Why so much hate on helpful laws?

[DMax]

"The only time I assume there is a troll is when a newbie shows up and starts fights right away with the members"

If not new then what do you consider really NEW? Just Askin

thebootypir8
New Member
from WA
<broken link removed> <broken link removed> <broken link removed> <broken link removed>
Member Since:

Jan 2, 2016
Messages:
3
Likes Received:
0
Trophy Points:
<broken link removed>
Feedback:
=1']0 / 0 / 0
thebootypir8 was last seen:
Yesterday at 3:12 PM

 

[The Heretic]

I see this comment on social media all the time: "Obama doesn't want to take your guns - etc., etc., etc."

My response: "If he doesn't want my guns, then why does he want the serial number, make/model, and type of gun? What does the serial number of a gun have to do with my passing a background check? I can either pass the background check or I can't - they serial number, make/model, etc., has nothing to do with whether I can pass the check or not."

 

[etrain16]

"The only time I assume there is a troll is when a newbie shows up and starts fights right away with the members"

If not new then what do you consider really NEW? Just Askin

thebootypir8
New Member
from WA
<broken link removed> <broken link removed> <broken link removed> <broken link removed>
Member Since:

Jan 2, 2016
Messages:
3
Likes Received:
0
Trophy Points:
<broken link removed>
Feedback:
0 / 0 / 0
thebootypir8 was last seen:
Yesterday at 3:12 PM

What I mean is someone that doesn't just throw out one or two posts that people may not agree with, but stays and engages everyone, over and over with contradictory statements, just to piss people off. That is the kind of troll behavior I'm talking about. One or two posts is hardly troll behavior in my book. I've dealt with some very aggressive and nasty trolls on other sites - this person doesn't even come close based on what I've experienced before. Usually trolls stay and take digs at members over and over, just to keep getting a rise out of them. My exception would be someone who comes here and in their first post calls all gun owners baby killing moronic psychopaths - that would obviously be a troll post right out of the chute.

My opinion remains that it's better not to assume based on only one or two posts - let them talk a while - if they are a troll, it will come out eventually. All this person did was ask why people are against Obama's new action, and instead of people explaining the why, they immediately assumed it was a troll post.

What if this really was someone who just doesn't know better and we may have the chance to inform them? Does it really hurt to take the time and try to win them over before we just shoot them down? We may have lost an opportunity to do that here.

Think what you want, but I would rather wait and see a bit first.

 

[jbett98]

The best part of this thread is that it shows we still have the freedom of speech to discuss what's on our minds.

 

[DuneHopper]

well said Stomper. I have to admit your "good faith" position is the answer to my frustration. I wrongly assumed people from the control side were coming to the table to have an honest discussion. I find most people today on the liberal side don't allow facts, reality, or even reason enter the discussion. I spent years making sure my kids were raised to judge a person by their efforts. Made sure they were not brainwashed by public school. Come to find out all my effort and hard work to get where I am is nothing more than White privilege. Didn't see that coming.

I think that there may be more troll subspecies on this website than we realize.
We know that the anti-gun groups will stoop to doing just about anything.
.

Ceasefire Oregon has said prior to their popularity if they infiltrate the pro-gun movement then can insert common sense. It would be very wise of them to be a member of OFF, and NWFA, OK, the Tea Party I am sure they are here every day reading the material and taking items out of context. I can not explain it but I have seen some pretty bazaar acts in many groups that just didn't add up. If you read in this forum you can find many a member say ANTIGUNNER suck only to become more passive a few months later. Maybe its just me but they seem pretty easy to spot not like this OP here who was an obvious sheet disturber and plant.
We have local groups here and only under strict monitoring can we keep the influence low.
But on a level like NWFA its basically impossible as there is no real screening process its more like spammer no spammer and then wait and see if they get banned in the mean time you have infiltrators like the OP drawing attention and driving the site to be distracted, id be real curious if the OP IP address is right here in Oregon.

 

[etrain16]

Ceasefire Oregon has said prior to their popularity if they infiltrate the pro-gun movement then can insert common sense. It would be very wise of them to be a member of OFF, and NWFA, OK, the Tea Party I am sure they are here every day reading the material and taking items out of context. I can not explain it but I have seen some pretty bazaar acts in many groups that just didn't add up. If you read in this forum you can find many a member say ANTIGUNNER suck only to become more passive a few months later. Maybe its just me but they seem pretty easy to spot not like this OP here who was an obvious sheet disturber and plant.
We have local groups here and only under strict monitoring can we keep the influence low.
But on a level like NWFA its basically impossible as there is no real screening process its more like spammer no spammer and then wait and see if they get banned in the mean time you have infiltrators like the OP drawing attention and driving the site to be distracted, id be real curious if the OP IP address is right here in Oregon.

