When trying to find a common solution, one has to remember that many liberals are very scared of guns. I could point out to them that we have gun free zones and our children have been harmed vs. Israel arms their teachers and school shootings do not happen. Logic, statistics, whatever you want to say will not get past that mental block.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
what if we stop arguing so hard and start looking for a common solution?
- Thread Starter tlfreek
- Start date
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
It demonstrates their lack of knowledge on the subject. I would agree though that we need to spend more effort on the actual issue though.
This is accurate to the extent that there are indeed dangerous people out there that we cannot identify. That is not true of all though as we release known dangerous people into society every day. The very existence of our background check system proves that many of them are known to be dangerous and that we are letting those dangerous people free in society.
There are a number of valid reasons for having an AR-15 including hunting however the primary one that is applicable to this question is that I may face someone else that wishes to harm me with the same and that I have the right to be able to defend myself and others against them when attacked with equal or greater tools. To even entertain the idea that they can be removed from society is an exercise in futility so it isn't even worthy of discussion. At most the law abiding would simply be at the mercy of those that have them.
Presumably we are now discussing those we know are bad? To that there is only one solution that will work. That is to keep known dangerous people out of society. Once released into society it is impossible to make a dangerous person safe. Attempts to do so such as background checks actually endanger us by encouraging the practice of releasing known dangerous people into society. How much so? 4 out of 5 murders are committed by known felons that have been allowed to walk free.
I actually deal with many of these same arguments every day. Primarily because we are conditioned to believe that society must be responsible for the behavior of individuals. This is harmful because individuals are not the ones being held responsible and therefore they are not compelled to be responsible. They are only interested in self and not society as a whole.
- Messages
- 78
- Reactions
- 70
The Orlando guy could have done IED's but he chose the less lethal one. He wanted to enjoy his moment of anger. What concern's me is the total incompetence of government. The solutions are simple:
1. Start profiling like the French and German's do.
2. If you declare a gun free zone you are required to provide sufficient armed security.
3. Armed security required at all places of assemble > 30 people.
4. No more telling the first officers on site to wait 15 minutes for swat. Your in a dangerous job and you get paid to take risk. In Orlando they were told to stand down until swat arrived. Meanwhile a slaughter continued inside.
4a. Better training and rifles for LEO's.
5. Declare war on ISIS and full-on offensive warfare. It would cross all border and include all level of society.
6. The "militia" mentioned in the constitution need to carry additional guns in their vehicles. Police prohibited from charging/harassing them for carrying.
7. Increase suicide and mental health intervention and crisis management.
8. The government now admits that terrorist are living amongst us. Stop trying to make everybody play nice (politically correct is dangerous).
9. "Your neighbor is a terrorist until you can determine he is not". Always report suspicious activity.
10. Gang association or activity puts you on the no buying guns list. Knowingly selling a gun to a gang member is 20 year in jail.
11. People that report, and are proven true, that a gang members shoots or possessing firearms are given $20,000 as compensation. People will sell out their own gang members to get at the money.
12. Order 10,000 national guards men to the southern and northern borders for border patrol. Three month stint and call it training time.
This is my short list.
1. Start profiling like the French and German's do.
2. If you declare a gun free zone you are required to provide sufficient armed security.
3. Armed security required at all places of assemble > 30 people.
4. No more telling the first officers on site to wait 15 minutes for swat. Your in a dangerous job and you get paid to take risk. In Orlando they were told to stand down until swat arrived. Meanwhile a slaughter continued inside.
4a. Better training and rifles for LEO's.
5. Declare war on ISIS and full-on offensive warfare. It would cross all border and include all level of society.
6. The "militia" mentioned in the constitution need to carry additional guns in their vehicles. Police prohibited from charging/harassing them for carrying.
7. Increase suicide and mental health intervention and crisis management.
8. The government now admits that terrorist are living amongst us. Stop trying to make everybody play nice (politically correct is dangerous).
9. "Your neighbor is a terrorist until you can determine he is not". Always report suspicious activity.
10. Gang association or activity puts you on the no buying guns list. Knowingly selling a gun to a gang member is 20 year in jail.
11. People that report, and are proven true, that a gang members shoots or possessing firearms are given $20,000 as compensation. People will sell out their own gang members to get at the money.
12. Order 10,000 national guards men to the southern and northern borders for border patrol. Three month stint and call it training time.
