Your "logic" is illogical. Do you think criminals obey gun control laws?
2A being assaulted in many states
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
Joined
·
6 Posts
The Elmer Fudd mentality is a real problem. It is sad. Do you think the people in control of this country will not take away ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles? They are taking away every other gun, but somehow those particular guns are going to be left untouched?
Maybe it is a generational thing. I am just a young buck at 52 years old, so I am not from the World War II generation. Those people had a reason to trust their leaders. Nobody else has an excuse for being blind to the facts.
Is the media really so powerful that they can manipulate the people on a “gun” forum?
I thought it was pretty clear by now, but some folks just truly want to believe that the politicians are the good guys!
Maybe it is a generational thing. I am just a young buck at 52 years old, so I am not from the World War II generation. Those people had a reason to trust their leaders. Nobody else has an excuse for being blind to the facts.
Is the media really so powerful that they can manipulate the people on a “gun” forum?
I thought it was pretty clear by now, but some folks just truly want to believe that the politicians are the good guys!
They certainly do want to confiscate our guns. Not all at once of course, but starting with “assault rifles”.
Gun confiscation has been part of Democratic politics for decades:
here's Dianne Feinstein in 1995:
Given the cheers of the crowd and lack of argument from the rest of the candidates during the 2020 Democratic debates when Beto O'Rourke said:
There's no longer any doubt what the Democrats want to do.
Then there's this, from Joe Biden's presidential campaign website:
Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
What the website fails to mention is that the National Firearms Act requires a $200 tax stamp. That's for each rifle and each magazine. Your only alternative is to sell them to the government. Being forced to sell to the government under duress is confiscation with compensation. Which is better than confiscation without compensation, but it's still confiscation.
Most recently, Connecticut Governor Lamont campaigned on the notion of making currently legal weapons illegal:
And of course, California has already made previously grandfathered over 10 round magazines illegal, until stopped by the courts.
And they won't come around door-to-door to confiscate them. That's so twentieth century. They'll just freeze your bank accounts and credit cards until you turn them in.
More to come.
Assault weapons (continued)
Let's see what happens when we look at the issue using actual facts:
According to the FBI's 2019 crime statistics, there were 364 murders committed in the US that year using rifles. That's ALL rifles of all kinds. They don't keep statistics for "assault rifles", but given the hundreds of millions of conventional rifles out there, it's unlikely that it's more than half. Let's call it 200 to be generous. This is tiny compared with the 1,476 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments". Just to put it into perspective, there were 600 murders committed using fists. So the odds of being killed by someone punching you are three times as high as being killed with an "assault rifle".
Yet attacking "assault rifles" is a cornerstone of Democratic gun policy. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15!". Why are they making such a big deal about them if they are so rarely used in murders?
First and foremost is to generate an atmosphere of fear from which you can only be saved if you vote Democratic.
The second reason is that the Supreme Court has declared that weapons "commonly used for lawful purposes" are protected by the Second Amendment. AR-15s are commonly used for lawful purposes. They are also used in a very small percentage of crimes. So why are the Democrats so determined to ban them? Because they desperately want to establish some way around the common use protection. Once they've done that, more and more guns will be classified as "assault weapons". First all semiautos. Then bolt action "sniper rifles". Etc, etc. This is entirely consistent with a long established strategy of incrementalism as manifested in Democratic anti-gun states like California and New York.
A bonus: An "assault weapons" ban will almost certainly be overturned as unconstitutional, and rightly so. This will give the Democrats more reason to complain about the Supreme Court, possibly enough so they can attempt their dream of packing the court.
Let's see what happens when we look at the issue using actual facts:
According to the FBI's 2019 crime statistics, there were 364 murders committed in the US that year using rifles. That's ALL rifles of all kinds. They don't keep statistics for "assault rifles", but given the hundreds of millions of conventional rifles out there, it's unlikely that it's more than half. Let's call it 200 to be generous. This is tiny compared with the 1,476 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments". Just to put it into perspective, there were 600 murders committed using fists. So the odds of being killed by someone punching you are three times as high as being killed with an "assault rifle".