I agree it's entirely possible it's a troll post. I just tend to take a more wait and see approach myself, but that's not for everyone.

 

[mike633]

Dear Northwest Firearms Friends,

I am from Illinois (not Chicago) where I am currently finishing my aircraft mechanic course and certification, which will be complete in two weeks. I have also been working on my residency in WA while in IL and will be in the Seattle area with my family to begin my job search upon completion of my training. I am so happy to be moving back to such a glorious state as Washington. I am a moderate, more left leaning gun owner and always will be one, and I do not understand the hostility when it comes to legal changes to laws regarding firearms to any extent.

For instance, consider Obama's legislation. He is using executive powers to push through laws that make background checks required for sellers (gun shows, etc), as well as modifying who qualifies as a "seller" so that people cannot get away with avoiding background checks without making legal repercussions much worse. He also is targeting the severe lack of funding that our Mental health system gets by providing much more cash flow going into vamping up that area of medicine and clinical treatment. Neither of those are hurting the right or ease of buying guns and owning guns, just adding a fast background check to the super minority of gun sales without checks and improving a mental health system that will aid in reducing our suicide rates (by targeting the stigma of "weakness" for getting help) and mental problems with citizens and military alike. Yet, there is a massive amount of resistance from the right side of the political spectrum for these measures currently.

I saw this news on Gov. Inslee acting on executive orders of his own to improve mental health and data sharing between local LE services and Federal LE branches, and noticed how much flak this move has been getting as well. The data sharing wouldn't hurt us in any way (the NSA already could spy on anyone of use just because), and the mental health system attention is tremendously helpful and something both the left and right agree on improving to combat the rates of people dying or hurt by firearms.

My point is that none of these laws, which the majority of people approve of (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/index.html), would limit the ability of a responsible and legal person to get a firearm or add a huge burden to the process, but will almost certainly help with Mental health, and probably with the number of gun fatalities each year. It will, matter of fact, now make gun shows and owners look better, since the "loophole" has been eliminated, and will allow the expulsion, by legal process and the removal of credentials (FFL, etc.), of irresponsible dealers that do not perform background checks on every purchase, which make guns look bad. Background checks are pretty fast, and as a man who owns his own firearms and has gone through the process, I was shocked by how smooth the process was. A background check doesn't add any stress to the process at all, but only adds a layer of security and common sense to the equation. These laws are not anti-gun in any way, they don't say you can't own firearms, limit the numbers, or burden people with insane levels of hassle to get a firearm. These laws are not aiding in anyone's "coming for your guns" tactic either, as that logic was just created by manufacturers and lobbyists to get funding and inspire fear (with adds even more money) while benefitting the company and securing their future.

I am just curious as why there is so much hate on laws that will only help, don't play in to any fear mongering tactics, and will create a future that firearms are looked upon in a more positive light than what people see from the NRA now (such as this

) and other groups that are so against any change or progress to the point of dogmatism and fear mongering. Why can we not represent ourselves like the gun owners we actually are, kind, responsible, law abiding and non aggressive individuals who can approach an issue with confidence and poise.

Now, I did not mean to offend anyone by this post, but I just wanted to shed light on this issue because of how it seems there are groups that do not represent what most gun owners believe, but just the extreme points and fear creating tactics. I have not been overly aggressive, insulting or vulgar towards anyone, and I will ask that if anyone responds to my question and discussion, please treat me with the same professionalism and kindness that I have tried approach everyone here with. Thanks for your time and I hope you guys have a fantastic 2016.

 

[mike633]

Obama needs to clean up his own stall before he starts telling us how to clean up ours. He lost a thousand guns in Fast n Furious, tell us how that happened...without lying. He wants tougher background checks on us, but can't adequately check and control who he lets in to our country. His ISIS "JV" team is alive and well in the USA. If he can't control them, keep them out, period. Let's see him lead by example.

 

[uberguy]

sorry etrain - in my view you are mistaken;
I spent 35 years in IT, 5 years managing a portfolio of web/blogs and have some experience identifying troll/agitators and her post contained all the hallmarks. I can appreciate an interest to thoughtfully engage the undecided, but this assuredly was not one.
My 2 cents, two words in reply to the OP, begins with an F and ends with a you.

