Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

A queston to consider

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by armedandsafe, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Moses Lake, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    60
    We often hear the comment, "I have nothing to hide because I'm not doing anything illegal. Therefore, I don't oppose the government (doing whatever.)"

    Well, taking that statement into consideration, why are the politicians so frightened by the fact that their constituents own guns?

    Pops
     
  2. speeddemon94

    speeddemon94 The Rogue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    682
    I like this phrase: I have nothing to hide because it's none of their damn business. Therefore, I absolutely oppose everything the government does to further restrict our freedom.


    I do know what you're saying, but that has become a far too common attitude. Complacency kills.
     
    mosinguy1, jfw, Lever Action and 3 others like this.
  3. Netspirit

    Netspirit Bellevue, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    177
    I am not a politician and not frightened, but I can speculate that it is all about "constraining the negative side effects of power". Just as you think the government can go crazy with their powers and it should be constrained, some elected officials know that citizens can (and do) go crazy with guns, and should be constrained too. Handicapping the ability of the crazy to inflict a great psychological trauma to the entire society is desirable.

    I am not aware of any politicians "frightened by the fact that their constituents own guns". I am aware of some politicians frightened by the fact that their constituents have too much power - access to guns that can kill dozens of people in just a minute. They believe that those weapons and magazines are "destructive devices" - i.e. should be in the same category with, say, machine guns or grenade launchers.

    That's where the difference lies. I do not think that an AR-15 is a "destructive device". They do. It is that simple. The left wants to draw that line further than where I would want to see it. That does not mean it is some evil plot to enslave everybody - I am not buying those arguments, I believe it is all about where you draw the line between H-bombs and kitchen knives.
     
  4. speeddemon94

    speeddemon94 The Rogue Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    682
    You are flat wrong. We, the constituents, should have ALL of the power. They are elected officials and should represent and fear us. As far as "destructive devices", we should be allowed full access to all of the same personal weapons systems that our military has access to. All of the garbage laws that have infringed on our second amendment Right need to be repealed.

    People who break the law with a firearm should be dealt with in a swift and decisive manner, with very little quarter given. You do wrong and you pay the price.
     
  5. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Your attitude is EXACTLY what will cause us to lose all our rights, one by one, like in Germany just before they started extermination the Jews.
     
    jfw, kumabear17, mosinguy1 and 5 others like this.
  6. Netspirit

    Netspirit Bellevue, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    177
    You think so because you believe your opponents are "modern Nazis" who will not stop until our your rights are gone, so any concession brings you closer to the ultimate defeat. Maybe some of them are like that indeed but if you believe in this nation (in "We the People") you have to believe that those Nazis are a minority.

    What you have to work with is the vast majority of the population, and you need to understand how that majority thinks, what arguments it is receptive to - if you want to have ANY chance to have them on your side.

    The vast majority is ready to admit that the human nature has flaws, and that humans cannot own nukes (extreme example), simply because 1 crazy dude can destroy an entire city, this loss would be intolerable, inacceptable, and giving up some freedoms is OK if it makes such a disaster less likely. Now YOU are a smart, responsible individual, who would NEVER EVER do such a thing. OK, fine. But if you come to the majority saying "everybody should have nukes", you will be ridiculed. You will lose your argument, and all the sane stuff you say afterwards will be lost behind loud laughter.

    If you want to get anything done, you have to listen, understand and explain the differences, and appear reasonable and logical. You have to give up some ground sometimes in order to win the entire battle. You can argue why a semi-automatic rifle is NOT a destructive device (as you can aim and control every shot), and that may work. But if you argue that "I should be able to buy a howitzer from a private party without a background check because there is this 2A thing", you will lose.

    Don't lose.
     
    Bob D and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Intention

    Intention Hillsboro,oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    98
    First off good clear rational points. But using your own words I would argue that your "modern Nazis" are not the minority they used to be.
     
  8. Profiteering

    Profiteering America New Member

    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    42
    Amen to that Brother!
     
  9. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    377
    The politicians are power-hungry. At some point they completely lost the fact that THEY WORK FOR US. It's probably compounded by the fact that (at least in the NW states that are controlled by the population centers) they keep getting re-elected.
    Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he thought there should be a revolution every 20 years. There should be no such thing as a career politician, yet we are flush of them now. Their entire existence is built on restricting liberty and freedom. I feel they should be required to repeal 3 laws, on the same topic, for every new one they pass (and no cheating like putting the repealed one in the new one).
     
    aslinged and (deleted member) like this.
  10. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    144
    Before all this background crap started in 1968 we didn’t have the huge amount of gun violence we have now. If a person shot someone, they were prosecuted. If they used a gun in a robbery, they went to prison. Now, in places like Chicago, they plea-bargain the gun charge out so they can get a quick conviction.

