American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-2A

[Mikej]

@Mikej, you really need to GTFO ASAP!! BTW, I have a friend that lived in Santa Rosa and complained and complained. Then he moved to Reno... I don't know what the people there are like, but he's not complaining about being surrounded. I wish you all the best!!![/QUOTE]

It's in the works my friend.

 

[Geardo]

Here are three rulings by T judges in favor of the 2A, although they were minority opinions:

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: Amy Coney Barrett Tries to Overturn Law Banning People Convicted of Felonies from Possessing Firearms

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: Trump judges fume over the Second Amendment and vote to reconsider decision upholding federal gun law

This one, about the right to carry firearms, is very interesting. I've provided 2 links to it - both good reads:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-894_p86b.pdf

Peruta v. San Diego County - Wikipedia

Thanks for the links.

 

[Zathras]

OP: Good post. Many others already said most of what needed to be said. I'd add one thing, which is that 'big tech' is doing their level best to signal and guide the masses into a 'utopia without guns'. I worked with many who could have masters/phd's in whatever and could not get it through their heads that the Constitution was indeed *not* a 'living document' like their fancy/expensive profs told them.

One of the other fronts is from medical establishment types and other 'science' groups, who are well-funded and continue to pour out their lab-coat-backed "studies" on the whole "gun violence epidemic", making your average person who is mostly indifferent, but ignorant on guns, to yield to 'well, seems like science says we are better off without guns... shame about the Constitution and all, but we just need to get over it and "evolve" into the aforementioned utopia bestowed upon us by tech. Our Global Utopia won't build itself - we have to be the change we want to see and be #brave, #resist - this is our Selma...'. We can't underestimate the damage done by the glossy veneer of these types of articles and statements made disingenuously by anti's and their lackeys.

As to the O vs. T... don't beat up too much on Taco_Lean. I think we all get that Obama was (and still is) horrible with his rhetoric, and truly laments he didn't get more done to get more gun control legislation passed, etc. No one thinks O would not have done more could he have made it happen. On the flip side, we also all know that the SCOTUS was important, and is what brought many of us single-issue voters out to the polls. We didn't want a "I'm with Her" administration picking those judges. Credit is due there.

However, I think the disconnect is that I, like many, believed Trump would at least 'do no harm' to 2A. He might not be getting us suppressors removed from NFA, CC recipro, etc., but he'd not actively pursue anything to benefit the anti's. He's had a couple high-profile shootings that forced his opinion on things like bump stocks and suppressors (as in days ago). It's when he's asked about things, he talks, he rambles, and things like 'gotta get the guns first...' (ie. doesn't understand due process and signals to red-flag law people 'green light'), then we should all take notice. The thing is, if he was just babbling on like many Fudds do (why do I need an AR, why do I need a suppressor or a bump stock?), and nothing came of it, then we'd all just shrug. The bump stocks thing was not just words, apparently, nor was the hint of red-flag law support. I'm not saying they would not be pursued anyway, but how does Trump saying those things help our cause? Is the anti-suppressors thing just a whimsical thought of his or will it translate into action?

I know the alternatives are worse, and it's why many of us helped put him into office, but we have to acknowledge politicians are going to politic, and it's good to reflect on that from time to time, and be critical where there is cause...

 

[bbbass]

 

[bbbass]

@Mikej, you really need to GTFO ASAP!! BTW, I have a friend that lived in Santa Rosa and complained and complained. Then he moved to Reno... I don't know what the people there are like, but he's not complaining about being surrounded. I wish you all the best!!!

It's in the works my friend.

Yup! I remembered that!!! So I put ASAP!!!!!!!!

 

[Geardo]

OP: Good post. Many others already said most of what needed to be said. I'd add one thing, which is that 'big tech' is doing their level best to signal and guide the masses into a 'utopia without guns'. I worked with many who could have masters/phd's in whatever and could not get it through their heads that the Constitution was indeed *not* a 'living document' like their fancy/expensive profs told them.

One of the other fronts is from medical establishment types and other 'science' groups, who are well-funded and continue to pour out their lab-coat-backed "studies" on the whole "gun violence epidemic", making your average person who is mostly indifferent, but ignorant on guns, to yield to 'well, seems like science says we are better off without guns... shame about the Constitution and all, but we just need to get over it and "evolve" into the aforementioned utopia bestowed upon us by tech. Our Global Utopia won't build itself - we have to be the change we want to see and be #brave, #resist - this is our Selma...'. We can't underestimate the damage done by the glossy veneer of these types of articles and statements made disingenuously by anti's and their lackeys.