Yet attacking "assault rifles" is a cornerstone of Democratic gun policy. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15!". Why are they making such a big deal about them if they are so rarely used in murders?
First and foremost is to generate an atmosphere of fear from which you can only be saved if you vote Democratic.
The second reason is that the Supreme Court has declared that weapons "commonly used for lawful purposes" are protected by the Second Amendment. AR-15s are commonly used for lawful purposes. They are also used in a very small percentage of crimes. So why are the Democrats so determined to ban them? Because they desperately want to establish some way around the common use protection. Once they've done that, more and more guns will be classified as "assault weapons". First all semiautos. Then bolt action "sniper rifles". Etc, etc. This is entirely consistent with a long established strategy of incrementalism as manifested in Democratic anti-gun states like California and New York.
A bonus: An "assault weapons" ban will almost certainly be overturned as unconstitutional, and rightly so. This will give the Democrats more reason to complain about the Supreme Court, possibly enough so they can attempt their dream of packing the court.
A background check requires an FFL. In the last 30 years Democratic administrations have reduced the number of FFLs by a national average of almost 80%, even higher in anti-gun states. There used to be 4 storefront FFLs in my county; now there's only one. Since he has to handle ALL the private party transactions for the county, he only takes them on Wednesday afternoons. Have a job you can't get away from? Too bad. There's a fee involved, which goes up regularly. Also a 10 day wait (in CA).
So you want us to compromise. Remember, owning a gun is a constitutional right. How much compromise would you accept on your right to vote? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Would you accept having to pay a fee to vote? A 10 day waiting period to post on the internet?
Here's an analogy of how gun control "compromises" usually work. I have 10 cupcakes. The gun control people come by and say "I'm going to take 5 of your cupcakes and give you nothing." When I refuse, they say, "OK, let's compromise. I'll only take 4 of your cupcakes and give you nothing." Then the next year it's "You still have 6 cupcakes? I'm going to take 3 of them and give you nothing again." And people wonder why gun owners don't want to "compromise".
A real compromise is when in order to get what they want, one party gives the other party something they want. Here's an example of how a real compromise works:
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, the gun controllers wanted all sales to go through a federally licensed dealer with a background check, but they couldn't get the votes. So there was a compromise - it was deliberately left up to the states to decide whether to allow private sales without a dealer or not.
Going to Universal Background Checks would mean having the Federal government override state control of background checks. If you are going to override state control over guns, how about making all 50 states TRUE "must issue" for concealed carry licenses? Want something? - Give something. That's how a REAL compromise works.
See any compromises in the Biden / NY / CA / IL agenda? No. It's the same old, take as much as you can, the constitution be damned and then next year take some more.
In those rare occasions where there is actual "give something to get something" compromise, the Democrats will keep what they got, then before the ink is dry they'll turn around and label what they gave as a "loophole". Remember the compromise about in state private transactions the Democrats made to get the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed? They have campaigned against private intrastate transactions ever since, calling it the "Gun Show Loophole", even though it has nothing to do with gun shows and isn't a loophole. So you want us to give up something we got as part of a compromise in 1968 while getting nothing.
And you wonder why gun rights advocates don't want to compromise.
Joined
·
6 Posts
An "assault weapons" ban will almost certainly be overturned as unconstitutional, and rightly so.
I sure hope you are right, but I think there is a very good chance that they will not overturn it - or they just won't bother to take the time to hear the case.
The Constitution is ignored.
It seems to be about stoking the fire. We ignorant Commoners will fight amongst ourselves instead of fighting the people revoking our rights. Team Blue vs. Team Red. Both teams have the same goal of seizing power.
I sure hope you are right, but I think there is a very good chance that they will not overturn it - or they just won't bother to take the time to hear the case.
The Constitution is ignored.