 

[etrain16]

sorry etrain - in my view you are mistaken;
I spent 35 years in IT, 5 years managing a portfolio of web/blogs and have some experience identifying troll/agitators and her post contained all the hallmarks. I can appreciate an interest to thoughtfully engage the undecided, but this assuredly was not one.
My 2 cents, two words in reply to the OP, begins with an F and ends with a you.

That's fine, I'm not bothered by opinions other than mine on this matter. My approach is different from some others, and I know some will strongly disagree with me. I'd rather we discuss it than just say nothing at all.

That said, I don't have your IT background, just experience on other forums, so my opinion is based on a different set of circumstances. Either way, it's good to hear from a variety of opinions on this particular issue. Troll or not, it certainly has made for an interesting thread.

 

[Stomper]

So... Penny Okamoto calls herself "thebootypir8"?

 

[etrain16]

So... Penny Okamoto calls herself "thebootypir8"?

We need to start that rumor...and make sure it spreads

 

[Velzey]

Off to Facebook I go...

 

[ArtBrownSr]

Bootypir8, I too will TRY to be gentle! AND as I live a little NORTH of the North West, Alaska to be precise. I live where we are FREE to own and carry any federally legal fire arm, to include NFA as long as we pay the stamp and pass the federal guidelines. We DO NOT have to apply for or carry a permit to allow EITHER open carry OR concealed carry. If we wish to carry a permit with us to other states while we carry our guns, there is a provision for additional paperwork, "training/testing" and certification. How ever UNLESS I am dragged kicking and screaming I shall not be found in or around King or Pierce Counties ( of which Pierce is my birthplace and 34 years of my 67 years on this earth was spent there). I shall visit friends and family in other parts of that stae and have the ones that live in the great BLUE DESERT come and see me in other places.

To be a little more blunt! It is people like you that make people like me VERY MAD

 

[U8395279]

What I mean is someone that doesn't just throw out one or two posts that people may not agree with, but stays and engages everyone, over and over with contradictory statements, just to piss people off. That is the kind of troll behavior I'm talking about. One or two posts is hardly troll behavior in my book.

Oh come on. He just joins the forum, and the very first things he has to say are to criticize the NRA and other gun owners.

What was his reason for joining the forum? His own words pretty much made that clear.

.

 

[Norm0931]

Common Sense, huh? When was the last time someone robbed a 7-11 with a 40mm launcher loaded with chalk rounds? Yet the ATF needed to regulate them like an explosive.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...lk-rounds-are-explosives-destructive-devices/

 

[Larrytpdx]

You lost me at "Obama".

 

[Caveman Jim]

Perhaps we could live with a few more gun laws – but remember: The ultimate goal is as a leftist presidential candidate says: Gun laws like Australia or England - total confiscation.

Like many politicians, the leftist play the long game, a little here, then a little more, and then a little more - and BOOM (pun intended) total control over guns and then confiscation.

Did you ever hear the story about the frog in the pot of water over a fire?

THAT IS WHY I AM OPPOSED TO ANY TIGHTENING OF ANY GUN LAW.

Tom, NO, we the law abiding cannot!!!
The many useless laws already on the books are not enforced by the justice department, they plea bargain away the gun charges in the first round!!!!

 

[capdek]

My biggest problem with the push for more gun control, whether at the state or federal level, is that no laws ever actually stop crime. Instead, they restrict the law-abiding public even further, under the guise of greater protection/security. Just look at mass shootings since the 1950's - all but two (in 2011) took place in gun free zones. That little fact right there should scare anyone. Criminals, as we all know do not follow laws, and they certainly are not deterred by them. So, introduce gun free zones and the only ones that honor them are....law-abiding citizens, while the criminal element walks right past the signs and start shooting the place up - all the while the law-abiding folks, who respect the law/rule, are left unarmed. Why should I, or anyone else, have to give up our right to self defense out of some feel-good false sense of security that is being proven over and over and over and over again to be not only completely ineffective, but creating actual targets for these people??