As to the O vs. T... don't beat up too much on Taco_Lean. I think we all get that Obama was (and still is) horrible with his rhetoric, and truly laments he didn't get more done to get more gun control legislation passed, etc. No one thinks O would not have done more could he have made it happen. On the flip side, we also all know that the SCOTUS was important, and is what brought many of us single-issue voters out to the polls. We didn't want a "I'm with Her" administration picking those judges. Credit is due there.

However, I think the disconnect is that I, like many, believed Trump would at least 'do no harm' to 2A. He might not be getting us suppressors removed from NFA, CC recipro, etc., but he'd not actively pursue anything to benefit the anti's. He's had a couple high-profile shootings that forced his opinion on things like bump stocks and suppressors (as in days ago). It's when he's asked about things, he talks, he rambles, and things like 'gotta get the guns first...' (ie. doesn't understand due process and signals to red-flag law people 'green light'), then we should all take notice. The thing is, if he was just babbling on like many Fudds do (why do I need an AR, why do I need a suppressor or a bump stock?), and nothing came of it, then we'd all just shrug. The bump stocks thing was not just words, apparently, nor was the hint of red-flag law support. I'm not saying they would not be pursued anyway, but how does Trump saying those things help our cause? Is the anti-suppressors thing just a whimsical thought of his or will it translate into action?

I know the alternatives are worse, and it's why many of us helped put him into office, but we have to acknowledge politicians are going to politic, and it's good to reflect on that from time to time, and be critical where there is cause...

Thanks for clarfying what I meant. Very well said and agree 100%.

 

[308]

Nailed it!

 

[NW Backpacker]

Taco and Reid (in the video) are correct to criticize Trump - he deserves it. BUT Reid is wrong on his no-compromise voting stance; all that will do is elect antis. One more T term should give him at least one more supreme court judge - that could be a game changer for the 2A.

Let's write and call Mr. T on the suppressor issue and on the red flag laws.
Contact the White House | The White House

Send him this NRA-ILA article:
NRA-ILA | Does a Suppressed Pistol Sound like a Nail Gun?

EDIT: I am going to send Reid's youtube video as well.

Call before 1 pm Pacific time - may take a while to get thru - earlier probably better:
202-456-1111

Even Bill Maher is getting it; or maybe he just wants antis to hush on guns until after 2020:
Maher: 'Liberals Should Learn More About Guns' | Breitbart

 

[GWS]

Taco and Reid (in the video) are correct to criticize Trump - he deserves it. BUT Reid is wrong on his no-compromise voting stance; all that will do is elect antis. One more T term should give him at least one more supreme court judge - that could be a game changer for the 2A.

Let's write and call Mr. T on the suppressor issue and on the red flag laws.
Contact the White House | The White House AMEN!

Send him this NRA-ILA article:
NRA-ILA | Does a Suppressed Pistol Sound like a Nail Gun? AMEN!

EDIT: I am going to send Reid's youtube video as well.

Call before 1 pm Pacific time - may take a while to get thru - earlier probably better:
202-456-1111

Even Bill Maher is getting it; or maybe he just wants antis to hush on guns until after 2020:
Maher: 'Liberals Should Learn More About Guns' | Breitbart AMEN! Though I still think Bill Maher is a prick.

Replies in bold

A great course of action. I will follow it as well.

 

[maddog]

Be prepared to exercise a little dose of KRATOS in the near future. (No, that's not an acronym... it's also a Greek word)

Had to look that up! Kratos or Cratos[a] is the divine personification of strength in Greek mythology. He is the son of Pallas and Styx; he and his siblings Nike ("Victory"), Bia ("Force"), and Zelus ("Zeal") are all essentially personifications.

From Wikipedia.

I'm in, Sarge!

 

[Inquisitor]

This is only a statement of IF! IF the current "gun control" battle continues the way it has gone, this is what MIGHT happen. Like the book "Unintended Consequences".

While the Democrats and "Gun Safety[?]" groups have been getting ready to take advantage of the next mass shooting, the 100 million gun owners of the USA have also been getting ready. A review of the legislation proposed by the Democrats at all levels of government clearly shows that the ultimate objective of the "gun safety" movement is to restrict all firearms except for government agents. It is also clear that no discussion will change that ultimate goal. They are clearly not even trying to solve the problems of violent crime. Instead it appears that they actually need mass shooting events to continue to occur so that they can use them as an excuse to further their agenda.

Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment is doomed to failure! Any blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment could result in civil warfare in the USA. In that extreme event, some members and officers of the military and law-enforcement may remember that their oath is to the US Constitution and not to some government official, but don't count on it! Those that remain and try to enforce "gun control" would merely be bringing us more and better weapons and ammunition. The term "from cold dead hands" works both ways! It is probably true that the US military has sufficient weapons of mass destruction to destroy most of this country and its citizens BUT, I would not live in a country that destroys itself and its people, so I would have to fight!

In order to exercise control over a population and area, the government needs "boots on the ground". However, in the lower 48 states there are 3 million square miles of land that they have to control. How many troops would it take to control 1 square mile? If it is more than 1.2 then they don't have enough and then they are in our back yard. There are 300 to 400 million firearms in the hands of over 100 million gun owners versus 2.25 million military and 1.35 million law enforcement (3.6 million total)! In the event of civil war, we are ready. The strategy would be "guerrilla sniper" and we are the shooters! We will run out of targets long before we run out of bullets. As soon as government agents step out of their tanks, armored vehicles, etc., they are also a target. Even planes and drones need to land and be serviced. Not only any and all government agents; but also any and all officials that sent them are targets. With 10s of millions "hunters", there is nowhere they can't be reached. In that extreme scenario they will lose! We are already hunters and target shooters as well as military veterans. There are 22 million military veterans that been trained and have learned from Vietnam, 2 wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan. We don't believe in suicide missions but we do understand guerrilla warfare and we know why the US military could not win those wars!

The civilian supporters of such a "gun control" movement are, for the most part, afraid of guns, so they would be of no help to a tyrannical government either. Those that become informants, will be identified and treated as government agents. Most would likely wind up standing on the sidelines claiming no involvement right up until the resultant anarchy threatened them and their families, and then they would have no one and no way to defend themselves.

Simplistic rules of Guerrilla Sniper Warfare:

1. There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by "stand and fight" or "hold ground". If you try to fight their war, you will lose! You are not an army. Each person is an individual with only one objective, to disable or kill as many enemy agents, one at a time, as possible and you can't do that if you are dead!
2. We are the hunters. Pick your hide with care. It can't be obvious, and you need to be able to get to it and, more importantly, leave it without being seen. Once you pick your hide, keep it, but only until you take a shot.
   
3. An enemy needs to have "boots on the ground" to take control, so just wait and they will have to come to you.
4. One shot, hit or miss! With 10s of millions shooters there is no reason to take more than one shot at a time. "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!" Don't take a bad or risky shot and don't expose yourself; take your time. Remember, dead is good, but a permanently disabled target on the ground and screaming is even better. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, the shooter needs to disappear, because if they locate you, they will kill you!
5. A secret can only be known by ONE PERSON! No one needs to talk to anyone about their next shot, or their last one. Just make sure you know your target and shoot downhill (if possible).
6. Re-read rule 1, hide your firearms and ammo someplace until you need them again. Until then, blend in, and go back to rule 2.

 

[Inquisitor]

However, I think the disconnect is that I, like many, believed Trump would at least 'do no harm' to 2A. He might not be getting us suppressors removed from NFA, CC recipro, etc., but he'd not actively pursue anything to benefit the anti's. It's when he's asked about things, he talks, he rambles, and things like 'gotta get the guns first...' (ie. doesn't understand due process and signals to red-flag law people 'green light'), then we should all take notice. The thing is, if he was just babbling on like many Fudds do (why do I need an AR, why do I need a suppressor or a bump stock?), and nothing came of it, then we'd all just shrug. The bump stocks thing was not just words, apparently, nor was the hint of red-flag law support. I'm not saying they would not be pursued anyway, but how does Trump saying those things help our cause? Is the anti-suppressors thing just a whimsical thought of his or will it translate into action?

Third time I've posted this but the subject keeps coming up so then, so does my post:

Analysis of 2014 FBI crime data (last time I looked) shows that only 26% of violent crimes are reported to have been committed with a firearm. Why do the Democrats and "Gun Safety[?]" groups ignore 74% of violent crimes? We are constantly hearing about "Gun Violence", "Gun Deaths" and "Mass Shootings". All of these are lies, half-truths and misleading statements. They are all psychological tricks that are designed to make the average person believe that guns are the actual cause and then the "Gun Safety" groups parse their supporting data to only include deaths and injuries where a gun was involved. Guns are inanimate objects, which do not and cannot cause violence. Gun Deaths is the most dishonest and misleading of all of these, there are far, far too many things that can result in death to even begin to list them here. In addition, there are many, many different circumstances in those deaths such as: natural, intentional, accidental, negligent, and self-inflicted. Nevertheless, all deaths where a gun was involved are grouped together, such as violent crime, suicide, accidents, and self-defense as if there is a single cause and therefore a single solution; which is a lie. In addition, this category ignores all violent crime where a firearm was not used.

