HighLine Firearms
Defensive Arts
Simply Triggers
J&B Firearm Sales
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Low Price Guns
Sporting Systems
Southwest Firearms
Oregon Rifleworks
Gun Deals
Just a reminder....Joe's house and Joe's rules apply here....
Please do not discuss staff issues or the like over the open forum.

If you have a issue to discuss...contact a staff member or Joe directly.

Andy
 
The knife-guy thread got locked. For good reason, it was going nowhere : https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...igh-speed-low-friction-operator.377836/page-3

On page 3 of that thread, @gmerkt made an interesting comment. I hope I understood it correctly.

There is no simple solution to the quandary faced by an armed citizenry that wants minimal or no infringement on their right to arms, but also wants a way to prevent crazy people from shooting up schools.

Setting:
A member posted a picture of an individual wearing knives & stuff.
Other members responded.
The majority of responses were derisive.
Then gmerkt cut us with a razor.
He quoted three responses, then, if I understand him correctly, he succinctly asked, "Which is it? What exactly do you want?"

IMO, this is an opportunity to reconcile your preferences for minimal infringement on your right to arms, with your desire, if you have one, to prevent crazy people from being empowered with the same rights you have.

Importantly, this is not about the knife guy in the other thread. We don't know anything about that guy actually.

This is more about whether some line should exist, and how to draw it, and where it is drawn.

Obviously, the Brady Bill and its ancillary legislation represent a societal attempt to draw that line. And we know that this effort has been unsuccessful, due to lack of consistent and comprehensive record keeping, and to lack of prosecution of denials and straw purchases, and to an absence of an effective system for identifying and cataloguing real mental illness threats.
We also know that current policy is trending towards Universal Background Check requirements that encompass non-dealer transactions, and we generally believe that this latest development will not help the overall objective at all, because there is no point of enforcement, and because people who ignore laws will ignore this law. We also don't like UBC because it creates a defacto registry. But it is still being rammed down our throats, primarily because crazy people and criminals are still shooting up our society.

Challenge: address gmerkt's comment.
If I read him correctly, possible responses span a spectrum: from zero restrictions and just live with the outcome, to massive restrictions and their side effects.

Don't attack people. Attack the problem. (edit: deleted unnecessary phrase here)

Thanks to gmerkt. (If I understood him correctly. :D )

Below is the piece of gmerkt's reply to the earlier thread, that I am referring to in this thread:



I'll go first.

It seems like FIX NICS, and NO to universal background checks, may be a reasonable approach to managing an obvious problem, but I'm only okay with this approach if we simultaneously improve management of crime and mental illness.
My personal view is that Brady/NICS background checks are an unnecessary infringement in a society that effectively manages crime and mental illness.
We presently are not that society. We need to get there.
My goal would be to make Brady/NICS work now, and spend ~20 years effectively improving management of crime and mental illness, and then scale back or eliminate background check requirements after we bring crime and mental illness under more effective control.
I should say this: I am interested in solutions that are politically viable. I like the idea of nullifying Brady over night, but I don't think that is a politically viable solution.
For crime, the solutions are mostly governmental: we need to make our government much tougher on crime.
For mental illness, the solutions are shared IMO. As a society, we need to improve how we deal with obvious crazy people on a daily basis. A little less MYOB, a little more, "Hey, we need to collectively get ahead of this person before they shoot our school up." With regard to gov't, we need to cause our government to build much larger infrastructure than we currently have for effectively dealing with crazy people. Prisons and homelessness and ignoring obvious warning signs, are not getting the job done.
I have read a lot of late 18th century American history lately. The term "lunaticks" is not absent in their discourse and laws. The idea of control of mental illness is not new in America.

Your thoughts?
“Safety” is an illusion in this world, but I’ll distill the solution of the apparent “conundrum” of balancing personal freedom and “safety” as articulated above into two simple words…..


SHOOT BACK!! o_O
 
Just a reminder....Joe's house and Joe's rules apply here....
Please do not discuss staff issues or the like over the open forum.

If you have a issue to discuss...contact a staff member or Joe directly.

