The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: alfsauve on January 10, 2009, 09:35:15 AM
-
The old fable talks about putting a frog in a pot of warm water and slowly turning up the heat. Well that's what shooters are doing to themselves, concerning the new gun laws. Slowly by supporting one law at a time (or doing nothing to stop these proposals) they're allowing our RKBA to be eroded away.
Now I can understand a single discipline shooter who doesn't get out much beyond their one shooting activity, not understanding the implications of the Brady proposal. They don't subscribe to any publications that keeps them up-to-date on the politics involved and they're not part of the on-line community. Isolated folks, just content on their one lily pad. Blithely unaware of the impending doom. BUT, to find a folks in some of the more active and virulent forums who support one or more of the Brady provisions is mind boggling.
Below are some comments from other forums on the Gun Show Loophole. Understand that ATF doesn't regulate SALES, but TRANSFERS. And that Gun Show Loophole is a euphemism for ALL TRANSFERS, PRIVATE and COMMERCIAL. These people don't realize the implication, even if they never buy another gun. Nor do they realize that this is a path towards total registration of all guns and then eventually confiscation (one type of gun at a time.)
Here's what some others are saying about Gun Show Loophole, NICS and background checks: (some paraphrased)
-This proposed law makes sense.
-....proposal makes sense to me....
-What they should do is require by law that all potential firearm purchasers go through the NICS check.
-I truly believe that it is possible to enjoy firearm ownership with background checks for all firearm transactions
-What is wrong with requiring background checks for handgun transfers?
-What is wrong with requiring a minimum safety course?
-By submitting myself to a background check for CCW, I think I have alleviated the possibility that I may have something to hide.
In a friendly way, we need to inform our shooting buddies, that these proposals are not "sensible" nor "reasonable" nor are they the ultimate goal. Brady, et. al. won't be stopped until the private ownership of ALL firearms (and airguns) is prohibited. These are just "next step" proposals.
-
Excellent post!
Gun owners can be divided between so many areas that they either don't even know about some of the others or care about them. Remember the whole Jim Zumbo mess based on a lack of understanding. If a person with the knowledge, experience and access to the public can get sucked into the fray, think how easy it is for the anti's to divide and conquer the rest of the general public ...AND THEY KNOW IT!!!
It would be a tough, if not impossible, job to change the 10% that are anti, so it is important that the 10% gun lovers remain united and do their best to shine a positive light in front of and bring to our side the 80% neutral.
-
Great analogy.
-
In the years prior to the NFA a 10 year old could mail order a howitzer (if he had the money) or Maxim machine gun from companies like Bannerman's. Before the GCA 68, the same 10 year old, some of you in fact probably did this, could MAIL ORDER a rifle, pistol, or shot gun. We did not have school shooting's and mass murders, in fact the crime rate has never since been as low as it was then.
Stupid may be an insult, IGNORANT is a technical term that means "lacking information". It is up to us to marginalize the stupid and cure the ignorant.
-
I did say that the MAIN thing that disturbed me was these comments came not from the general populous, but from a very active on-line SHOOTING forum!
-
I did say that the MAIN thing that disturbed me was these comments came not from the general populous, but from a very active on-line SHOOTING forum!
That was one of the things I've disliked about other forums. Many WANT to remain ignorant of anything outside their specific niche, and will scream bloody murder when you attempt to educate them.
Just because they are on a SHOOTING forum does not mean they know anything other than one little corner, say Skeet guns. Guy might know everything there is to know about every skeet gun ever used, and still be unable to figure out how to load a revolver. If the level of ignorance is this high among various types of shooters think of how much worse it is among the general public.
-
That was one of the things I've disliked about other forums. Many WANT to remain ignorant of anything outside their specific niche, and will scream bloody murder when you attempt to educate them.
Just because they are on a SHOOTING forum does not mean they know anything other than one little corner, say Skeet guns. Guy might know everything there is to know about every skeet gun ever used, and still be unable to figure out how to load a revolver. If the level of ignorance is this high among various types of shooters think of how much worse it is among the general public.
