Feeding their Gun Control Agenda

[misterarman]

That's cute. Let's take a closer look at WA state.

Population, more than 7.8 million.
Seattle population ~725,487.
King County population ~2.3 million.

Remove King County, and its average, uninformed idiot city dweller from the voting totals and it's no contest.

Nationwide, it just so happens that of the largest cities, 17 of 20 are democrat, with one being independent. 19 of the top 20 cities most crime ridden are also democrat, with one being independent.

You have the most uninformed groups of people deciding who should be in charge. Ironically, they happen to be the people who think themselves the most informed. In my personal experience, across many attempts to constructively debate many subjects with a democrat, they seem incapable of independent thought, introspection, or honest analysis of data. Most often, they become so emotional and interrupt so much that it all goes to s**t anyway. They believe almost every lie the MSM sells.

You know what they never ask? "How do you know that?"
You know why? Because as far as they are concerned, they already have it all figured out, and if you don't agree with them then they just assume you are an idiot or a racist.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

― Ronald Reagan

I wish I could think and speak and write so well and clearly. I have been having a hard time not getting baited into to saying what I'm thinking by the opposition in this thread.
I have been concerned with speaking my mind in this thread for fear of undermining what I believe to be my good standing on this forum.
I feel my point has been twisted around and misdirected by some that I have to defend my stance on the 2A. There is no debate on where I stand in keeping my rights.

I will say it is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.

The public indoctrination systems. The public school system and the media are doing such a good job of brainwashing people that it is hard to debate with the "fools" [the people that have been fooled].
The ego can be and is an evil thing when it is used against us anisn't is being used against a lot of us in regards to the 2A.

 

[nwslopoke]

Which is the key thing that pro-gun people keep being dumb about: Gun control is driven by the middle. Our elections are not about how fanatic the left or right are about their causes, but about how the middle feels about their new home defense gun, or a room full of dead children.

We do nothing to address those people.

The same information goes out. It's about how it's perceived. There was a time when you didn't know or care about people's party affiliations. A moderate was clearly moderate on policies and would likely vote across party lines. The school teacher across the street was married to a hunter with dozens of guns. What were they?

Also, when we say there were no school shootings when kids had guns in their trucks. Could be because there were guns in the trucks. These shooter are crazy, not stupid.

 

[RX-79G]

Not confused, you're not as clever as you think and most people can recognize your consistent pattern of deflection and deception. Gun control advocates (like yourself) don't let the constitution stop them, or else they wouldn't push for infringements in the first place.

I'm not a gun control advocate, and you don't know enough about anything to stick a stupid label on me.

I'm a pro-gun advocate that is sick of the stupidity that has become a substitute for taking an active and useful approach to our cause. Instead of finding lasting solutions, our side seems to be full of people like yourself that think the best thing they can do for our rights is alienate allies and talk in absolutes.

So very, very stupid.

 

[RX-79G]

The same information goes out. It's about how it's perceived. There was a time when you didn't know or care about people's party affiliations. A moderate was clearly moderate on policies and would likely vote across party lines. The school teacher across the street was married to a hunter with dozens of guns. What were they?

Also, when we say there were no school shootings when kids had guns in their trucks. Could be because there were guns in the trucks. These shooter are crazy, not stupid.

The right is not putting any information out. That's the problem.

Complaining that something is your GD right is not an argument - especially when that right isn't going away, but is being restricted. Like all rights are restricted.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I wish I could think and speak and write so well and clearly. I have been having a hard time not getting baited into to saying what I'm thinking by the opposition in this thread.
I have been concerned with speaking my mind in this thread for fear of undermining what I believe to be my good standing on this forum.
I feel my point has been twisted around and misdirected by some that I have to defend my stance on the 2A. There is no debate on where I stand in keeping my rights.

I will say it is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.

The public indoctrination systems. The public school system and the media are doing such a good job of brainwashing people that it is hard to debate with the "fools" [the people that have been fooled].
The ego can be and is an evil thing when it is used against us anisn't is being used against a lot of us in regards to the 2A.

I got up early this morning, made my coffee and went outside to sit, drink my coffee and watch the sun rise. My dog and I like the time of reflection and thinking about our world. Gus has a much simpler life with just his daily needs but he is really special as a best friend.

Gus is a lot like people, happy just being themselves and enjoying the life given to him. Yet even in the dog world some dogs are aggressive and tend to fight among themselves. What dogs don't have is an elite bunch telling them how to live, making decisions that kill the other dogs. They don't have an elite breed that wants to pull all dogs teeth so they won't bite each other.

At some point man will have to get to a more simple life or have his teeth pulled by the elite.

 

[raftman]

I'm not a gun control advocate, and you don't know enough about anything to stick a stupid label on me.

I'm a pro-gun advocate that is sick of the stupidity that has become a substitute for taking an active and useful approach to our cause. Instead of finding lasting solutions, our side seems to be full of people like yourself that think the best thing they can do for our rights is alienate allies and talk in absolutes.