Andy
Thank you Sir for proving my point. Staff issues was not the issue, but rather the discussion of the bolded part of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence shall not be addressed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
---
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
 
Thank you Sir for proving my point. Staff issues was not the issue, but rather the discussion of the bolded part of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence shall not be addressed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
---
Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
It is not the part that you have in bold that is the issue and why I removed your post...
It is , that you discuss staff decisions over the open forum....If you continue to do so...your posts will continue to be removed.
Andy
 
Messages
24,247
Reactions
58,026
Freedom isn't free. Period.

Right to speech means you hear stuff you dont like
Right of religion means Jehovas Witnesses can bug you at home
4th amendment means that sometimes the guilty go free
2nd amendment means bad people can access guns just the same.
I handle speech by not listening if I don't want to. I also spend 99% of my time at home alone. The "speech" i hear that I don't like is mostly online. If I don't care to read/hear it, I move on. Easy/peasy.

As for JH witnesess/et. al. - to get to my house they are trespassing a good quarter mile down a private road, then 100 yards onto my private property. The last time this happened it was several years ago.

As for the second amendment to the Bill of Rights:

I have often made it clear that I believe the Second Amendment applies to "arms" - in short, everything the government has with regards to "arms", then every "consenting adult" has the right the "bear" those "arms". The exception I would make would be NBC (Nuclear/Biolgical/Chemical) arms, and for those I believe the government should not have those either.

Now for the grey areas: convicted felons, mentally incompetent, persons who have threatened others.

Convicted felons who have served their time (not including those on parole - they are still serving time), a good case has been made for their right to defend themselves too, including in the case of an unjust tyrannical government. This is especially true of those felons who were not convicted of violent crimes against persons or property (violent crimes against property would be like blowing up a building with nobody in it).

Mentally incompetent - if a person is so mentally disturbed we can't trust them with guns, then we can't trust them with a car or knives or many other things either - they should probably be held in a facility where they cannot harm the general public. Most people who have mental health problems are not violent towards others. That said, it is a grey area.

The fourth amendment to the Bill of rights:

"It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail” - Thomas Jefferson

As the OP of the referenced thread. I did not originally intend to question the person's right to bear arms - even though when such was brought up, I did indeed to that. But that was just my speculation that does not carry the weight of law, and I did not intend that the individual's appearance should carry the weight of law.

OTOH, would I sell a firearm to a person with that appearance? Probably not. There is no law that says I must, even if I was an FFL and a proprietor of a firearms store.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
805
Reactions
1,316
The knife-guy thread got locked. For good reason, it was going nowhere : https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...igh-speed-low-friction-operator.377836/page-3

On page 3 of that thread, @gmerkt made an interesting comment. I hope I understood it correctly.

There is no simple solution to the quandary faced by an armed citizenry that wants minimal or no infringement on their right to arms, but also wants a way to prevent crazy people from shooting up schools.

Setting:
A member posted a picture of an individual wearing knives & stuff.
Other members responded.
The majority of responses were derisive.
Then gmerkt cut us with a razor.
He quoted three responses, then, if I understand him correctly, he succinctly asked, "Which is it? What exactly do you want?"

IMO, this is an opportunity to reconcile your preferences for minimal infringement on your right to arms, with your desire, if you have one, to prevent crazy people from being empowered with the same rights you have.

Importantly, this is not about the knife guy in the other thread. We don't know anything about that guy actually.

This is more about whether some line should exist, and how to draw it, and where it is drawn.

Obviously, the Brady Bill and its ancillary legislation represent a societal attempt to draw that line. And we know that this effort has been unsuccessful, due to lack of consistent and comprehensive record keeping, and to lack of prosecution of denials and straw purchases, and to an absence of an effective system for identifying and cataloguing real mental illness threats.
We also know that current policy is trending towards Universal Background Check requirements that encompass non-dealer transactions, and we generally believe that this latest development will not help the overall objective at all, because there is no point of enforcement, and because people who ignore laws will ignore this law. We also don't like UBC because it creates a defacto registry. But it is still being rammed down our throats, primarily because crazy people and criminals are still shooting up our society.

Challenge: address gmerkt's comment.
If I read him correctly, possible responses span a spectrum: from zero restrictions and just live with the outcome, to massive restrictions and their side effects.