All of these lies, half-truths and misleading statements have an even more dangerous effect, which is, they distract from even trying to identify the real causes of injuries and deaths, and as a result, real solutions can never be identified. The basic causes of violence are lack of morals and/or certain mental illnesses; suicides are the result of depression and/or despair; accidents result from carelessness and/or lack of knowledge. Work on these rather than the diversion of "Gun Safety" (formerly Gun Control).

The only organizations that are truly addressing "Gun Safety" are the military, law enforcement, and the NRA; with only the NRA addressing training for the public!

The Democrats and "Gun Safety[?]" groups only want all firearms to be restricted and eventually banned, except for law enforcement and government agents; but why?

Here's a thought that maybe answers the question: Why.

Neither the Democratic goal of a Democratic Socialist government nor the Republican goal of a Theocratic Plutocracy can exist under the current US Constitution and neither could tolerate the right of the people to have firearms under the 2nd Amendment.

The Democrats' and "Gun Safety[?]" groups' current approach is to make firearm ownership so onerous and restrictive that it approaches impossible, but (they hope) is not ruled unconstitutional. This is in addition to still trying to ban whole categories of firearms and magazines.

The Republicans, on the other hand, currently appear to support gun rights but that could change very quickly if they were to get closer to their goals of authority. I have said many times: "Don't listen to what they say, pay attention to what they do! The Republicans had control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency for 2 years and yet they have not passed National Concealed Carry Reciprocity or Hearing Protection. The Republicans want you to believe that is the fault of the Democrats, but, is that really a consequence of having a wannabe Authoritarian in the White House, supported by Republicans in the House and Senate, who knows he can't be a dictator while the public has guns?

 

[Layton]

wow! Been a long time since a read so much about really nothing! There are those of us who realize that as the world changes, we too must change. We also realize that not everyone wants to take ALL the guns. What ever happened to sensible changes in laws that can help to protect ALL citizens regardless of their views. What ever happened to discussions that didn't turn into name calling and insults? Why do so many folks go so overboard with paranoia about guns being taken away?

As for #45, the day will come when we will all lament the damage that he has done to the office of the President and the massive overreach of power he has taken with the support of the GOP party that is only sitting back and letting it happen so they can get re-elected and enjoy the benefits of the Tax changes that have gone mostly to their rich supporters! Not to mention how he has thumbed his nose at the other branches of government. I wonder what will be said when a Democrat is in the White House and does what #45 has done or is trying to do? Where will the GOP be then? It may sound good now, but as the power is more and more concentrated we all will lose!

Take aim at extremes from both sides, whether it be on gun control, climate, taxes whatever you want to pick. We will NEVER solve any problem by shouting at one another from across the aisle!

 

[Inquisitor]

wow! Been a long time since a read so much about really nothing! There are those of us who realize that as the world changes, we too must change. We also realize that not everyone wants to take ALL the guns. What ever happened to sensible changes in laws that can help to protect ALL citizens regardless of their views. What ever happened to discussions that didn't turn into name calling and insults? Why do so many folks go so overboard with paranoia about guns being taken away?

As for #45, the day will come when we will all lament the damage that he has done to the office of the President and the massive overreach of power he has taken with the support of the GOP party that is only sitting back and letting it happen so they can get re-elected and enjoy the benefits of the Tax changes that have gone mostly to their rich supporters! Not to mention how he has thumbed his nose at the other branches of government. I wonder what will be said when a Democrat is in the White House and does what #45 has done or is trying to do? Where will the GOP be then? It may sound good now, but as the power is more and more concentrated we all will lose!

Take aim at extremes from both sides, whether it be on gun control, climate, taxes whatever you want to pick. We will NEVER solve any problem by shouting at one another from across the aisle!

However, it does not matter how loud you can shout if the other side is deaf! I've been asking for years, they know what they are proposing will not work so why are they proposing it, and I think I know why, see #52.

 

[Layton]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying in regard to the rhetoric not allowing us to get to the real issues and problems that need to be solved. Shouting does help when the 'other side' (whichever one that is) is acting deaf! You are correct, there is NOT a single solution.