So very, very stupid.

Spare me. In this very thread you've argued for red flag flaws and universal background checks in the name of "compromise" and not being "extremist." And when this compromise doesn't reduce crime and the anti-gunners come back for more, there you'll be, justifying still more "compromise" until nothing is left. You constantly defend virulently anti-gun politicians and always give "the benefit of the doubt" for even the most egregious gun control measures, for example you argued the stipulation that Oregon's bill 348 could only be challenged in Marion County and nowhere else is likely because they have more resources/ability to handle such cases and nothing to do with reducing the likelihood of the sort of injunction that stalled 114. In fact this kind of activity about sums up 90% of your posts.

 

[misterarman]

I got up early this morning, made my coffee and went outside to sit, drink my coffee and watch the sun rise. My dog and I like the time of reflection and thinking about our world. Gus has a much simpler life with just his daily needs but he is really special as a best friend.

Gus is a lot like people, happy just being themselves and enjoying the life given to him. Yet even in the dog world some dogs are aggressive and tend to fight among themselves. What dogs don't have is an elite bunch telling them how to live, making decisions that kill the other dogs. They don't have an elite breed that wants to pull all dogs teeth so they won't bite each other.

At some point man will have to get to a more simple life or have his teeth pulled by the elite.

Awesome analogy!

 

[monkeybutler]

I as well do not trust peopple who can read good.

 

[micdude]

Prove me wrong

 

[Hueco]

Prove me wrong

View attachment 1426741

Chicken, meet egg.

 

[Koda]

Spare me. In this very thread you've argued for red flag flaws and universal background checks in the name of "compromise" and not being "extremist."

The dilemma here is that gun rights are now so far behind gun control that to regain any rights back its often a compromise to get them. There is a large portion of the gun rights community that always falls back on "shall not infringe" when clearly that isn't working, we keep shouting the mantra while we continue to lose our rights.
There are some in the pro gun community who are exploring new approaches to this problem, I remember when a certain pro-gun public figure suggested supporting expanding background checks and got flamed for it by the rest of the pro-gun community.
Whether these new strategy ideas are good are bad we can debate, but the idea of not evolving our strategy is something that will hold us back and will cause us to continue to lose our rights.

 

[Hueco]

The dilemma here is that gun rights are now so far behind gun control that to regain any rights back its often a compromise to get them. There is a large portion of the gun rights community that always falls back on "shall not infringe" when clearly that isn't working, we keep shouting the mantra while we continue to lose our rights.
There are some in the pro gun community who are exploring new approaches to this problem, I remember when a certain pro-gun public figure suggested supporting expanding background checks and got flamed for it by the rest of the pro-gun community.
Whether these new strategy ideas are good are bad we can debate, but the idea of not evolving our strategy is something that will hold us back and will cause us to continue to lose our rights.

Indeed.

I believe the real crux of our issue here is that our governmental system is not working well for the current structure of society. The population of the USA switched from mostly rural to mostly urban in the 1920's and the divide has only grown - right alongside our growing pains.

What works governmentally for the megacity isn't going to work for the town with two street lights. Unfortunately, we have a very wonky delineation of rights/responsibilities when things get smaller than the state. Suburbs and urban sprawl further complicate things.

How about this for a compromise hypothetical: all of your gun rights are restored to that of the late 1700's if you live in Baker County. Meanwhile, you can't sell to or transact with anyone in Multnomah County, where guns are completely banned. In fact, should you need to travel to Portland you will have to check your gun at the border's police station or risk imprisonment (or just don't bring it) - because the county by way of Portland has declared itself a gun free zone by vote and that's just the way it is.

Obviously such a thing wouldn't pass legal muster but imagine for a moment that it could - the fight between city/rural for control of the State essentially over.

But since that can't happen, we're left to find solutions to complex problems that work for vast differences of people/cultures.

To me, the "muh GD rights" crowd are about as useful on this topic as PETA's vegans.

 

[RX-79G]

Spare me. In this very thread you've argued for red flag flaws and universal background checks in the name of "compromise" and not being "extremist." And when this compromise doesn't reduce crime and the anti-gunners come back for more, there you'll be, justifying still more "compromise" until nothing is left. You constantly defend virulently anti-gun politicians and always give "the benefit of the doubt" for even the most egregious gun control measures, for example you argued the stipulation that Oregon's bill 348 could only be challenged in Marion County and nowhere else is likely because they have more resources/ability to handle such cases and nothing to do with reducing the likelihood of the sort of injunction that stalled 114. In fact this kind of activity about sums up 90% of your posts.

Now you're just lying about me. Quote the bill 348 stuff or shut up.