Don't attack people. Attack the problem. (edit: deleted unnecessary phrase here)

Thanks to gmerkt. (If I understood him correctly. :D )

Below is the piece of gmerkt's reply to the earlier thread, that I am referring to in this thread:



I'll go first.

It seems like FIX NICS, and NO to universal background checks, may be a reasonable approach to managing an obvious problem, but I'm only okay with this approach if we simultaneously improve management of crime and mental illness.
My personal view is that Brady/NICS background checks are an unnecessary infringement in a society that effectively manages crime and mental illness.
We presently are not that society. We need to get there.
My goal would be to make Brady/NICS work now, and spend ~20 years effectively improving management of crime and mental illness, and then scale back or eliminate background check requirements after we bring crime and mental illness under more effective control.
I should say this: I am interested in solutions that are politically viable. I like the idea of nullifying Brady over night, but I don't think that is a politically viable solution.
For crime, the solutions are mostly governmental: we need to make our government much tougher on crime.
For mental illness, the solutions are shared IMO. As a society, we need to improve how we deal with obvious crazy people on a daily basis. A little less MYOB, a little more, "Hey, we need to collectively get ahead of this person before they shoot our school up." With regard to gov't, we need to cause our government to build much larger infrastructure than we currently have for effectively dealing with crazy people. Prisons and homelessness and ignoring obvious warning signs, are not getting the job done.
I have read a lot of late 18th century American history lately. The term "lunaticks" is not absent in their discourse and laws. The idea of control of mental illness is not new in America.

Your thoughts?
This is an interesting topic. I think the broad issue is an ongoing societal decay wherein human life is cheapened to the point where 54 people are shot in one weekend in one American city and now let’s check in with Sally for the weather. We have replaced a social contract that at once required civility, personal responsibility, and self sufficiency with one that now enables extreme narcissism, blame shifting, and boundless entitlement.

In my view this sea change in societal mores has enabled a generation or two who are permitted to remain in Freud’s anal stage well into adulthood: The genesis of both cancel culture and Karen culture in the context of helicopter/lawnmower parenting has created a culture in which young adults attending institutions of higher learning, for example, cannot even handle being exposed to ideas that challenge their myopic little world view and whom require safe spaces where they literally are issued Play-Doh should they inadvertently have been triggered by a lecture that challenged their delicate egos. The mere thought of another person acting out of compliance with their rigidly-defined outlook is literally impossible for them to process and in turn they act out. Acknowledging a vast oversimplification, the spectrum of this acting out runs from passive aggressive Karening to shooting up a school. When social derision meets extreme narcissism, sparks are guaranteed to fly.

Look at me! Look at me!

Social media is a direct outgrowth of this phenomenon. It posits that the world deserves my brilliance and I deserve to be loved for sharing it. And in the process, it enables the worst elements of extreme narcissism to take hold. And what happens when I post a picture of my dinner and only get six likes? Well, naturally, I go shoot up a school.

So now add easy access to firearms to the mix. While it is true that a firearm is a very efficient means of delivering lethal force, it is still an inanimate object, inert until activated by a conscious being who decides to activate it. The good news is the vast vast majority of responsible adult gun owners will never use a firearm for nefarious purposes. The bad news is it only takes one to cause a really bad day. I’d like to think every single member of this forum is in the former group. These machines of which we on this forum are so enamored are amazing feats of engineering, able to concentrate kinetic energy on a specified vector to meet the objective of destroying our intended target — and from quite some distance! These tools in fact can liberate the oppressed, feed our families, and even build nations. And they can also be used to murder 54 innocent people at a country music festival in 45 seconds (one of whom happened to be the daughter of a friend and colleague).

But even if the magical gun fairy came down and turned every firearm on Earth into a bouquet of flowers and erased all knowledge of firearms ftom human memory, we’re still stuck with the twisted hearts of two generations of feral hominids who’ve never been told “no.” They can still go down to Home Depot and rent a delivery truck to mow down dozens of innocent strangers like the guy in New York... who was only stopped by — wait for it — a good guy with a gun.