 

[Inquisitor]

Simplistic rules of Guerrilla Sniper Warfare:

1. There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by "stand and fight" or "hold ground". If you try to fight their war, you will lose! You are not an army. Each person is an individual with only one objective, to disable or kill as many enemy agents, one at a time, as possible and you can't do that if you are dead!
2. We are the hunters. Pick your hide with care. It can't be obvious, and you need to be able to get to it and, more importantly, leave it without being seen. Once you pick your hide, keep it, but only until you take a shot.
   
3. An enemy needs to have "boots on the ground" to take control, so just wait and they will have to come to you.
4. One shot, hit or miss! With 10s of millions shooters there is no reason to take more than one shot at a time. "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!" Don't take a bad or risky shot and don't expose yourself; take your time. Remember, dead is good, but a permanently disabled target on the ground and screaming is even better. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, the shooter needs to disappear, because if they locate you, they will kill you!
5. A secret can only be known by ONE PERSON! No one needs to talk to anyone about their next shot, or their last one. Just make sure you know your target and shoot downhill (if possible).
6. Re-read rule 1, hide your firearms and ammo someplace until you need them again. Until then, blend in, and go back to rule 2.

BTW Dockers and a backpack over one shoulder in the city is as effective as a Ghillie in the jungle.

 

[RedRover]

What ever happened to sensible changes in laws that can help to protect ALL citizens regardless of their views.

Sensible?

If one is serious about protecting ALL citizens...How about mandating that motor vehicles can't travel more than 25 mph? Think of how many lives could be saved.

Perhaps we ought to require background checks every time that a person wants to fill up their gas tank -- to close the 'loophole' that might allow unauthorized persons from driving on the roads. What's an 20-25 extra minutes of one's time and a few more bucks at the gas station to make our thoroughfares more safe?

While we're at it. Let's ban school buses. It seems like there's a major accident once a week somewhere in this country where multiple children are maimed, or even killed.

Talking about "banning"? Shouldn't we have a serious discussion about banning E-devices? Studies show that one of the leading causes of accidental deaths of young people is distracted driving. Yeah, mobile phones keep us connected, but is the cost in lives really worth it? Think of the children.

Come to think of it. We ought to get rid of automatics and require that all motorized vehicles be manual. Who needs to be able to accelerate so easily? --Especially when cars will be limited to 25 mph(SEE ABOVE).

NEWSFLASH: It's a dangerous world out there and the road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

The 2A is an inalienable right. Those that would choose to erode that right need to be asked what other inalienable rights that they would be willing to nix. The right to free speech? The right to due process? The right to equal protection under the law?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

My response when facing anti-2A...

I for one am sick and tired of being held accountable for the actions of others who misuse firearms.
Why should I or any other gun owner , who has committed no crime or harm with our firearms , be made to accept the consequences of the misdeeds of others...?

And another thing :
Just how many firearm laws are already out there...?
How in the Hell is yet another law , ban , restriction , requirement , etc...going to "solve" anything , when all the previous ones haven't...?
Why keep on using the same old solution to a issue when the solution ain't working...?

The problem isn't guns...or gun owners...Its:
When folks misuse firearms...
The idea that violence is the only solution to a problem...
A failed system of so called background checks , that continue to allow folks , who should not have a gun , get a gun...
A seemingly "revolving" door policy of letting criminals in and out of jail quickly...
A failure of our mental heath system...
A lack of regard for our fellow man...
In short , the problem ain't a gun problem...its a social problem...
Andy

 

[Boss]

wow! Been a long time since a read so much about really nothing! There are those of us who realize that as the world changes, we too must change. We also realize that not everyone wants to take ALL the guns. What ever happened to sensible changes in laws that can help to protect ALL citizens regardless of their views. What ever happened to discussions that didn't turn into name calling and insults? Why do so many folks go so overboard with paranoia about guns being taken away?

As for #45, the day will come when we will all lament the damage that he has done to the office of the President and the massive overreach of power he has taken with the support of the GOP party that is only sitting back and letting it happen so they can get re-elected and enjoy the benefits of the Tax changes that have gone mostly to their rich supporters! Not to mention how he has thumbed his nose at the other branches of government. I wonder what will be said when a Democrat is in the White House and does what #45 has done or is trying to do? Where will the GOP be then? It may sound good now, but as the power is more and more concentrated we all will lose!

Take aim at extremes from both sides, whether it be on gun control, climate, taxes whatever you want to pick. We will NEVER solve any problem by shouting at one another from across the aisle!

So which guns are you OK with them taking? Do you own any of those?



Boss

 

[ATCclears]

"If you are for gun control then you are not against guns, because guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun - you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you are very pro-gun. You just believe that only the government (which of course is so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions."
- Stefan Molyneux, January 7, 2016