    There is no reason any of us should have to prove we are a law abiding citizen to purchase a firearm and exercise our Right to do so. It’s the Government who has the responsibility to prove through due process we lost our right. With the system in place and what is being discussed, the right can be removed with virtually no recourse.

    I have no requirement to appease the Left. I learned to shoot in Cub Scouts at Ft Lawton, Seattle when I was 8. Now you can’t visibly promote shooting to children in most places. Ever so slowly the sheeple, through laziness, fear and ignorance – loose a few more of our Rights thinking it will make them safe. Think one of our Founding Fathers has a famous quote on that which I don’t remember at the moment. My rant is over (for now).

    Butch
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    377
    Might be this one, a favorite of mine:
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  12. Bob D

    Bob D Oregon, Cascades Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    299
    Personally, if freedom means allowing any citizen to manufacture or buy nuclear weapons, I'll vote against it.

    I don't believe that's what freedom means.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Netspirit

    Netspirit Bellevue, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    177
    Bob, freedom means different things for different people.

    The majority on this forums wants more freedom vs. less freedom. The question is tactical: should gun enthusiasts "play tough" and demand absolute, unconstrained freedom here and now, reject all proposals, mount a suicidal frontal assault on the unprepared minds of the general population, practice fear-mongering, spread conspiracy theories, attempt other stupid things that will only serve to turn normal citizens off, give the opposition another reason to label the entire gun community "nuts" and "lunatics", and let them win polls and elections? Or should we "play smart" and try to have a conversation, address valid concerns, make proposals, use data, statistics and numbers?

    Between the small island on the Left and equally small one on the Right there is a vast sea of indifferent people, who go on with their daily lives and fear getting shot in a movie theater much more than some abstract Nazi government registering their guns and their cars (already registered, does not hurt). It is that sea of people that takes sides and determines elections. It is the medium you and I have to work with, there is nobody else out there. Know them, respect them, be friends with them.

    Common people have a valid concern that felons can easily buy firearms with no background checks. The Left want to handicap the crazy by imposing background checks on everyone. What is the Right's proposal and why it is better? Seriously, can somebody please tell me how the Right wants to prevent crazy individuals from buying firearms easily?

    I only care about results. Winning ugly is better than losing pretty. I believe that being flexible and constructive is the way to go. I do understand that "playing tough" on the Internet feels good, too bad it achieves nothing.
     
    nwbobber, Phillyfan, Bob D and 3 others like this.
  14. mrblond

    mrblond Salem OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    I hear that. Now its " use a gun and go see half of your family. "
     
  15. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Moses Lake, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    60
    Well, I see the "nuke" concept has reared its head, again. Therefore, I will ask the same question about nukes.

    "...to keep and bear arms ..."

    You might be able to keep such an arm safely, but I'd really like to see you be able to "bear" it.

    Now, somebody will start using the example of a crew-served machine gun.

    Pops
     
  16. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Taking my 13 yr old grandson to an NRA class this weekend. Sat. is class time, Sun. is range time.
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  17. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    144
    Thanks. Yes that was the quote I was thinking of.

    Yes I had to read the question again to. Why are politicians afraid of citizens owning firearms?
    I think mostly our of ignorance stemming a lot from the "Peace,Free Love(part I liked) and Drugs" anti-war movement of the 70's. The war convinced many to believe guns were all about killing and with the media's help about killing women and children just because. These people have had it soft for so many years they sort of believe we can sit around the camp fire and sing kum ba ya all night long and the bad guys will leave us alone. They believe evil will just go away.

    I'm sure there are lots of other reasons interwoven into this. Basically politicians seem to really believe there is no evil caused by man, but instead it's caused by a material possession, a gun. Looking at FBI statistics means nothing, they just want to feel good about something they can wrap their little minds around.
    Of course there are those professional (aren't they all) politicians who would go either way on social issues if it meant they could stay in office with the power and money - McCain, Toomey, Graham and I could go on and on. The laws they pass don't affect them anyway.

    Last, from my reading on the Constitution and especially the Federalist Papers, the 2nd Amendment was all about acknowledging the "natural (God is you want) Right to defend one's self by be armed as the standard soldier of the time was/is. Today that would mean full auto and I like that. And yes, back then some stretched it to cannons - someone always wants to push the box.

    Final last comment, I read a quote by a Seal named Snake "If winning didn't matter, no one would keep score" That sums up what I believe about the 2nd. I'm not out to loose any more and I want to win back what we have lost.
    Butch
     
  18. Bob D

    Bob D Oregon, Cascades Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    299
    If you read through my post history, you will find that I am a very vocal proponent of the message in this paragraph. I have of course been berated, insulted, and threatened because of it. Us crazy statists and our populist message. :laugh: