopped a gun shop from having a picture of a gun painted in it.

 

[Frank RW]

Why not keep your handgun at home and practice with it to keep up your skills on a regular basis at a range where you can shoot it safely?

I doubt I'll ever need it, but I've also never had an at-fault car accident, yet would have auto-insurance even if it wasn't required.

As far as keeping up with my skills, I have thousands of dollars and literally 100s of hours into my firearms training.
(But still don't consider myself anywhere near an "expert". A good marksman at best, even then only against paper targets.)

 

[Frank RW]

No, you can't have both.

That us VS them attitude is the very reason we don't make progress on either side. The complete unwillingness to compromise just stone-walls (no pun intended) everything.

 

[GWS]

That us VS them attitude is the very reason we don't make progress on either side. The complete unwillingness to compromise just stone-walls (no pun intended) everything.

How is me saying I'm only going to take half of your stuff a compromise? Compromise is give and take but the anti-gun group only takes. Please name one thing they have given to gun owners in the last 50 years. Their plan is to erode our gun rights as quickly as they can.
The gun-grabbers have never compromised and that is why we should stop trying to.

 

[Frank RW]

The gun-grabbers have never compromised and that is why we should stop trying to.

"Trying to"? When's the last time you were willing to compromise on anything 2A or guns?
I figure that's a rhetorical question, since it appears you're set in your viewpoint and unwilling to adapt.
The same mind-set the "gun-grabbers" have, so there will be no positive progress for either side.

 

[Frank RW]

The be clear, in my simplistic viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment, we The People have the Right to bear whatever arms we desire.... whether it be a flint-lock, a machine gun or a friggin' howitzer. And a Felon has no less Right to do so than any of us.

I don't recall reading "except criminals" or "except full auto" in the 2A. Yet, IMO, those seem to be reasonable restrictions.

 

[DB is Here]

Gun-rights activists want it all, anti-gun proponents want it all gone. Unless we come to some happy medium, this is a debate that will go on for another 200 years.

I get what your saying, however I'm curious if you think it's the correct track? Meaning why aren't Dems more open to:
1) Stricter Sentencing
2) No plea deals when a gun is used in a violent crime
3) Keeping the habitual violent offenders off the street

Point being if we first don't address what the real issues are, then this anti-gun rabbit hole is a never ending circle jerk of blaming an inanimate object for societies/political failures.

 

[Frank RW]

Point being if we first don't address what the real issues are, then this anti-gun rabbit hole is a never ending circle jerk of blaming an inanimate object for societies/political failures.

I completely agree. Condemn the criminal, not the tools he used to be one. Just as I wouldn't ban cars just because it's a means to escape or run people over, or knives because of Jack the Ripper, etc.

Kinda like a game of Monopoly... I think the only way the battle ends is when one side has it all.

Sadly, I don't think there will ever be a consensus.
I keep hoping it's a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to the other, eventually settling down somewhere in the middle.

 

[GWS]

"Trying to"? When's the last time you were willing to compromise on anything 2A or guns?
I figure that's a rhetorical question, since it appears you're set in your viewpoint and unwilling to adapt.
The same mind-set the "gun-grabbers" have, so there will be no positive progress for either side.

Gun-rights activists want it all, anti-gun proponents want it all gone. Unless we come to some happy medium, this is a debate that will go on for another 200 years.

I'm guessing you are new to the gun-control situation. Because otherwise you would know what all the "compromises" we have made since the 60's (GCA 1968) and even before have cost us. More and more of our rights without us gaining anything in return. So please tell me this: What compromise should we make? What compromise should the anti-gun side make?

 

[nwslopoke]

Waiting periods, limits on purchases within a month, magazine capacity, red flag laws with no due process, background checks even with family members , mandated training...these are a sample of compromises we have done. Sorry, examples of offerings because in a compromise we would receive more than we already had.

 

[Frank RW]

What compromise should we make? What compromise should the anti-gun side make?

That's a tough question I doubt anyone can answer. If I had it MY way, there would be zero gun-control laws and no attempts to neuter our firearms. Instead dole out really tough sentences for those that commit crimes with them. Felony with a firearm? 20 to life.

If I tried from an anti-gun POV, I'd say guns should go to those that prove themselves responsible and eligible to have them.
Which leaves a WHOLE LOT to be interpreted, by just off the top from my POV;
No joy for those not old enough to drink, or convicted of any firearms crimes, the dangerously mentally ill, known terrorists, non-US citizens, and probably a few more I can't think of at the moment.

 

[Frank RW]

Waiting periods, limits on purchases within a month, magazine capacity, red flag laws with no due process, background checks even with family members , mandated training...these are a sample of compromises we have done. Sorry, examples of offerings because in a compromise we would receive more than we already had.

All those aren't universal in every State. If you live in one of those places, put your vote to work. Or move.

Of your list, the only ones *I* agree with is mandated training and background checks on everyone. But I also think the same for people who drive or breed.

 

[nwslopoke]

All those aren't universal in every State. If you live in one of those places, put your vote to work. Or move.

Of your list, the only ones *I* agree with is mandated training and background checks on everyone. But I also think the same for people who drive or breed.

Again, stay focused on the issue. One, these aren't necessarily limits in my state (yet). But the issue is of compromise. Ok, there is a small sample of compromise. I am waiting for a response that explains what a gun owner has received in exchange. Previously, a gun owner did not have to deal with those issues. Things that law makers said, 1) No one is coming for your guns (except Feinstein actually did say it. 2) if you give in to these measures, it will keep you safe. No actual evidence supports this. It also a hard sell when the same lawmakers keep their armed security.

 

[Frank RW]

I am waiting for a response that explains what a gun owner has received in exchange. Previously, a gun owner did not have to deal with those issues.

Ideally, a safer society. I sure don't want anyone who fails a background check to live next door with a stash of guns and crazy thoughts.

It also a hard sell when the same lawmakers keep their armed security.

Of whom I'm sure are well-trained and not a felon. But you can bet if he crosses the line, he'd lose more than just his job.

 

[GWS]

That's a tough question. If I had it MY way, there would be zero gun-control laws and no attempts to neuter our firearms. Instead dole out really tough sentences for those that commit crimes with them. Felony with a firearm? 20 to life.

If I tried from an anti-gun POV, I'd say guns should go to those that prove themselves responsible and eligible to have them.
Which leaves a WHOLE LOT to be interpreted, but just off the top from that POV;
No joy for those not old enough to drink, or convicted of any firearms crimes, the dangerously mentally ill, known terrorists, non-US citizens, and probably a few more I can't think of at the moment.

I agree with your 2A stance but now let's put you across the table from Diane Feinstein and, as usual, she wants to ban all "assault weapons". How would you negotiate? What compromises would you make and what do you expect in return?

 

[nammac]

I agree with your 2A stance but now let's put you across the table from Diane Feinstein and, as usual, she wants to ban all "assault weapons". How would you negotiate? What compromises would you make and what do you expect in return?

How about we start with charges of treason for any legislator that introduces/supports legislation that flys in the face of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights? That's a good starting point... we'll hit illegal immigration, gender confusion bathrooms and abortion in the second go round...

 

[GWS]

How about we start with charges of treason for any legislator that introduces/supports legislation that flys in the face of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights? That's a good starting point... we'll hit illegal immigration, gender confusion bathrooms and abortion in the second go round...

That's a helluva good start.