Tipping Point to Consider

[edzz]

Help me to understand, an 18 year old is mature enough to vote (as long as they vote as their professor tells them to vote) however not mature enough to own a gun.

I guess times have changed, when I was 18 My government trusted me with automatic weapons' and more...

 

[mrblond]

 

[Reperio]

Asking us to reason with the unreasonable, is, well, unreasonable. The current actions of the democrats, the government, and the three letter agencies are criminal. They ARE criminals. Most of them have always been criminals. Secession is the only peaceful option in my opinion. What once was certain parody is now foisted upon us in seriousness.

"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times."
― G. Michael Hopf

We are living in the time of weak men who are busy ushering in the hard times. Otherwise known as that road to hell paved with good intentions (even if many of them know full well their intentions are not actually good - the useful idiots believe everything they hear from MSM).

 

[po18guy]

View attachment 1270014

Dang! I just recycled my old satellite dish as I thought it was useless. Oh, the signalling I have missed!

 

[red442joe]

View attachment 1270029

This, dummies!

Joe

 

[bradsteen]

First, stop attaching this bill as "a bad bill". It doesn't do any good to say that
even if it is true. All you are doing is polarizing the population.

Second, agree that something needs to be done, but tell people that this bill
is terribly flawed in what it is trying to accomplish. Point out the flaws and
how this bill will not help (if you interested in how to do this I can tell you).

Third, commit to working on a series of compromise bills/laws that would
have the impact that everyone would like to see. For example, restricting
purchase/ownership of semi-automatic weapons to people over the age
of 25. Yes, it is a bitter bill to swallow, but it just might stop a lot of the
school and mall shootings based on the age demographics of who
does these type of shootings. (Your children can still shoot bolt action
rifles and revolvers._ For example, commit to a bill/law that requires
DAs to prosecute any felon who uses a firearm in a crime or is caught
with a firearm. No plea deals. No paroles. No early release.
And so on.

I'm not an Oregonian so this doesn't really affect me directly, but my thoughts on your three points on "what can be done" are as follows:

1. I disagree. A bad bill is a bad bill, and should be called out as such. However, partisan attacks are instantly ignored by most people, and should be avoided. As soon as you say "democrats" in a negative light, a big chunk of the population says "they're attacking my team" and tune out. Eliminating partisan language and focusing on the specific reason why the bill sucks (i.e. how it won't solve the problem) is the right way to go in my opinion. People will be more receptive to new information when they don't think it represents a personal attack.

2. I agree. Mass shootings are terrible, and I think the 2A community is just as outraged about them as everyone else - moreso because they make us look bad to the uninformed, non-gun-owning populace. I believe our arguments should be couched in terms that convey that outrage. Imagine how powerful that message could be to non-gun folks!

"Senator, I completely agree. Mass shootings are a serious problem, and we DO need to take action to stop these tragedies from occuring. However, we need to do something that actually WORKS. That means addressing the underlying causes of violent behavior. This bill is the equivalent of giving a gunshot victim an asprin - it doesn't stop the bleeding. We need a tourniquet, not good intentions. You're supposed to be helping us solve these problems, and instead you're offering us more of the same old things that have been proven time and time again to be ineffective. The bodies keep piling up senator, and this measure isn't going to stop that from happening. Instead, we should be doing XYZ."

The anti-gun crowd uses their outrage and emotion as a weapon; the 2A crowd can and should do the same. After all, we know what will actually solve these problems. We should be pissed that nobody is listening to our input, pissed that our elected officials keep selling voters snake oil, pissed at their failure to dig deeper and search for real solutions. Their negligence costs lives.

3. I vehemently disagree for a number of reasons:
(A) If we raise the age of firearm purchases to 25, i would argue we would need to reclassify the definition of an adult in the eyes of the law. Will we also raise the age at which a person can enlist in the military, drink, vote, serve on a jury, or drive a car? If a person is responsible enough to do any of those things, they are responsible enough to own a gun.
(B) Even if semi-autos were suddenly inaccessible to those under 25, they would still commit mass shootings using whatever manual action guns are available, or they would acquire their weapon of choice by unlawful means (theft, straw purchase, "borrow" from an authorized owner, etc). Type of weapon is basically irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is a pump action shotgun or an AR15; they are both equally deadly in the hands of a person intent on harming others.
(C) The compromise doesn't solve the problem. Feel-good measures that restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens without having a perceptible benefit to society as a whole have no business becoming law.