It's not just forums. Go down to the local range and listen to the cat fights (nothing personal Haz).
The rimfire and handgun shooters can't get along, everyone hates the full auto guys, the "serious" shooters hate the plinkers and the plinkers think the 'serious" shooters are going to drown in the next rain storm.
Go to a wild game feed and listen to the "traditional" archery clan go after the compound bow crowd, all archers go after the crossbow group, the archers blast the rifle shooters, the rifle shooters complain about archery and muzzleloaders, and everyone that is afraid of the handgun hunters.
We have so many little squabbles going, and many in each group have no problem with limiting something within the other group.
Oh ... and never forget that most people have bought into the idea that the 2nd Amendment only is only justified so we can preserve our "hunting heritage."
-
I have little doubts that some time in the next 10 years all firearms sales will have to got thru a FFL.
What bothers me about that is things like waiting periods, LEO/ CCW pass on Back ground checks and fees. For example in CA since 99 all gun sales have to go thru a dealer... the rub is it will cost 20 for the transfer( min and max by law) and between 20 and 25 for the back ground check.( once again min and max)
-
Its really not about the guns, its about the rights. It just happens that we collectively are in danger. If it was any other amendment that guaranteed any other right it would be the same concern to them. I think this fact gets lost in the shuffle.
-
every single one of our rights has restrictions on it...
I don't see a diffrence between them. many in the gun community ( more so online) really beleave that the 2a is diffrent from the rest.
-
In the years prior to the NFA a 10 year old could mail order a howitzer (if he had the money) or Maxim machine gun from companies like Bannerman's. Before the GCA 68, the same 10 year old, some of you in fact probably did this, could MAIL ORDER a rifle, pistol, or shot gun. We did not have school shooting's and mass murders, in fact the crime rate has never since been as low as it was then.
Stupid may be an insult, IGNORANT is a technical term that means "lacking information". It is up to us to marginalize the stupid and cure the ignorant.
+1 on that.
Heck, it was not uncommon when I was in high school for those of us that hunted to have our rifles in our vehicles and we all carried knives in our pockets. Fast forward twenty years and a kid in a nearby county was kicked out of school six weeks before graduation for having a steak knife (left over from a camping trip) in the bed of his pickup during a routine parking lot check. He was an honor student that was in the running for Valedictorian and was booted due to a zero tolerance policy for something that would have, at one time long ago, been nothing at all.
As my dad has always said, "Ignorance can be cured with time and education. Stupidity is FOREVER".
I think this applies here, like Tom said.
We must do what we can to educate the ignorant while not wasting time on the stupid. We must write letters to editors and post information at ranges or anything else to inform both gun owners and non-gun owners to the situation.
-
every single one of our rights has restrictions on it...
I don't see a diffrence between them. many in the gun community ( more so online) really beleave that the 2a is diffrent from the rest.
I dare you to publicly prevent some a$$ hole from saying something inflammatory, insulting, or untrue. Even the KKK has won in court on 1st amendment grounds. Remember Skokie ? Yes libel can be pursued in court, but that is a CIVIL matter, not criminal. The 2nd amendment is the ONLY one that has CRIMINAL penalties placed on the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right.
-
ok go around demanding the that people kill Obama... I can asure you, you won't be dealing with civil courts. Want to have a million man march? np, just fill out the forms and pay for your permit 1st.
-
...........Heck, it was not uncommon when I was in high school for those of us that hunted to have our rifles in our vehicles and we all carried knives in our pockets. Fast forward twenty years and a kid in a nearby county was kicked out of school six weeks before graduation for having a steak knife (left over from a camping trip) in the bed of his pickup during a routine parking lot check. He was an honor student that was in the running for Valedictorian and was booted due to a zero tolerance policy for something that would have, at one time long ago, been nothing at all. ........
Our diverse, tolerant and permissive society has gained us so much...... :'(
-
Its really not about the guns, its about the rights. It just happens that we collectively are in danger. If it was any other amendment that guaranteed any other right it would be the same concern to them. I think this fact gets lost in the shuffle.