Something else that generates so much ire among the pro-gun community are the outright deception and misinformation coming from the President on down regarding the gun community and guns in general. For example, they keep attacking the "gun show loophole" and "internet gun sales without a BGC". A study (as I recall, by the University of Chicago), where they interviewed criminals in prison, asked where they got their guns. Gun shows were not even on the list. Nor were online sales. Yet these are the 2 areas that Obama and the rest of the anti-gun crowd go back to over and over again. Where do they get their guns? Straw purchases were at the top of the list - in other words, the bad guy gets someone they know can pass the BGC buy the gun for them. A practice that is, by the way, already illegal (a felony offense), and has been for a long time - yet it's still one of the most common ways they get their guns. That long-standing law is not exactly effective in stopping gun violence, is it? One of the other most common places they get guns? Black market sales, on the street. Again, it's already illegal to sell a gun to a known felon. And these people will never conduct a background check, regardless of the law, because they are criminals. Again, another existing law that does NOTHING. But no, let's pass more ineffective laws and attack two areas used commonly by law abiding people - gun shows and online sales. Is there an agenda having nothing to do with criminal activity at work here? Hard to see it any other way. And, by the way, I know of no online dealers that will sell you a gun without having to go through a background check at a local dealer first. If anyone is doing it without the check, they are already violating existing laws. So, why do we need even more?

Part of the problem is how soft the government is on violent offenders. Too many are released on technicalities or never even charged. Too many are still on the streets, or released on the streets over and over and over again. If someone is a known felon, with repeated violent episodes and repeated arrests, why the hell are they still on the damn streets? If we need BGC's to protect us from violent felons from getting guns, shouldn't the question be rather, why the hell is a violent felon still on the street??? The same goes for people with documented mental health issues, again, being left to themselves, untreated and unrestrained, and still able to commit these terrible acts. Background checks do not stop them. So maybe it's time to change the plan away from gun control to felon control, combined with serious mental health funding, and, I think, the reintroduction of institutions for the most seriously mentally ill. Just recently, Obama pardoned a group of criminals around the country. Two of those he pardoned were serving sentences for FELONY GUN CRIMES. Hmm, seems odd to me that a President that seems so concerned about gun crime would be willing to issue executive pardons to violent gun offenders. Shouldn't we be mad about that??

Gun owners are just as frustrated by gun violence as the anti-gun crowd. They are just as hurt, just as frustrated, and just as angry when these shootings happen. No gun owner wants to see the loss of life that has happened in these mass shooting incidents, none. I watched in absolute horror during the Sandy Hook shooting, just like eveyrone else, and like everyone else, it ripped my heart apart to see so many children murdered in cold blood - by a kid with known mental issues, using guns that were all legally purchased by his mother. We, as gun owners, disagree vehemently with the anti-gun groups strategies, because we can see, from the actual evidence, that their ideas do not work. Considering the last few mass shootings, including the non-mass shooting of the TV reporter and cameraman last year, were perpetrated by people that passed background checks, it's becoming more and more clear that BGC's are not some magic solution that will put an end to these events. In the meantime, it's costing gun buyers more money, more time and creating an unnecessary federal and state registry of gun owners, all while doing nothing to stop the shootings. Why shouldn't we be angry about that? These laws are only hurting one group - the law-abiding. And that does make me very angry.

There are more things that could be said, but I've rambled on long enough. To summarize, we already have enough laws on the books to curb gun crime, but a soft-on-criminals approach is allowing violent felons and seriously mentally ill people to not only remain on the streets, but to have access to guns via failed background checks or through avenues that bypass those checks entirely, all the while placing more and more restrictions on the law-abiding public. As long as that remains the status quo, I and others like me, will be angry with the President and everyone else that seeks to further restrict our rights based on lies and misinformation, all for some purpose I have yet to fully understand.

This has to be one of the best arguments against further gun control laws that I've ever read - well said sir!

 

[rick benjamin]

Ceasefire Oregon has said prior to their popularity if they infiltrate the pro-gun movement then can insert common sense. It would be very wise of them to be a member of OFF, and NWFA, OK, the Tea Party I am sure they are here every day reading the material and taking items out of context. I can not explain it but I have seen some pretty bazaar acts in many groups that just didn't add up. If you read in this forum you can find many a member say ANTIGUNNER suck only to become more passive a few months later. Maybe its just me but they seem pretty easy to spot not like this OP here who was an obvious sheet disturber and plant.
We have local groups here and only under strict monitoring can we keep the influence low.
But on a level like NWFA its basically impossible as there is no real screening process its more like spammer no spammer and then wait and see if they get banned in the mean time you have infiltrators like the OP drawing attention and driving the site to be distracted, id be real curious if the OP IP address is right here in Oregon.

Like the "Occupy" movement. There is now "Occupy 2A"