Washington This is Getting Out of Control, Red Flag Laws Getting More Teeth

[GWS]

Here is just a personal opinion.
the U.S. government was designed to protect everyone's rights not control everyone's rights

Fixed it for you
I think we can all agree that the government has long since forgotten that ideal.

ETA--I think you are pretty spot on in the rest of your post.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Fixed it for you
I think we can all agree that the government has long since forgotten that ideal.

Its still in the Constitution, therefore maybe its high time we reminded the govt of their duty? I note it is also the Courts who have forgotten that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to control the Government's scope of power

 

[RogerHWerner]

Enlightened self-interest is the meat and potatoes of realpolitik! But it can get awfully cutthroat can't it? As someone with strong libertarian feelings governance through enlightened self interest is appealing.

But thinking about state and federal legislatures, isn't enlightened self interest, the win-win scenario, the essence of democratic governance? *laughs*

 

[GWS]

Its still in the Constitution, therefore maybe its high time we reminded the govt of their duty? I note it is also the Courts who have forgotten that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to control the Government's scope of power

Again, spot on but the $64,000 question is:
"How?"

 

[RailwayMan]

let's crunch the numbers here.
Approx 300 million+ guns are known to have been produced and sold in America in the history of America;
There are approximately 100+ million gun owners of all types at the low end of estimates;

of that number, perhaps 1 percent of American gun owners have the brass balls to stand up to the tyranny...but that is still a significant number at 1 million plus. (That's just one percent, leaving 99 percent to be either killed, cowed into submission, arrested, or apathetic, or actively working against other gun owners)

Compare to the numbers for the military personnel; approximately 1.3 million Active Duty personnel with about 800,000 in 7 reserves components... spread out between US Army, USAF, US Navy (and Marines), and US Coast Guard.
The majority of these Active Duty personnel are support/logistics personnel, a military needs cooks, mechanics, quartermasters, clerks, and other support personnel to fight effectively.

With 1 million plus potential combatants spread all around the United States, and the support from families, communities, other gun owners, and so on, I do not think the US Federal Government would want to take on a potential insurrection and rebellion of armed Americans.... although it does seem like some States are trying to actively make enemies of gun owning Americans


Back to the topic. it is clear that they are trying to remove Constitutional Rights from minors before they are of age... all in the name of "safety" when really, it is about control of the people.

And that's why our founding fathers set it up the way it is - to guarantee there will always be the resources available to resist attempts at such. And members of the armed forces I've heard say "I'd not turn on my own people for the sake of The State" gives me hope.

 

[Inquisitor]

. . . There are approximately 100+ million gun owners of all types at the low end of estimates; of that number, perhaps 1 percent of American gun owners have the brass balls to stand up to the tyranny...but that is still a significant number at 1 million plus. (That's just one percent, leaving 99 percent to be either killed, cowed into submission, arrested, or apathetic, or actively working against other gun owners)

Compare to the numbers for the military personnel; approximately 1.3 million Active Duty personnel with about 800,000 in 7 reserves components... spread out between US Army, USAF, US Navy (and Marines), and US Coast Guard.
The majority of these Active Duty personnel are support/logistics personnel, a military needs cooks, mechanics, quartermasters, clerks, and other support personnel to fight effectively.
. . .

I disagree with your 1%, there are 22 million military veterans that been trained and have learned from Vietnam, 2 wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, so I would think 30% - 40% total. Hey, maybe the criminal element also needs to be considered.

On the other side, I agree with your military numbers but don't forget the 1.35 million law enforcement (again not all "front line" and not all "trained/competent".

 

[CamoDeafie]

I disagree with your 1%, there are 22 million military veterans that been trained and have learned from Vietnam, 2 wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, so I would think 30% - 40% total. Hey, maybe the criminal element also needs to be considered.

On the other side, I agree with your military numbers but don't forget the 1.35 million law enforcement (again not all "front line" and not all "trained/competent".

I did say "IF". No doubt the actual numbers are far far larger, and even with a mere "1 million" potential insurgents/revolutionaires and combatants... that is still a far larger number than the number of insurgents and terrorists we had to deal with in Iraq numbers game, us lowly civilians with mere rifles, handguns and shotguns far outnumber the active U.S. personnel, and then theres that great article posted about why it is folly to think the great U.S. Military complex would be able to quell such a large insurgency in the U.S. American lands.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2018...ete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/
What better way to make D.C. Swamp poop their pants than to see this... a "1 million+ armed Americans" marching down Pennyalyvania Avenue, with material support behind in a convoy of trucks and such flying American flags?