This is my short list.
There are currently two methods restricting gun ownership in the USA.
1. There is a restriction on the type of firearms one may own and/or buy. E.g., It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon in most states. E.g, Sales of semi-automatic weapons has be restricted in the past without outlawing ownership. Note that black powder weapons are almost completely unregulated.
2. There is a restriction on who may buy firearms. Background checks at time of sales are required for most sales. In states that allow fully automatic weapons a special permit or license is required.
These are are the tools used to regulate firearms in the USA. It would most feasible to adjust the use of the exiting tools rather than propose new ideas. It seems none of the new ideas proposed have much traction in this forum...
1. There is a restriction on the type of firearms one may own and/or buy. E.g., It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon in most states. E.g, Sales of semi-automatic weapons has be restricted in the past without outlawing ownership. Note that black powder weapons are almost completely unregulated.
2. There is a restriction on who may buy firearms. Background checks at time of sales are required for most sales. In states that allow fully automatic weapons a special permit or license is required.
These are are the tools used to regulate firearms in the USA. It would most feasible to adjust the use of the exiting tools rather than propose new ideas. It seems none of the new ideas proposed have much traction in this forum...
- Messages
- 6,244
- Reactions
- 7,104
More people die falling down then from all guns every year. Guns is a BS propaganda issue to trick low info "feel good" voters into voting for Hillary, nothing more.
One option is to educate the mass pea brain sheeple to understand the real facts.
Other option is to fight the same BS propaganda war and win. This is the only real option.
One option is to educate the mass pea brain sheeple to understand the real facts.
Other option is to fight the same BS propaganda war and win. This is the only real option.
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
A common solution?
Like jailing all the crooked politicians that keep violating their oaths of office by selling my rights down the river?
That kind of solution?
Like jailing all the crooked politicians that keep violating their oaths of office by selling my rights down the river?
That kind of solution?
You are missing my point.
It's too easy to divide humanity into gun rights supporters and gun haters. Problem is, most people don't fit into either of those categories. Another problem with it is the all-or-nothing battles that come out of it.
Look at California. Is there any point in trying to save that place? Gun owners should move out, and move to other states reinforcing the pro-gun cultures in those states.
This country will never be completely "pro-rights". It will also never be completely anti-gun.
America was originally designed as an area of independent states. That worked well. If one state did not suit you, it was a simple matter to move down the road.
Now we have one national government running almost the whole show, in fact really an empire these days. This means the homogenization of all the states, and even homogenization of the whole world. "One world government"! Who needs that crap?
We don't need to fight the anti-gun people directly; we need to fight their imposition on us. These are not the same thing. Likewise, we should not impose on them. Separation between the two is the answer. I'd have no problem with total gun prohibition in Portland, provided there were no gun laws at all in the rest of the state. Then, I would simply live outside of Portland, and stay away from there.
The best way to fight imposition is civil disobedience. Everyone should simply not obey the law, just like the 95% of New Yorkers disobey the "SAFE" act.
This separation may seem unrealistic, but it is already in place to a certain extent. The problem is not so much that stupid gun laws exist in Portland, but that they also exist in places like Corvallis, Hillsboro, etc.
Anyway, I'm rambling...
- Messages
- 680
- Reactions
- 1,266
You are missing my point.
It's too easy to divide humanity into gun rights supporters and gun haters. Problem is, most people don't fit into either of those categories. Another problem with it is the all-or-nothing battles that come out of it.
Look at California. Is there any point in trying to save that place? Gun owners should move out, and move to other states reinforcing the pro-gun cultures in those states.
This country will never be completely "pro-rights". It will also never be completely anti-gun.
America was originally designed as an area of independent states. That worked well. If one state did not suit you, it was a simple matter to move down the road.
Now we have one national government running almost the whole show, in fact really an empire these days. This means the homogenization of all the states, and even homogenization of the whole world. "One world government"! Who needs that crap?
We don't need to fight the anti-gun people directly; we need to fight their imposition on us. These are not the same thing. Likewise, we should not impose on them. Separation between the two is the answer. I'd have no problem with total gun prohibition in Portland, provided there were no gun laws at all in the rest of the state. Then, I would simply live outside of Portland, and stay away from there.
The best way to fight imposition is civil disobedience. Everyone should simply not obey the law, just like the 95% of New Yorkers disobey the "SAFE" act.