It is about rights, and also our liberties and freedoms. It is also, fundamentally,about control over us peons by the elite in gummint. And the heat just jumped (bailouts and the resultant socialization of the industries) and some of frogs are getting very nervous.
every single one of our rights has restrictions on it...
I don't see a diffrence between them. many in the gun community ( more so online) really beleave that the 2a is diffrent from the rest.
This is so wrong. A SCOTUS justice once stated that you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I would argue you do have that right, especially if there is a fire you have a moral obligation to clear the building. If there is no fire, then any damage to person or property that transpired due to the rush out of the building is also your responsibility. It is about rights - and the responsibilities that come with them.
How is our freedom of religion abridged - er - "reasonably" limited except by one-sided and biased edict from the bench? How else is our right of assembly abridged - except ditto. How about our right against self-incrimination abridged? Ditto. Eminent domain? Ditto. And on and on and on.
Seeing a pattern here? If the gummint-legislatures don't erode the rights then a single gummint individual in a black robe will. Unless the gummint bureaucracy gets there first.
Some of us have drunk deeper of the gummint koolaid and think this is just peachy - and are trying to convince us that it's really good koolaid to boot.
The 10th Amendment used to have meaning.
-
There is a law called the Genocide law that Regan put in place that everyone should look up , it will shock you. We all know what it means , but upon closer inspection it is a federal crime to speak out against a person based upon religion or other indicators. Not only a race of people but an individual as well.
-
ok go around demanding the that people kill Obama... I can asure you, you won't be dealing with civil courts. Want to have a million man march? np, just fill out the forms and pay for your permit 1st.
A parade permit is a convenience agreed between the organizers and the municipality to avoid traffic tie ups, arrange porta potties,and similar ORGANIZATIONAL details, people participating in "riots" (spontaneous, un- permitted protest ) are not arrested unless they are doing some other thing that they are actually charged with, burning cars (destruction of property, as currently in Oakland ) looting, (theft) or , as in the abortion clinic cases, blocking access or traffic. people in a crowd , out of traffic, but waving signs and yelling are not arrested, permit or no.
As for calling on people to "shoot Obama" or any other individual, that is an incitement to commit a crime (murder) No one will take ANY action (legally) if you say he is unfit for the office, or that you don't think he should be President you MAY get arguments but no one can arrest or sue you. I notice no charges were filed against "rev" Fliegler (sp?) for demanding that a Chicago gun dealer be "taken out".
Peyote is used as an Illegal narcotic, UNLESS you are a member of the "Native American Church" then you are exempted from that clause of the drug laws.
Your argument is flawed TAB, Negligence while exercising the 2nd amendment is rightly punished, but what about negligent exercise of the 1st ? No one went to jail for , wrongly, broadcasting that Bush had not fulfilled his Air Guard commitment. No one goes to jail for false or misleading news reports.
-
While yes perade permits are more for dealing with the logistics, you will still be dispursed if your cuasing a hazard and arrested if you don't comply.
-
While yes perade permits are more for dealing with the logistics, you will still be dispursed if your cuasing a hazard and arrested if you don't comply.
That's my point, it's NOT for exercising your rights to freedom of speech or assembly, it's for interfering with other peoples rights to get by on the road or sidewalk. The 2nd Amendment is the only right that is so hemmed in and the only one where Government allows people to actively discourage law abiding citizens from exercising. That is discrimination. Try airing a commercial that says atheists are bad people, or that women should not vote, I bet you will consider yourself lucky if they lynch you BEFORE they desecrate your corpse. But it's perfectly OK for the MSM to consistently demean gun owners, it's OK for the touchy feely channels to air ads saying guns are bad. That is the political equivalent to having a third bathroom marked "Colored". The ACLU thinks there are only 9 amendments in the bill of rights and I for one am damned sick of it !
-
I think I've said this on another forum, but I echo what M58 posted earlier. I have noticed a tendency among too many in our community (even some on these forums) who are too willing to throw some of us overboard. This is played out in the "needs" argument: Why do you need a full auto/select fire weapon? Why do you need high capacity magazines? Why do you want a high-powered rifle? Why do you need/want to buy more than one gun a month?