 

[raftman]

The dilemma here is that gun rights are now so far behind gun control that to regain any rights back its often a compromise to get them. There is a large portion of the gun rights community that always falls back on "shall not infringe" when clearly that isn't working, we keep shouting the mantra while we continue to lose our rights.
There are some in the pro gun community who are exploring new approaches to this problem, I remember when a certain pro-gun public figure suggested supporting expanding background checks and got flamed for it by the rest of the pro-gun community.
Whether these new strategy ideas are good are bad we can debate, but the idea of not evolving our strategy is something that will hold us back and will cause us to continue to lose our rights.

The problem is as I've already explained. When the concessions they gain don't reduce crime, they'll come right back for everything else immediately after. In Oregon, we already have universal background checks and red flag laws, but they they've continued to be unrelenting in their attacks against gun rights from any and every angle. Many (well all of them are, but some are just more obvious than others) of these are grievously unconstitutional (e.g. M110 presumes you are guilty of buying forbidden mags after the ban until you can prove your innocence). The only compromise they could accept is to demand 10 things, get 7 of them, and then come back for the other 3 later.

The problem with discarding "shall not be infringed" is that when one concedes various infringements are completely permissible, what's left to say that any further infringements are unacceptable? It's a bit like the (potentially apocryphal) Oscar Wilde anecdote which concludes with the punchline, "Oh, we know what you are. Now we are simply haggling over the price."

 

[RX-79G]

The problem is as I've already explained. When the concessions they gain don't reduce crime, they'll come right back for everything else immediately after. In Oregon, we already have universal background checks and red flag laws, but they they've continued to be unrelenting in their attacks against gun rights from any and every angle. Many (well all of them are, but some are just more obvious than others) of these are grievously unconstitutional (e.g. M110 presumes you are guilty of buying forbidden mags after the ban until you can prove your innocence). The only compromise they could accept is to demand 10 things, get 7 of them, and then come back for the other 3 later.

The problem with discarding "shall not be infringed" is that when one concedes various infringements are completely permissible, what's left to say that any further infringements are unacceptable? It's a bit like the (potentially apocryphal) Oscar Wilde anecdote which concludes with the punchline, "Oh, we know what you are. Now we are simply haggling over the price."

How did you miss that the legislation I was talking about would include lasting protections? It wasn't a good will play.

 

[raftman]

How did you miss that the legislation I was talking about would include lasting protections? It wasn't a good will play.

I didn't miss it, I didn't believe it. The Constitution is supposed to be lasting protection, so if that can be ignored, why would anything else be sacred?

 

[raftman]

Now you're just lying about me. Quote the bill 348 stuff or shut up.

"Foil hats off for a moment: Is there any precedent for this - like Marion Circuit Court being the lead circuit court for Oregon? Do other country court's get assigned similar precedence? Are other, smaller circuit courts unequipped to deal with the amount of filing they anticipate?"

-Closet gun control advocate. April 3rd, 2023

 

[Longwalkhome]

The dilemma here is that gun rights are now so far behind gun control that to regain any rights back its often a compromise to get them. There is a large portion of the gun rights community that always falls back on "shall not infringe" when clearly that isn't working, we keep shouting the mantra while we continue to lose our rights.
There are some in the pro gun community who are exploring new approaches to this problem, I remember when a certain pro-gun public figure suggested supporting expanding background checks and got flamed for it by the rest of the pro-gun community.
Whether these new strategy ideas are good are bad we can debate, but the idea of not evolving our strategy is something that will hold us back and will cause us to continue to lose our rights.

Once tyranny gets a grip it's very difficult to break the hold. Covid started out and tyranny said stay in your home for two weeks to flatten the curve. It was a lie but people accepted the lie out of fear.

Then they said you don't need a mask before they said you do. A mask has proven to not work and was very harmful to children but once the elite seize tyrannical powers they just seize more.

Then they demanded or mandated the jab, depending on if your life could be controlled by a mandate or peer pressure. With the world shut down and fear dominating lives folks give in to tyranny.

Guns are a bit different when tyranny rises up, guns are a way to resist. It's why the hard push now days to steal our guns, you won't submit to tyranny if you have a choice not to. So of course any gains the grabbers make they won't give up.

 

[RX-79G]

"Foil hats off for a moment: Is there any precedent for this - like Marion Circuit Court being the lead circuit court for Oregon? Do other country court's get assigned similar precedence? Are other, smaller circuit courts unequipped to deal with the amount of filing they anticipate?"

-Closet gun control advocate. April 3rd, 2023

How was my question anything but a question?

It was a question. I don't know Oregon.

 

[Koda]

"Foil hats off for a moment: Is there any precedent for this - like Marion Circuit Court being the lead circuit court for Oregon? Do other country court's get assigned similar precedence? Are other, smaller circuit courts unequipped to deal with the amount of filing they anticipate?"

-Closet gun control advocate. April 3rd, 2023

How is asking if there is a precedent on something being an advocate for gun control?