 

[DunRanull]

I read your post several times, and believe this;

Any time "RESTRICTION" is used when discussing gun control you have just lost a great deal of gun owners with your thoughts.

(RESTRICTION)

1. The action of restricting or the state of being restricted.

2. Something that restricts; a regulation or limitation.

3. The act of restricting, or the state of being restricted; limitation; confinement within bounds: as, grounds open to the public without restriction.


I say this not to argue or belittle your comments.

I believe most 2A supporters believe these to be the reality of our current situation.

• There are enough gun laws on the books; creating more is their way of chipping away at our 2A rights.
• When the laws we have now are no longer being enforced, and criminals are set free back into society; new laws only affect the 2A supporters.
• Recent laws and limitations have proven to have had ZERO effect on crime and only affect the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of the country. So once again creating new laws is their way of chipping away at our 2A rights.

As I've stated on this forum the steps to change the current lawlessness in our society will NEVER be fixed with more GUN LAWS! Picture the current status of lawlessness in the country as a tree. The tree has thousands of individual roots that nourish the lawlessness that is growing. Find a way to start cutting away at the root of each individual problem and change will happen.

But doing that doesn't get politicians reelected, feed the liberal machine or stuff cash into the corrupted pockets of the elected officials we tolerate. So it WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

They fear us the voter's and smear lipstick onto the larger groups and cities that control the voting outcome. They feed them with their lies and shadow responses to their fears and speak onto them the words that they want to hear.

But from all of this just remember this; they fear the voters!

So please speak your mind and VOTE; is nothing else.


Mark Sr

No "compromise", No Surrender! Compromise with the gun-grabbers always means a reduction of our rights and gains us nothing. Remember the 1986 "compromise" gun bill that allowed us to order ammo and travel with our firearms interstate? We gave up the manufacture of full-auto firearms for private possession, with existing ones grandfathered in. Well, now the prices are so high only the very rich can afford full autos, and state restrictions cause problems for traveling with firearms.. we can still buy mail order ammo except in states that restrict it, and if you can find an entity that will deliver it... so that's another one we lost by "compromise" with people who want to remove our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Everything and everyone has a tipping point...breaking point...whatever you want to call it.
This point can be easily reached when the extreme seems to be the regular occurrence.

In any event....
I do not agree with or see just how one more firearm law will do anything different than however many other firearm laws that are in place.*
*Figures vary...but the number really don't matter...'cause if laws did prevent crime or keep others from harming someone...
We would only need one...as in Don't harm others.

Laws are a tool....at times a dull rusty tool or one that is misused...but they should just be one of many different tools in the toolbox.

If you want the same results...then keep on doing what you have been doing.
In this case....Sure just add another law ....that oughta fix everything....

If you want a different result....you need to do something different.

Violence and crime have been with us seemingly forever...and no law will make them go away.
A different approach that might work would be looking at just why the millions of gun owners who are out there...
Don't commit crimes or harm others.
Push a more positive and different approach or agenda , rather than trying the same old thing with a new name.
Andy

 

[Idaho44]

Prohibition Era tipping points are not equivalent to current events that are pontificated as 'tipping points'. Who and what was behind the formulation of the law that created the "Prohibition Era"?

Up the age for voting, military conscription, driving vehicles, drinking etc. etc. and you still will not have less violence in 'society'. It's programed into the gene pool and effects ALL genders (real or faux)! As has been said, bad laws are bad laws, is the law for prohibition still in effect nationally? Why not? OR is a career path, and may not see all of the relevant pieces of why! There is no "one size fits all" in real life!

 

[Member 52301]

MOST Americans are DUMBED DOWN - they are just plain stupid and ignorant of past and present HISTORY.

MANY so called GUN people are like that too. Uh huh.

MOST Americans are brainwashed big time with their own party's INITIALS by some past or present politician. They are pathetic when it comes to the TRUTH of the matter in a man or in a woman.