All of these types of questions suppose that the questioner has some sort of superior insight into what you really need. And it is a very arrogant and condescending attitude that drives these questions. Their questions aren't really questions, they are making judgments about you and your lifestyle. I am reminded of the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS!
So when I get a question about why I own Class 3 weapons, I ask why they drive a certain vehicle, why do they go to a certain church, why do they read this newspaper versus another newspaper, why do they need to look at porno, etc. They are usually offended when I question their choices and imply that there is something "wrong" with them for making such choices. And they usually aren't willing to see the contradictions in their own positions.
I will tell those of you who favor more restrictions on our rights to ponder this question: It is a documented fact that the crime rate (especially crimes related to violence) was lower in the 40's, 50's and 60's before more restrictive gun laws were put on the books. Since these laws have been introduced, the crime rate is higher in absolute terms and in measures that take into account population growth. What makes you think that adding more regulations and restrictions, will make our society safer? Since there appears to be a positive correlation - more gun restrictions, more crime - why do you need to support such ideas?
-
I think I've said this on another forum, but I echo what M58 posted earlier. I have noticed a tendency among too many in our community (even some on these forums) who are too willing to throw some of us overboard. This is played out in the "needs" argument: Why do you need a full auto/select fire weapon? Why do you need high capacity magazines? Why do you want a high-powered rifle? Why do you need/want to buy more than one gun a month?
All of these types of questions suppose that the questioner has some sort of superior insight into what you really need. And it is a very arrogant and condescending attitude that drives these questions. Their questions aren't really questions, they are making judgments about you and your lifestyle. I am reminded of the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS!
So when I get a question about why I own Class 3 weapons, I ask why they drive a certain vehicle, why do they go to a certain church, why do they read this newspaper versus another newspaper, why do they need to look at porno, etc. They are usually offended when I question their choices and imply that there is something "wrong" with them for making such choices. And they usually aren't willing to see the contradictions in their own positions.
I will tell those of you who favor more restrictions on our rights to ponder this question: It is a documented fact that the crime rate (especially crimes related to violence) was lower in the 40's, 50's and 60's before more restrictive gun laws were put on the books. Since these laws have been introduced, the crime rate is higher in absolute terms and in measures that take into account population growth. What makes you think that adding more regulations and restrictions, will make our society safer? Since there appears to be a positive correlation - more gun restrictions, more crime - why do you need to support such ideas?
Comment of the day award!
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/604777/2/istockphoto_604777_miniature_trophy_blank.jpg)
*Tom, your comment which referenced the ACLU only thinking there were 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights was a close second.
-
Comment of the day award!
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/604777/2/istockphoto_604777_miniature_trophy_blank.jpg)
*Tom, your comment which referenced the ACLU only thinking there were 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights was a close second.
Thanks, Eric! I will display my trophy with pride! ;D
Usually Tom says what I'm thinking, but he gets to the point much faster, and with style!! ;)
-
I think I've said this on another forum, but I echo what M58 posted earlier. I have noticed a tendency among too many in our community (even some on these forums) who are too willing to throw some of us overboard. This is played out in the "needs" argument: Why do you need a full auto/select fire weapon? Why do you need high capacity magazines? Why do you want a high-powered rifle? Why do you need/want to buy more than one gun a month?
All of these types of questions suppose that the questioner has some sort of superior insight into what you really need. And it is a very arrogant and condescending attitude that drives these questions. Their questions aren't really questions, they are making judgments about you and your lifestyle. I am reminded of the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS!
So when I get a question about why I own Class 3 weapons, I ask why they drive a certain vehicle, why do they go to a certain church, why do they read this newspaper versus another newspaper, why do they need to look at porno, etc. They are usually offended when I question their choices and imply that there is something "wrong" with them for making such choices. And they usually aren't willing to see the contradictions in their own positions.
I will tell those of you who favor more restrictions on our rights to ponder this question: It is a documented fact that the crime rate (especially crimes related to violence) was lower in the 40's, 50's and 60's before more restrictive gun laws were put on the books. Since these laws have been introduced, the crime rate is higher in absolute terms and in measures that take into account population growth. What makes you think that adding more regulations and restrictions, will make our society safer? Since there appears to be a positive correlation - more gun restrictions, more crime - why do you need to support such ideas?