 

[Inquisitor]

I did say "IF". No doubt the actual numbers are far far larger, and even with a mere "1 million" potential insurgents/revolutionaires and combatants... that is still a far larger number than the number of insurgents and terrorists we had to deal with in Iraq numbers game, us lowly civilians with mere rifles, handguns and shotguns far outnumber the active U.S. personnel, and then theres that great article posted about why it is folly to think the great U.S. Military complex would be able to quell such a large insurgency in the U.S. American areas https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/the-2nd-amendment-is-obsolete.284556/

What better way to make D.C. Swamp poop their pants than to see this... a "1 million+ armed Americans" marching down Pennyalyvania Avenue, with material support behind in a convoy of trucks and such flying American flags?

NWFA won't let me look at the link you posted.
Attention
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

What I did not say about the veterans was: We don't believe in suicide missions but we do understand guerrilla warfare and many of us know why the US military could not win those wars!

 

[CamoDeafie]

NWFA won't let me look at the link you posted.
Attention
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action.

What I did not say about the veterans was: We don't believe in suicide missions but we do understand guerrilla warfare and many of us know why the US military could not win those wars!

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018...ete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/ the article I spoke of. Edit. Oh you don't have access to a particular subforum.. sorry!

 

[nwslopoke]

Just a couple of thoughts. Contrary to popular thinking, gun control isn't a Democatic or Republican party issue but that's often how gun control is framed in the media. Gun control policy however should be a universal social issue, and Americans could learn much from Australia if we bothered to look. I don't trust our governments any more or less than most gun owners because most of our governments are controlled by special interests and Corporations. However, consider this: when gun owners say that they don't trust government, what are we really saying? What don't we trust? Government by special interests and Corporations? If American governments were honestly 'popular' as intended by the Framers, and if gun owners nevertheless still distrusted government, we would be saying that we don't trust our fellow citizens? If Americans desired it, the citizens of the US could regain control of their government from special interests and corporations. Would that then mean that gun owners trusted governments by and for the people? What if a popular majority in a truly representative government favored strong gun control? Obviously these are rhetorical questions since Americans are much to busy or lazy to reclaim their governments. Still, I think it is instructional for us to seriously consider what and who we honestly oppose. I suspect that the most strident anti-gun law advocates aren't anti-government or anti-Democrat; they are anti-anyone who would seek to restrain their gun use or ownership in any way, even if a true popular majority believed that such control is of public benefit. Does this mean that some gun owners care more about their personal interests than the social good?

Newt Gingrich, John Bolton & Justice Brett Kavanaugh are now in charge of reproductive and gay rights. How much trust do you think you would have in government? It's just three guys? What could go wrong? It's not as if government could have an agenda.

Putting that example aside because that would never happen, though the equivalent has happened. Several times when politicians and judges have openly stated they would remove gun ownership from the general public if they could. Please don't deny that if you really want an honest CONVERSATION.

Historically, who willingly gives up their rights? Rights are generally taken forcibly or by some prohibition, leading to a black market. Well, we've seen what that leads too. Besides it's extremely one sided. Please give up your guns, with nothing in return. Do you have an example of something that would be of equal value to ones rights? What right would you give up? What power are you willing to give government from the traffic cop to the Dept of water/power, to the courts…what would you give government the right over your person that they don't already have?

For my part I would never give away what I have. Not for money or position.