I’m always an advocate for more guns in the hands of good guys, and no guns in the hands of bad guys. The challenge is the bad guys are just that. Since they’ve demonstrated their unwillingness or incapacity to follow the rules, removal from society until they are no longer capable of posing a threat to the innocent is the only way I can think of to insure bad guys don’t have guns. Since that seems unlikely as our so-called leaders are now doubling down on woke narcissism, I suppose the best course of action now is to make sure there are more of us than there are of them and that we are equipped — morally, ethically, legally — to respond if god forbid it is ever necessary.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
805
Reactions
1,316
I'll take a stab at the dilemma your proposing. To me its simple, I would be more open to regulations if the regulations were not based on a prohibition model.

So what line should exist is one that puts the responsibility on the person committing the crime, not the honest lawful gun owners. We can talk about preventing crazy people from getting guns when the anti-gun politicians stop passing laws that disarm the honest good guys with guns, eg: SB544.
100%. And I’ll add “removing the bad guys from our society until such time they’re no longer capable of being a threat.” Beat up your ex-wife’s new boyfriend in the heat of the moment? Ok, you’ll get one second chance from me. Stick a gun in some poor kid’s face at 7-11 so you can get $300 out of the register? Nope. You’re gone. No second chance. Ever. That was not a mistake, it was a conscious choice and a violation of one of the most awesome responsibilities of the citizen which is the responsibility that comes with carrying lethal force in your waistband. We’ll let you out when you’re 80.
 
Messages
805
Reactions
1,316
Freedom isn't free. Period.

Right to speech means you hear stuff you dont like
Right of religion means Jehovas Witnesses can bug you at home
4th amendment means that sometimes the guilty go free
2nd amendment means bad people can access guns just the same.
Ah, FWIW religious freedom does not in any way convey any right to trespass on private property. Just sayin...
 
I submit, if you walked into the local castle super store, and saw someone wearing 15 fleshlights in full bondage regalia, you would try and sneak a few pics to share with friends and laugh later on. Same dude, different toys.
I'm going to separate my posts...because this visual, well, there is simply not enough eye bleach on the planet to fix this. Thanks :confused:
 
Oof .
Man , it's tough to say but I think everyone should be able to access any object or substance in the normal course of living their lives. Citizen is a big word that some just don't want to recognize.

Yup , full auto, cocaine and opiates, 200mph cars ,sex robots. Freedom is an absolute.

Send me the flames, I know they're on the way.
Not going to flame you at all (in spite of the eye bleach recovery from the prior post).
Likely one of the most complex issues on this forum and life in general. Others have noted, what I think we have missing in a society that is drifting toward not libertarianism that you appear to be discussing but a, "I want to do whatever I want without any consequences," is the utter lack of said consequences. If someone (not saying you of course :cool: ) chooses to driver 200 mph, loaded on speedballs, firing their MP5 out the window with their sex robot in the passenger seat and kills a child, well I think most would agree that their life should be over.

However, when they spark up a natural herb, knowing that it seriously impairs your ability to drive, and you kill the same child, how do we treat this? What if they don't kill anyone but are caught on the roadway? What if they become complete stoners and live off the government? Two things seem important with freedom, consequences for your actions and natural consequences for your lack of actions (i.e. you don't get to fund your life at the taxpayer's expense.)

Having said that, I think there are times when people definitely need assistance even if they didn't live perfect lives and even some seemingly very bad people can be reformed. It's complicated. Enjoying viewing other's perspective, thanks for rebooting the thread in a nice direction!
 
Messages
24,247
Reactions
58,026
However, when they spark up a natural herb, knowing that it seriously impairs your ability to drive, and you kill the same child, how do we treat this? What if they don't kill anyone but are caught on the roadway?
DUII - Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants

What if they become complete stoners and live off the government?
Someone else's circumstances are not my responsibility unless I directly caused those circumstances thru some voluntary action of my own.
 
Messages
24,247
Reactions
58,026
To be clear, I give liberally to charity when I can (before I lost my job) - that is voluntary.

Taxes are not voluntary. If I do not pay my taxes, I will be fined and have my income garnished - I may have property seized. I may even be incarcerated. It is not charity when to government takes earnings/wealth under penalty of law.

The quality of mercy is not strained. Shakespeare.
 
