Gun owners shouldn't do such things

[MichaelH]

Thats not how politics works. We live in a world where society decides what rights we have. In the home or not. If your doing something that is demonstrating a hazard to others, it can be outlawed if the majority decides it.

I agree, but the Constitution is a floor as to how far rights can be taken away, though there is some debate as to where that floor is. The constitution is hard to change, and Supreme Court precedent gets respect, even from justices who later disagree. No one wants a lawsuit, but it strikes me that gun owners tend to run on the paranoid side at a time when the 9th Circuit rules against magazine restrictions. If we all relaxed a little we could get some ammo and cheap ARs would be cheap again.

 

[jrd541280]

Sorry was trying to tag someone else but your comment poped while tagging and went over your comment . Just ignore it , there is many people taking this differently and they just like to show their attitude and insult and i can't answer each but hope they learn to communicate better , if they can't speak other languages at least appropriate others trying to speak your language . Peace

"but hope they learn to communicate better"? are you asking me to learn to be able to communicate better here? and if i cannot speak your language to appropriate others to tell you what is exactly on my mind?

 

[Koda]

I hear ya on the echo chambers. Opposing opinions are good for dialog and the forum. Opinions on my end never meant to flame. Ive came around on a lot of thoughts from positive (though opposing) dialog. So I do appreciate it.

I think safe storage will be on the docket. Sadly its a tough to beat issue for the future. I think there will be something that comes regardless of Firearm/OC displays. I see your point with her though. But if it can get dialog going for certain points.. it could poke holes in future bills requiring a little more specific language in a bill and less reckless draconian stuff.

I think were gonna lose the safe storage debate, times have changed... I grew up in a time when people displayed their guns in beautiful cabinets on the wall. But those people taught their kids gun safety. Reality is the gun community has grown exponentially, millions of new gun owners living in a more crowded world with higher stress.... not teaching their kids gun safety.
In the context of this discussion, is it "hiding" our hobby to lock our guns up in a safe instead of displaying them on a bookshelf? Now imagine if Boebert displayed her AR15 in a shotlock....

Questions like that is how we grow. Or is the word... evolve.

 

[MichaelH]

We all know what sort of caricature the media uses to portray gun owners -- paunchy, middle aged dude, decked out in camo and a beard, with a Confederate flag baseball cap, tattoos, and a somewhat inarticulate sentence structure.

Boebert is the exact opposite of all of that.

Most of the representatives who are going to be voting on gun control have a caricature of gun owners they've built up in their echo chambers, and Boebert is a living breathing representation of the fact that their gun-owner-avatar is bogus. They need this reminder. Democrats took a massive loss after the 90s AWB and it wasn't just because those who they would denigrate as rednecks got upset. Democrats lost a lot of people. Accountants. Lawyers. People who look just as put together as Boebert does. Reminding them of this fact lessens the likelihood of seriously bad legislation.

Honestly, I think she looks a little trashy and sounds a bit shrill, but maybe that's my sexism talking.

 

[Basedgreaser]

It is very troubling to me that anyone would be so triggered by her display of firearms. Perhaps they might find more pertinent issues to concern themselves with.

Colion Noir calls it a "culture war" for a reason. The news media, big tech, the dems, compromise republicans, and millions of voters all do not like or care for the second amendment. Anything any of these groups can do to delegitimize constitutional movements, personally attack pro 2a voices, or publicly distract from real arguments and issues they will.

 

[Yotehunt]

Honestly, I think she looks a little trashy and sounds a bit shrill, but maybe that's my sexism talking.

 

[Koda]

Your post #205. I said " But it is not your place to decide that for anyone but yourself."
Your response was " it is when one displays what they got to the entire world."
In your own words you tell us it is YOUR decision how she handles this.

To clarify Im regarding societys vote at large, as represented by the individuals opinion expressed here.

"I" get to vote for whos president, what laws are to be passed, just like everyone else. In that context "I" am a part of society at large.

I think you get my point but thank you for showing what I said for me to clarify.

 

[Basedgreaser]

I think were gonna lose the safe storage debate, times have changed... I grew up in a time when people displayed their guns in beautiful cabinets on the wall. But those people taught their kids gun safety. Reality is the gun community has grown exponentially, millions of new gun owners living in a more crowded world with higher stress.... not teaching their kids gun safety.
In the context of this discussion, is it "hiding" our hobby to lock our guns up in a safe instead of displaying them on a bookshelf? Now imagine if Boebert displayed her AR15 in a shotlock....

Questions like that is how we grow. Or is the word... evolve.

Living in a world where most kids are not taught gun safety is definitely a regression, not growth.

 

[msgriff]

this has nothing to do with left or right philosophies. It has to do with what the majority votes for.

You cannot vote away Constitutional Rights by simple majority, or even a super majority. In fact, many believe (including me) that the first 10 Amendments cannot be altered without convening what would essentially be the equivalent of a Continental Congress. That is why we live in a constitutional republic. If it was a democracy, the Democrats would still own slaves.

 

[Xaevian]

Thats not how politics works. We live in a world where society decides what rights we have. In the home or not. If your doing something that is demonstrating a hazard to others, it can be outlawed if the majority decides it.