This separation may seem unrealistic, but it is already in place to a certain extent. The problem is not so much that stupid gun laws exist in Portland, but that they also exist in places like Corvallis, Hillsboro, etc.
Anyway, I'm rambling...
I get your point and can see it. I agree in many ways. I was trying to illustrate, simply, the nature of the 'compromise' dynamic that exists now.
I left California for good some 17 years ago, and my Grandfather''s homestead he was born on, and our many acres of fruit trees. I just picked up and moved to a 'friendlier' state to escape the insidious loss of our lifestyle and our land. And now I'd really love to move away from Oregon, but my friends and family are here.
I can't roll over again and abandon my 'homeland' to appease the anti-gunners. When and where would they stop? As you say, they are seeking a national homogeneity, culturally and politically. At some point one has to stand their ground.
Simply not complying is a very real facet of resistance. But when it comes to a possible direct confrontation over the issues we're talking about here, I'm not going to give up any more ground, literally or politically, as there has been so much taken away already. If I left, then their conquest is emboldened, and like the Roman Empire, they won't much like being held from conquering more territory, especially land and people contiguous to their empire that they feel already rightfully belongs to them.
I didn't create the divide of pro-gun and anti-gun. But make no mistake, there is one, and it's been created by the national dialogue, which takes any issue and its nuances and complexities, and reduces it to the point of over-simplification where we have the basest debates: you either are for it or against. That's the way of the media and politicians, to make an issue with far more substance into a juvenile competition of choosing sides.
I don't see any more room for compromise, and so will stand and fight until there's a better strategy.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 16,909
- Reactions
- 27,789
Why is it so hard for some to understand "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Reasonable and common sense gun laws," according to OBAMA? Hillary? Moms against gun violence? The Brady bunch?
Aloha, Mark
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
So tell me what is the difference between the laws they want to pass now and the Jim Crow laws of not that long ago?
They want to disarm the peasants' you know us the poor Taxpaying units because we are easier to control just like they did with the blacks and poor whites in the south and all in the name of safety, you know safety for the rich ex-slave owners or rich politicians in our case.
For now it is a terrorist watch list then somehow it will be gun clubs you know where peasants gather to train with guns and talk about the government "you know terrorist", then its the forums and all they will have to do is just add your name to a list and your rights are gone with no due process.
After reading some of these posts I figure they already have won because we as gun owners are so divided that we cannot even agree on what is a "right" if we are willing to compromise it away for a false hope of security.
The bill of rights are not given to us by government so government cannot take them away but we can give them away and that in my mind is what we are doing one piece at a time in the name of compromise, "you know for the safety of children!"
They want to disarm the peasants' you know us the poor Taxpaying units because we are easier to control just like they did with the blacks and poor whites in the south and all in the name of safety, you know safety for the rich ex-slave owners or rich politicians in our case.
For now it is a terrorist watch list then somehow it will be gun clubs you know where peasants gather to train with guns and talk about the government "you know terrorist", then its the forums and all they will have to do is just add your name to a list and your rights are gone with no due process.
After reading some of these posts I figure they already have won because we as gun owners are so divided that we cannot even agree on what is a "right" if we are willing to compromise it away for a false hope of security.
The bill of rights are not given to us by government so government cannot take them away but we can give them away and that in my mind is what we are doing one piece at a time in the name of compromise, "you know for the safety of children!"
- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
So many fail to get this that it is indeed sad. Let's just compromise? They have been telling us that for ages and we have been doing so for just as long. Too many fail to see that compromise just means that they will take another little chunk and then they will come for more. We must stop doing so and stand up not based on the compromises already lost but based on the principles themselves which have been lost to those compromises. That means we will be seen as extreme but we will be standing on solid moral ground whereas everyone else will not because they have already conceded that inherent rights are open to discussion and negotiation.
Oh, but that is a separate issue. A lot of people around here have given up on Oregon, but I think that is a miscalculation. Oregon is far, far from being a lost cause.
Just look at homeschooling. If there is anything that stands out about Oregon homeschooling, it is the vast numbers of noncompliant homeschoolers. They are a feisty bunch and don't like to be pushed around - even the liberal ones.
And if the label "liberals with guns" applies to any state, it applies to Oregon.
No, you won't have to move. California is probably too far gone, but Oregon? No way.