It seems to be about stoking the fire. We ignorant Commoners will fight amongst ourselves instead of fighting the people revoking our rights. Team Blue vs. Team Red. Both teams have the same goal of seizing power.
The Supreme Court has already granted cert (accepted) a case about the Maryland "assault weapons" ban (Bianchi v Frosh), vacated it, and remanded it back to the originating court to be reevaluated under the criteria established in NYSRPA v Bruen. Bruen disallowed the "interest balancing" method that the Maryland courts (and every other pro-ban case) used and required that gun cases be evaluated under Text, History and Tradition (THT). The chances of a successful case being made to support bans under THT are remote, although it will be interesting to see how the Maryland courts will torture language and logic in an attempt to do so.
They did the same process with three other cases:
Young v. Hawaii — Challenges Hawaii’s ban on open carry as infringing citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear firearms outside the home.
ANJRPC v. Grewal — Challenges New Jersey’s “high capacity” magazine ban.
Duncan v. Bonta — Challenges California’s “high capacity” magazine ban.
All of these used interest balancing and none of them is likely to fare any better under THT than Bianchi will.
Joined
·
41 Posts
"The Elmer Fudd mentality is a real problem. It is sad. Do you think the people in control of this country will not take away ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles? They are taking away every other gun, but somehow those particular guns are going to be left untouched?"
Can someone tell us where "they" are "taking away every other gun" ?
Can someone tell us where "they" are "taking away every other gun" ?
Joined
·
16 Posts
The NRA is a shell of what it was, a shell stuffed with greed and avarice at the moment.
The gun banners use their own and taxpayer dollars to bring challenges to the 2A, either by legislation or edict. The use unfunded mandates, they use unrealistic or unverifiable rules, they use social media pressures and cancelling. The money follows and the politicians are all to willing to take it, over or under the table. Between the Bloomburgs and taxpayers, their pile of cash is virtually limitless. They use this resource to blatantly ignore the constitution, ram through laws, restrictions or edicts, then say 'sue me'.
We fight in court with our own money. It is expensive. The banners know this, they don't care, win or lose, challenge, challenge, challenge... outspend us.
Are you a supporting member of a national group fighting this fight? Are you a member of one or more state groups fighting this fight? Do you keep informed about the details of the fight, which lawsuits are being fought in which states with what outcomes?
We have reached a point of lawlessness burning the candle at both ends, the gangbanger criminal end and the politician criminal end. We can talk about it, but unless your dollars are supporting the fight your words are empty.
The gun banners use their own and taxpayer dollars to bring challenges to the 2A, either by legislation or edict. The use unfunded mandates, they use unrealistic or unverifiable rules, they use social media pressures and cancelling. The money follows and the politicians are all to willing to take it, over or under the table. Between the Bloomburgs and taxpayers, their pile of cash is virtually limitless. They use this resource to blatantly ignore the constitution, ram through laws, restrictions or edicts, then say 'sue me'.
We fight in court with our own money. It is expensive. The banners know this, they don't care, win or lose, challenge, challenge, challenge... outspend us.
Are you a supporting member of a national group fighting this fight? Are you a member of one or more state groups fighting this fight? Do you keep informed about the details of the fight, which lawsuits are being fought in which states with what outcomes?
We have reached a point of lawlessness burning the candle at both ends, the gangbanger criminal end and the politician criminal end. We can talk about it, but unless your dollars are supporting the fight your words are empty.
Joined
·
6 Posts
"They" are the people in control of America. "They" is not some mysterious mythical boogeyman. They have names. They are real living people. Their exact words can be quoted. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory.
They have banned guns already, so "They" are taking away guns. Guns are guns... there is no fundamental distinction between the specific different types - please don't fall for that. A member of this forum should know enough about guns to understand that "THEY" don't care about what specific type of firearm is getting banned. If you can ban one gun, then you can ban them all. It is simply common sense.