I would argue that is not how the marriage equality act came about. Once the LGBTQ community stopped hiding in the shadows, public opinion started to change. Those folks make up less than 5% of the population, and look how things have changed. It seems like now every tv show or movie HAS to have some type of LGBTQ situation in it, even though real life and math, it is pretty uncommon.

I simplified the concept, so I hope more people get it.

Normalize and play the victim, we win. Humans always root for the underdogs.

 

[jrd541280]

I agree, but the Constitution is a floor as to how far rights can be taken away, though there is some debate as to where that floor is. The constitution is hard to change, and Supreme Court precedent gets respect, even from justices who later disagree. No one wants a lawsuit, but it strikes me that gun owners tend to run on the paranoid side at a time when the 9th Circuit rules against magazine restrictions. If we all relaxed a little we could get some ammo and cheap ARs would be cheap again.

no debate at all on the constitution, give an inch, lose a mile.

 

[mhayd93]

I think were gonna lose the safe storage debate, times have changed... I grew up in a time when people displayed their guns in beautiful cabinets on the wall. But those people taught their kids gun safety. Reality is the gun community has grown exponentially, millions of new gun owners living in a more crowded world with higher stress.... not teaching their kids gun safety.
In the context of this discussion, is it "hiding" our hobby to lock our guns up in a safe instead of displaying them on a bookshelf? Now imagine if Boebert displayed her AR15 in a shotlock....

Questions like that is how we grow. Or is the word... evolve.

It's not hiding, it's just losing, plain and simple. Any legislation that dictates what we can own or do with our firearms is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. There is no middle ground, especially not in the current state of affairs!

 

[Yotehunt]

Starting to really see a lot of this.. Keep up the good work..

 

[Koda]

You cannot vote away Constitutional Rights by simple majority, or even a super majority. In fact, many believe (including me) that the first 10 Amendments cannot be altered without convening what would essentially be the equivalent of a Continental Congress. That is why we live in a constitutional republic. If it was a democracy, the Democrats would still own slaves.

if it was written in ink it can be replaced. We live in a constitutional representative republic.

 

[Koda]

It's not hiding, it's just losing, plain and simple. Any legislation that dictates what we can own or do with our firearms is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. There is no middle ground, especially not in the current state of affairs!

Do you think that violent convicted criminals should be able to own firearms?
Somewhere there is a middle ground.

 

[Basedgreaser]

You cannot vote away Constitutional Rights by simple majority, or even a super majority. In fact, many believe (including me) that the first 10 Amendments cannot be altered without convening what would essentially be the equivalent of a Continental Congress. That is why we live in a constitutional republic. If it was a democracy, the Democrats would still own slaves.

Well... yes you realistically can. Just not on paper. There are plenty of actions and laws that conflict with the constitution by our government. The NFA has been here since what? 1934?

 

[BigDog67]

Do you think that violent convicted criminals should be able to own firearms?
Somewhere there is a middle ground.

Do you believe that being told "no", stops them from owning firearms?

 

[msgriff]

if it was written in ink it can be replaced. We live in a constitutional representative republic.

And it will probably result in the most violent war in the history of mankind. The stage is being set by the Democrats. To borrow a phrase from the WPT, it sounds like they are ready to go "all in".

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I think were gonna lose the safe storage debate, times have changed... I grew up in a time when people displayed their guns in beautiful cabinets on the wall. But those people taught their kids gun safety. Reality is the gun community has grown exponentially, millions of new gun owners living in a more crowded world with higher stress.... not teaching their kids gun safety.
In the context of this discussion, is it "hiding" our hobby to lock our guns up in a safe instead of displaying them on a bookshelf? Now imagine if Boebert displayed her AR15 in a shotlock....

Questions like that is how we grow. Or is the word... evolve.

As time has gone on, as Ive transitioned into a more family geared life again.. I can see the child gun safe laws being passed in the future regardless of my opinion on them. Truthfully.. even trained; children are incredibly high risk until a certain age. The logic and cognitive ability just cannot overpower curiosity sometimes. Easy access with children under a certain age poses actual risk.

Worst case scanrio it gets passed..this is something the market can help with and new training measures implemented via dudes just practicing their envisioned scenarios (themselves not forced training by law).
I do think single individuals with no risk variables should not be subject to the same penalties, as their situation of risk is significantly reduced. I think those that have low risk should be able to legally have a loaded firearm within easy access. I also think a specific sunset age should be set though for family homes. Also factor in stored areas and other variables.. so they come into focus to have a fair bill that would actually be bipartisan and if possible logical with proper wording and fair context of possible variables. Obvious Bedroom storage versus storage in the pantry next to the kids snacks kind of language.

Im not for authoritarian control.. but people and their offspring are total idiots.. this world resembles "Idiocracy" more and more.. the times change. We've lost that responsible 50's era safety and awareness.

 

[msgriff]

Do you think that violent convicted criminals should be able to own firearms?
Somewhere there is a middle ground.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Most scholars interpret "well regulated" in terms of what that meant in the 18th century. It is generally accepted that "well regulated" applies to those of sound mind and spirit, It would bar those whom are mentally incompetent or have committed criminal acts (more specific to the era, the 10 Commandments). This is why those questions are on the 4473 form. Next.