They would follow their cult leader OFF of a cliff as long as THEIR leader kept on giving them false hope, telling them blatant LIES, salami talking points, and a FAILED AGENDA with more lies. BOTH PARTIES!

COMPROMISE has hurt people and their LIBERTIES when it came to GUNS.

So called 'conservatives' and MANY gun people who are NOT conserving jack squat in GUN RIGHTS and, in fact, have IMPOSED and/or PRAISED making more GUN LAWS, restrictions and BANS still are NOT CALLED OUT for their dung because the CON ARTIST has or had a R by his or her name.

And many R leaders who FOLLOWED their former WH - R leader ended up doing MORE HARM when it came to GUN RIGHTS in their OWN RED STATES and in PURPLE STATES too! That IS a fact, Jack!

Plus the Ds did it too. BUT most of us already KNOW and KNEW what their D agenda was when it came to PRESERVING (NOT!) the RKBA issue! Diddly squat!

They want your guns NO matter how they sugar coat it or LIE TO YOUR FACE!

BOTH parties. The Ds are outspoken and the Rs will COVER UP their anti gun agenda. MOST of the time but not always.

THIS goes for those so called 'conservatives' (NOT!) when they have spoken up @ WHITE HOUSE special meetings, publicly shown - broadcast and still available to SEE, and this goes for BLATANT ANTI GUNNERS in the D party too.

COMPROMISE does not work in my opinion. THERE SHOULD BE NO COMPROMISE when it comes to the RKBA.

GUN control = people control.

And when a gun person, including a few Veterans, is told what some new law is NOW or will be changed soon... most of them do NOT believe what you tell them since you are INFORMED and they are NOT!

They try to tell you that Billy Bob Joe - their neighbor man said that you do not have to do x, y or z when it comes to gifting or shipping a gun out of state and so forth.

So what old Billy Bob tells that MAN WITH MANY GUNS is wrong but old BILLY BOB keeps on repeating the same old MISINFORMATION over and over again because he is STUPID and NOT UP TO DATE as being informed of real news.

These same jokers will constantly say, "That is fake news, bla and bla!", while the poop is STARING THEM IN THE FACE with the NEW or proposed NEW LAW right there in PRINT.

But you can't convince old BILLY BOB about that in GUN ISSUES worse off in fiscal issues or when it comes to any sense of GUN HISTORY - PAST or PRESENT - worse off FUTURE.

A man or a woman can ENLIST in the military, defend his/her country at the age of 18 years old - taking away his or her GUN rights WILLY NILLY when he can SERVE his country using a FIREARM is not only WRONG - it is pathetic!

There are too many people (Including GUN people.) willing to compromise when it comes to the RKBA issue, fiscal responsibility, and tons more when it comes to SANE and ethical policies. TOO many people are willing to compromise in many liberty issues due to some WOKE KAREN/KEN and their FEELINGS.

You have too many people who do not see gun rights as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue or a CONSTITUTION related issue as in the SECOND AMENDMENT.

They get on their HIGH HORSE about some SILLY issue and they do not realize that they are DISCRIMINATING against people who MAY or may NOT use firearms.

Old Lady Cate

 

[Member 52301]

Help me to understand, an 18 year old is mature enough to vote (as long as they vote as their professor tells them to vote) however not mature enough to own a gun.

I guess times have changed, when I was 18 My government trusted me with automatic weapons' and more...

Thank you!

Cate

 

[Member 52301]

The Karen/Ken WHINERS are too DENSE to figure out that if someone at any AGE who really wants to do a dirty deed CAN or MAY DECIDE to USE another THING or tool.

Like driving their vehicle into a CROWD of people. You name it - they can use it including using their BARE HANDS.

But we have to blame an inanimate object and change GUN LAWS because they REFUSE to BLAME the IDIOT or CRIMINAL full of stupid, bad and evil intentions!

What a joke and it is really PATHETIC.

NO compromise.

GUN control = people control.

Cate

 

[AK0perator47]

Violence and crime have been with us seemingly forever...and no law will make them go away.
A different approach that might work would be looking at just why the millions of gun owners who are out there...
Don't commit crimes or harm others.
Push a more positive and different approach or agenda , rather than trying the same old thing with a new name.
Andy

I'm just going to explain briefly why.