The other point, like I say, is that some places really need to be let go. Chicago or Hawaii are good places to let gun control happen. Then people will finally feel the result of it, and will change their minds on their own.
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
-- Will Rogers
- Messages
- 680
- Reactions
- 1,266
I really hope so. I live near Ashland, and it's a bastion of irrational liberal agendas and zealots, so I'm overexposed to some overt forms of socialist stupidity, and that colors my take. They are in a bubble though, and we successfully defeated their attempt to outlaw open carry downtown, so that was refreshing.
I guess, for me, even though I live in a small town in close proximity to large tracts of public lands, I still feel too close to modern world and am looking for my 'home in the wilderness' to enjoy my preferred non-modern world based lifestyle, which at one time I had but lost. Ultimately, regardless of the political climate and other perceived pressures, this is my goal.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 8,327
- Reactions
- 15,847
To the OP. There is no "common" solution. They (the antis) seek disarmament and control. The only things antis agree on is more harassment of the law abiding and making it more expensive and complicated to exercise our constitutional rights.
We've backed down enough. Look at where we're at now.. Sure the shelves have a few goodies on them.. But just wait, they play the long game, not the short one. Little by little they'll erode the second amendment. If we give an inch, they'll take a mile. They've proven to do so time and time again.
We've backed down enough. Look at where we're at now.. Sure the shelves have a few goodies on them.. But just wait, they play the long game, not the short one. Little by little they'll erode the second amendment. If we give an inch, they'll take a mile. They've proven to do so time and time again.
- Messages
- 4,006
- Reactions
- 11,422
Um...no...we most certainly do not want the same things in the end. With regards to gun control (and I can't even believe we're talking about gun control), Liberals don't want "reasonable common sense gun laws." What they want is total and complete gun confiscation and they won't stop until they get it.
But the fact that you're hear talking about gun control is testament to how well Liberals shovel their B.S., and how well we buy it. This was a TERRORIST ATTACK! It wasn't a mass shooting, it wasn't an instance of gun violence, it wasn't a hate crime, it was an act of TERROR! Here's what we should be talking about...
1) How do we remove the rules of engagement and give the military what they need to go in and take out ISIS!
2) How do we stop people from within our borders from becoming radicalized by Islamic terrorists?
3) Are the acts and hostilities we're seeing the result of a warped interpretation of Islam or are they inherent and fundamental elements of Islam itself?
4) Ft Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and now Orlando...what these terrorist acts all have in common is that the perpetrators were on our radar at some point prior to the attacks. Why do we keep missing the signals, what role did political correctness within our government play in missing those signals, and what elements in our laws need and can be changed to give the FBI the tools they need to monitor and stop someone who they've interviewed three times!?
5) What role did political correctness within the private citizenry play that prevented these people from being identified and what needs to be changed to prevent this from happening again?
6) What is being done to secure our borders?
7) Why do we continue to let refugees from countries with state sponsored terrorism into our country when it is patently clear and the FBI has flat out said that we lack the ability to screen these people?
8) Since the police clearly can't protect us, what needs to be done to help citizens to be better prepared to defend themselves? And for that matter why did the police take three hours to move on this guy and what if anything is being done to correct that reasoning?
These are just a few examples of what we as a nation SHOULD be talking about right now. But instead the country is having sit ins over background checks and people are on gun forums asking how to respond to the, "why do you need an AR15," question.
And that's exactly what Obama wants. Because if we're talking about gun control or trying to defend against gun control, we won't be asking this president about his total and completely failed foreign policy and why/how his administration keeps failing to protect the American public.
Well, it's not "liberals". It's statists. It's the oligarchs.
This is supposed to be a liberal-friendly site, as long as people support RKBA. Anyway it's not as if a liberal never defended his family with a gun.
That only works when gun owners believe they must obey the law no matter what, as long as they continue their fetish about being law-abiding. When enough of us stop believing, the baloney-slicing tactics no longer work.
Anyway, don't get too wrapped up with parchment worship. The Constitution is just a fig leaf for the depredations of the ruling class. A bill of rights designed to restrain government, adjudicated by the very same government it was allegedly designed to restrain? What could possibly go wrong?
This is supposed to be a liberal-friendly site, as long as people support RKBA. Anyway it's not as if a liberal never defended his family with a gun.