Stop letting Facebook and CNN pull the wool over your eyes. Try to think about it logically.
Joined
·
5 Posts
I'm 77 so there's been a lot of changes over the years. Mainly the prosecution of criminals. I like what the comedian said about Texas putting in an Express lane for the Death Penalty when others were ending it. I am the Father of a Victim so I believe in Hang Em High.
No offense, but the notion that Republicans want to take away your guns is incredibly naive.
Joined
·
101 Posts
There is little doubt that "they" are SLOWLY taking our guns away. "They" can't do it quickly because that would be confiscation. But "they" can condition the public to be accepting of change. The slow erosion of our rights is "their" best chance. And it is working. Who needs a machine gun? Well if I want one I should be able to have one. But being able to point to a few, "they" were able to convince others that we were all dangerous. Then you get what happened in 68'.
Bump stocks, braces, barrel length, capacity, grips, it's just one little wave after another, reducing our real estate. Soon we won't have anything to stand on. Because even here, in these forums(and others), there are people who willingly help "them" take away our rights. We've all seen it happen before, one Jewish man helps a non Jewish man kill a Jewish man in hopes that he won't be next. Of course there were Jewish (a surprisingly large amount) communities that said it could never happen.... but we know better...or do we?
Compromise in any way is defeat.
Bump stocks, braces, barrel length, capacity, grips, it's just one little wave after another, reducing our real estate. Soon we won't have anything to stand on. Because even here, in these forums(and others), there are people who willingly help "them" take away our rights. We've all seen it happen before, one Jewish man helps a non Jewish man kill a Jewish man in hopes that he won't be next. Of course there were Jewish (a surprisingly large amount) communities that said it could never happen.... but we know better...or do we?
Compromise in any way is defeat.
Saying "they are taking away every other gun" is a slight exaggeration, but there's no doubt that gun confiscation is front and center of the Democratic agenda. It starts with "assault weapon" bans, then making the grandfathered guns illegal, to classifying more and more types of guns as "assault weapons", etc, etc. Read posts 44-46 for more details.
Joined
·
5 Posts
Is a fist or knife an assault weapon. YES, just stating its the ACT of the individual not what they use. If the consoquences are high enough, the crime won't be as common. If you do the CRIME, YOU do the TIME. NO BAIL, period.
Joined
·
1,460 Posts
Sen. Schumer & crew are going after .22lr rifles because the company shows a minor shooting a rimfire that looks like an AR on its website.
AFIK, it is up to the parents to decide if, when and how to introduce their children to the shooting sports.
bearingarms.com
On Thursday the New York senator, joined by Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the gun company Wee1 Tactical for supposedly marketing a “mini-assault weapon” to minors.
“The last thing we need to be doing is reducing in size these deadly weapons of war and then marketing them to children. But that’s what’s happening,” said Schumer.
I had never heard of this outfit before, thanks Chuck for bringing them to my attention.
AFIK, it is up to the parents to decide if, when and how to introduce their children to the shooting sports.
Schumer, Senate Dems take aim at the "JR-15"
Senate Democrats may not be able to get a gun ban to Joe Biden’s desk thanks to the Republican majority in the House, but if Chuck Schumer and his anti-gun allies are signaling they’re goi...
bearingarms.com
On Thursday the New York senator, joined by Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the gun company Wee1 Tactical for supposedly marketing a “mini-assault weapon” to minors.
“The last thing we need to be doing is reducing in size these deadly weapons of war and then marketing them to children. But that’s what’s happening,” said Schumer.
I had never heard of this outfit before, thanks Chuck for bringing them to my attention.
Joined
·
6 Posts
New York Times Article:
Trump made this quote in 2018:
And Trump is the most Pro-Gun Republican in the last 50 years! More than Reagan, even.
The Republicans and the NRA are not our friends. Wolves in sheep's clothing.
This silly Team Blue vs. Team Red is going to be our downfall.
I disagree. The NRA and the Republican Party are defenders of our 2A rights.
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