Messages
805
Reactions
1,316
Not going to flame you at all (in spite of the eye bleach recovery from the prior post).
Likely one of the most complex issues on this forum and life in general. Others have noted, what I think we have missing in a society that is drifting toward not libertarianism that you appear to be discussing but a, "I want to do whatever I want without any consequences," is the utter lack of said consequences. If someone (not saying you of course :cool: ) chooses to driver 200 mph, loaded on speedballs, firing their MP5 out the window with their sex robot in the passenger seat and kills a child, well I think most would agree that their life should be over.

However, when they spark up a natural herb, knowing that it seriously impairs your ability to drive, and you kill the same child, how do we treat this? What if they don't kill anyone but are caught on the roadway? What if they become complete stoners and live off the government? Two things seem important with freedom, consequences for your actions and natural consequences for your lack of actions (i.e. you don't get to fund your life at the taxpayer's expense.)

Having said that, I think there are times when people definitely need assistance even if they didn't live perfect lives and even some seemingly very bad people can be reformed. It's complicated. Enjoying viewing other's perspective, thanks for rebooting the thread in a nice direction!
Great post. Freedom is directly proportional to responsibility. Like the old song goes about 'Love and Marriage,' you can't have one without the other. Though the latter, it seems, was more wishful thinking. LOL.

We have a nanny state that seeks to absolve many bad actors from responsibility for their actions. While this sounds nice on paper (to some people, not to me), the only cost is our liberty. We have two or three generations now who've only ever been taught "it's someone else's fault." There is a tipping point and I'm pretty sure we're just about there. Especially as we get closer to the country's tallest buildings.
 

Knobgoblin

Messages
1,853
Reactions
4,178
To one of the main questions.
Where is the line? It just doesn't matter.
The line has been drawn, redrawn, moved, and generally ignored for decades . The accountability argument is definitely more germane to the solution. If people aren't worried about following laws or restrictions, then writing new laws to restrict freedoms will make little to no difference.
 
Messages
24,247
Reactions
58,026
To one of the main questions.
Where is the line? It just doesn't matter.
The line has been drawn, redrawn, moved, and generally ignored for decades . The accountability argument is definitely more germane to the solution. If people aren't worried about following laws or restrictions, then writing new laws to restrict freedoms will make little to no difference.
Depends on who the "people" are.
 

baker3gun

Messages
265
Reactions
562
...Chicago easily beats all the mass shooting totals every year anyhow--why do they get a pass?

IMO:

Crime goes unchecked in Chicago because Chicago's leadership chooses to allow ridiculous levels of crime because that is part of their political agenda to stay in power by pandering to the votes of a huge uneducated, thoughtless, sightless mob of "victims of America." The ultimate goal of the left is socialism or communism. Leftists leaders don't actually care about the death and destruction guaranteed by that outcome, they just want their seat among the ruling elite.

The greatest challenges to America's future are evil people in government and an uneducated citizenry.
 

baker3gun

Messages
265
Reactions
562
Commenting on the " mall ninja knife mannequin " thread that was closed before I got a peice. I saw it as general playground fun ripping on a guy who definitely left the house way overdressed. His right to bear blablablah. What I read was pretty lighthearted.
I submit, if you walked into the local castle super store, and saw someone wearing 15 fleshlights in full bondage regalia, you would try and sneak a few pics to share with friends and laugh later on. Same dude, different toys.

Would you want fleshlights guy hanging around the Girl Scouts meeting hall?

Echoing gmerkt - would you sell him a gun?

I'm not suggesting that bondage attire in a supermarket is "the line."

Rather, the general topic is this: should we draw a line as to who is allowed to keep and bear arms?
If so, where should we draw it?
Do you think criminals should be debarred the right to arms? Which ones?
Do you think crazy people should be debarred? Which ones?
Do you think citizens should decide where to tell govt to draw those lines, or just sit back and let govt draw them willy nilly wherever?
 
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Cerberus Training Group
Southwest Firearms
Sporting Systems
Pacwest Defense
Advertise on Northwest Firearms

Upcoming Events

Rimfire Challenge July 31st @ DRRC
Eagle Creek, OR
22 Rimfire Challenge
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top