That only works when gun owners believe they must obey the law no matter what, as long as they continue their fetish about being law-abiding. When enough of us stop believing, the baloney-slicing tactics no longer work.
Anyway, don't get too wrapped up with parchment worship. The Constitution is just a fig leaf for the depredations of the ruling class. A bill of rights designed to restrain government, adjudicated by the very same government it was allegedly designed to restrain? What could possibly go wrong?
- Messages
- 921
- Reactions
- 444
- Thread Starter
- #78
you guys kill me. when I say we want the same thing its that we want crazy people to stop killing people. thats the same thing. if anyone disagrees with that fine, but I highly doubt it.
Now the way we go about solving the problem may differ but its something I think we can both work on or at least talk about. its clear people are getting crazier and more desperate and more apt to act. It may not be more frequent, but the impact is.
there is obviously much more history here that I have not been exposed to in terms of impacting gun owners rights, but that's not really what this post was about it was more about finding a solution. asking the question seems to get many wrapped around the axle and imply that gun rights are being jeopardized or reduced in some way. It's clear that from the answers thus far the solution lies outside of pro gun (which I am - obviously) a bit sad really.
some of you get it, most of you dont.
Now the way we go about solving the problem may differ but its something I think we can both work on or at least talk about. its clear people are getting crazier and more desperate and more apt to act. It may not be more frequent, but the impact is.
there is obviously much more history here that I have not been exposed to in terms of impacting gun owners rights, but that's not really what this post was about it was more about finding a solution. asking the question seems to get many wrapped around the axle and imply that gun rights are being jeopardized or reduced in some way. It's clear that from the answers thus far the solution lies outside of pro gun (which I am - obviously) a bit sad really.
some of you get it, most of you dont.
- Messages
- 20,342
- Reactions
- 77,149
What this discussion IS about is the loss of much of our 2nd rights! A little here, a little there adds up to over 22000 little cuts as of today! Those are rights we have surrendered. Unless we get those back, ALL OF THEM, there can be no solution, there can be no gun control! Think about that simple word CONTROL, Who exactly has that control? Not WE THE PEOPLE!!! I under stand your points, how can we move out of this never ending argument and find a reasonable solution? The simple answer is you cannot. The reason is equally simple, We the People are always on the losing end of any Hope and Change when the topic of Gun Control or anti 2nd argument comes up! Give us back all the rights we had taken at the State and Fed levels, then, and only then can we start talking about the real issues of gun violence, and how to stop it! This isn't even the biggest issue we face today, we stand upon the brink, and soon we will topple over the edge, WAR is coming! We have ISIS inside America, we have a Corrupt Gov monster, we have politicians willing to strip our rights, we have a very real threat from the far east and the middle east, And a war on Christians! Which WAR do you want to fight first? The biggest problem is we are going to be fighting them all at once, are you ready for that? That is the reality today we all face! Loosing our gun rights ( those we have that remain) are the only reasons we are still free, Somewhat! Soon, the very rights we fight for so strongly are going to be the only means of survival we have! So how do you see any hope of having any discussions about gun rights, gun violence, and gun control when we face what we see today?
- Messages
- 103
- Reactions
- 165
At this point I believe that goal is impossible. The Democrats and "Gun Safety[?]" groups have burn the crops and salted those fields. A review of the legislation proposed by the Democrats at all levels of government clearly shows that the ultimate objective of the Democrats and the "Gun Safety" groups is to make firearm ownership so costly, onerous and restrictive that it approaches impossible, but (they hope) is not ruled unconstitutional. This is in addition to still trying to ban whole categories of firearms and magazines. They know that they will never be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they just want to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms out of existence.
They don't even attempt to actually address violent crime or terrorist attacks and are clearly not trying to solve those problems. Instead it appears that they actually need these horrific mass shootings to continue to occur so that they can use them as an excuse to further their anti-gun agenda. Their ultimate goal is to restrict firearms to law enforcement, government agents and the military.
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
NEW - Ballistic Advantage 300BLK Upper for sale
- Started by Texan47
- Replies: 0
-
SIG Rattler 300BLK, GBRS, Holosun, Leupold, Eotech, Midwest Industries, ETC.- Started by notgarandthumb
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Junk pile Ar15 and G3 and other misc parts- Started by eldbillbo
- Replies: 1
-
Junk pile Ar15 and G3 and other misc parts
- Started by eldbillbo
- Replies: 0
-
-