 

[RailwayMan]

It's what made Japan decide against an attempt at an invasion of the mainland US. They were afraid of "an American with a gun shooting us from behind every tree, every inch across the country."
That's what would happen.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Just a couple of thoughts. Contrary to popular thinking, gun control isn't a Democatic or Republican party issue but that's often how gun control is framed in the media. Gun control policy however should be a universal social issue, and Americans could learn much from Australia if we bothered to look. I don't trust our governments any more or less than most gun owners because most of our governments are controlled by special interests and Corporations. However, consider this: when gun owners say that they don't trust government, what are we really saying? What don't we trust? Government by special interests and Corporations? If American governments were honestly 'popular' as intended by the Framers, and if gun owners nevertheless still distrusted government, we would be saying that we don't trust our fellow citizens? If Americans desired it, the citizens of the US could regain control of their government from special interests and corporations. Would that then mean that gun owners trusted governments by and for the people? What if a popular majority in a truly representative government favored strong gun control? Obviously these are rhetorical questions since Americans are much to busy or lazy to reclaim their governments. Still, I think it is instructional for us to seriously consider what and who we honestly oppose. I suspect that the most strident anti-gun law advocates aren't anti-government or anti-Democrat; they are anti-anyone who would seek to restrain their gun use or ownership in any way, even if a true popular majority believed that such control is of public benefit. Does this mean that some gun owners care more about their personal interests than the social good?

I care more about civil rights, (which is what personal interests here are used as a euphemism for) than I do what some dub the social good.

I also think rights take precedence over majority view. majorities can be stupid, petulant and wrong.

I am against those who restrain liberty on individuals for things which do not harm others.

What if a majority wanted to exterminate or enslave another group. Human nature hasn't changed and this has happened throughout history, so popularity is a rather silly yardstick.

 

[RailwayMan]

I care more about civil rights, (which is what personal interests here are used as a euphemism for) than I do what some dub the social good.

I also think rights take precedence over majority view. majorities can be stupid, petulant and wrong.

I am against those who restrain liberty on individuals for things which do not harm others.

What if a majority wanted to exterminate or enslave another group. Human nature hasn't changed and this has happened throughout history, so popularity is a rather silly yardstick.

Often one literally has to fight for their rights or lose them forever.

 

[MxOverkill]

Last time I checked, Democrat voters and their kin were perpetrators of violence far more than the other side.

Either you didn't really "check" or you're just F'n poor at math.

 

[wp4]

Either you didn't really "check" or you're just F'n poor at math.

LOL hear the keyboard warrior's ROAR!

Pretty easy to hurl comments with no logic or facts to back them up! Watch, even I can do it:

Either you haven't "read" history, or your just F'n lying.




Totalitarianism/ big government is always bad, no matter what party or label one wants to slap on it.

So disappointed that this thread devolved into this stupid back and forth bickering. I got a lot out of the first few posts but it all went downhill quick.

 

[Skier]

Good Lawdy, Washington truly has been Kalifornicated.

I heard on the radio today (Glenn Beck maybe?) that they are selling stickers that read "Don't California my Texas" and "Don't New York my Florida." I think they need a California my Oregon/Washington version too. ; - )

 

[American123]

Either you didn't really "check" or you're just F'n poor at math.

Seriously though. If you apply just a smidgeon of effort to inform yourself on this topic. The numbers don't lie.

Furthermore, the worst gun violence in the country is where liberals hold the most political control. Correlations exist regardless of your ability to see them.

 

[Inquisitor]

Gun control policy however should be a universal social issue, and Americans could learn much from Australia if we bothered to look.

If you look hard at Australia, and not just the parsed data of "Gun Homicides", you will find that since their gun ban: Homicides (all homicides, not just "gun homicides") have decreased, BUT all other violent crimes (including violent crimes committed with a gun) have increased, and suicides have not decreased, people are just killing themselves by other means. So yes, homicides are a win for gun control but the rest ARE NOT! Also, now Australia has a firearm black market.

 

[RogerHWerner]

If you look hard at Australia, and not just the parsed data of "Gun Homicides", you will find that since their gun ban: Homicides (all homicides, not just "gun homicides") have decreased, BUT all other violent crimes (including violent crimes committed with a gun) have increased, and suicides have not decreased, people are just killing themselves by other means. So yes, homicides are a win for gun control but the rest ARE NOT! Also, now Australia has a firearm black market.

Good points. I hadn't heard about the black market. How extensive is it I wonder

 

[Ownerus]

.........even if a true popular majority believed that such control is of public benefit. Does this mean that some gun owners care more about their personal interests than the social good?

A brief study of the history of the choices of "true popular majorities" should disabuse anyone from following that standard.
As for "social good". As defined by whom? And why the presumption that gun owners personal interests somehow conflicts with "social good"?