It's called profitable. Someone will take a good thing and try to make a profit on it. So we need to find a way to make it profitable to people to incorporate what you are saying. By profitable I'm talking money because it's actually profitable for society if we implement what you are suggesting.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The criminal and willingness to harm others , with malicious intent is where the focus should be.
Not what items are used to commit the crime.

If...such a large impact in such a little word.....

If ten people were murdered by someone using a semi auto rifle....
Are those ten people any less dead than if they were run over by a car...?

If we were to wave a magic wand and make all the semi automatic firearms disappear....
Does that mean that folks won't be shot by criminals using a different type of firearm....?
Or harmed by other things like :
Chemicals mixed in the correct manner , knives , hammers , bats , rocks , sticks...the list is endless

Banning items , simply makes those items more attractive to own and more expensive to get...if one wishes to buy one.
You could of course steal that item ...or perhaps make your own.
Banning something , in and of itself does nothing to prevent crime.
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I'm just going to explain briefly why.

It's called profitable. Someone will take a good thing and try to make a profit on it. So we need to find a way to make it profitable to people to incorporate what you are saying. By profitable I'm talking money because it's actually profitable for society if we implement what you are suggesting.

It may be profitable to do as I suggested.
However....

It needs to be more profitable than the existing system / way of doing things now , that we have going on.
Also it would require work and commitment to change....which is in short supply as well.
Andy

 

[AK0perator47]

It may be profitable to do as I suggested.
However....

It needs to be more profitable than the existing system / way of doing things now , that we have going on.
Also it would require work and commitment to change....which is in short supply as well.
Andy

That's why we have the term lead by example. Our first order of business or first thing is to help change the acceptance of blaming others for our own actions. And one way is we stop blaming the tools for the actions of the people. As a society we have decided to not be blamed for everything/ anything.

Example: "Hey Mr. Criminal, why did you steal the money?"
Criminal: "Well see I'm a product of the society that you all created." Then continues, " I mean you forced me into poverty and didn't give me opportunities to make money. So I took it because of how you created this."


Wait WHAT? Because that's what is happening. It's everything and everyone else's fault. Not because the people wanted an easier way to get something, or because it's fun, or exciting or whatever the excuses are. The only thing that we have created is our own demise's for ourselves and our society.

 

[Idaho44]

Just a thought: I lived in a country where gun(s) and ownership were tightly 'controlled'. The commoners had little access to them, but the landed and upper echelons of society were 'good to go'! However, ball peen hammers, paraquat etc. etc. were readily available and were used as wanted!

 

[Provincial]

Ken Burns released a documentary in 2011 titled "Prohibition." It is a three-part mini-series, and is very informative about how voters can be manipulated into making a serious mistake. It is available from PBS, but has also been on Netflix and may be available online.

The capabilities of manipulating public opinion have expanded immensely since then. We are inundated with information (often opinion that is presented as information) and propaganda constantly. The techniques of propaganda have been honed, and the mechanisms of delivery have multiplied.

Freedom has never been threatened to this extent in modern history.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

That's why we have the term lead by example. Our first order of business or first thing is to help change the acceptance of blaming others for our own actions. And one way is we stop blaming the tools for the actions of the people. As a society we have decided to not be blamed for everything.

Example: "Hey Mr. Criminal, why did you steal the money?"
Criminal: "Well see I'm a product of the society that you all created." Then continues, " I mean you forced me into poverty and didn't give me opportunities to make money. So I took it because of how you created this."


Wait WHAT? Because that's what is happening. It's everything and everyone else's fault. Not because the people wanted an easier way to get something, or because it's fun, or exciting or whatever the excuses are. The only thing that we have created is our own demise's for ourselves and our society.

Something to consider with the term:
Lead by example.....

It cuts both ways...as in one can lead by a "good" example or one can lead by a "bad" example.

What you posted , as in the first part is leading by example...
The criminal is taking his cues by the examples shown to him.

The second part of what you posted is also leading by example...although it is much more difficult and at times uncomfortable to take responsibility for one's own actions.

Leading by example leads only to the results that are being modeled.

The example needs to be what result is desired...as well as being more attractive than the other examples that are around.
Andy

 

[AK0perator47]

Exactly @Andy54Hawken