I have used the same tactics in several debates with anti-gun people myself. It is usually met with a blank stare as they try to comprehend the reasoning behind their own hypocrisy.
For example, I was sitting next to a fellow (in a bar) whom had just lost his license due to his THIRD DUI. He was railing on how guns are dangerous and kill people, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. When I mentioned the fact that drunken and/or inattentive drivers kill many more people on the roads than guns do in a year, he just got this blank look and tried to change the subject. I then allowed that by his reasoning, because I lost my leg and nearly died due to a person not paying attention while driving, we should should just arbitrarily ban ALL automobiles. He got up and left.
-
I have used the same tactics in several debates with anti-gun people myself. It is usually met with a blank stare as they try to comprehend the reasoning behind their own hypocrisy.
For example, I was sitting next to a fellow (in a bar) whom had just lost his license due to his THIRD DUI. He was railing on how guns are dangerous and kill people, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. When I mentioned the fact that drunken and/or inattentive drivers kill many more people on the roads than guns do in a year, he just got this blank look and tried to change the subject. I then allowed that by his reasoning, because I lost my leg and nearly died due to a person not paying attention while driving, we should should just arbitrarily ban ALL automobiles. He got up and left.
First of all, sorry about what happened to you.....
I'm you sure realize this as much as I: though logic is on our side, emotions and hype is what drives this debate. Most do not want to accept what we are saying; and despite all of the empirical evidence that supports us too.....
-
First of all, sorry about what happened to you.....
I'm you sure realize this as much as I: though logic is on our side, emotions and hype is what drives this debate. Most do not want to accept what we are saying; and despite all of the empirical evidence that supports us too.....
Yes, most are ostriches with their heads in the sand.
-
Thanks, Eric! I will display my trophy with pride! ;D
Usually Tom says what I'm thinking, but he gets to the point much faster, and with style!! ;)
But you do it with out cussing ;D
-
The NRA has done all of that stuff every chance they have gotton...
-
But you do it with out cussing ;D
A well-placed cuss-word now and again for emphasis ain't gonna hurt nobody........... ;)
-
It is This is so wrong. A SCOTUS justice once stated that you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I would argue you do have that right, especially if there is a fire you have a moral obligation to clear the building. If there is no fire, then any damage to person or property that transpired due to the rush out of the building is also your responsibility. It is about rights - and the responsibilities that come with them.
You are taking this out of context, Justice Holmes wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Schenck v. United )
Read carefully it says falsely shouting. Therefore I would contend you do NOT have a total right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.
-
You are taking this out of context, Justice Holmes wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Schenck v. United )
Read carefully it says falsely shouting. Therefore I would contend you do NOT have a total right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.
The problem with what you say is that if the person accused had some objection to the movie he would say that he did it as an act of protest to get people away from unfit material and his lawyer would get him off.
Burning the American flag is desecration, but if I or any other Veteran, or non veteran, uses force to prevent that desecration, WE would be jailed for violating the scumbags non existent "right to freedom of expression".
-
You are taking this out of context, Justice Holmes wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." (Schenck v. United )
Read carefully it says falsely shouting. Therefore I would contend you do NOT have a total right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Thanks for the precise quote, I have always heard it paraphrased. Holmes' statement, however, is an example of prior restraint, something that used to be a legal No-No. You can't prevent someone from doing something just because you think there's a chance that maybe they might do something else.
However, it does not change my key point - it is one person in a black robe who decides what the American people may or may not do. We have seen absolutely egregious examples of this in the past few decades, where "rights" are discovered in the Constitution even though not a drop of ink was used to enumerate them, while confirmed, clearly enumerated rights are ignored and abridged. All by one person (or a few people) in a black robe.
It is especially a bad time when the justices see no value in following the actual Constitution or law, or follow laws not ours (Like SCOTUS justice Ginsberg), but instead impose their opnions or desires. That just raises the temperature for the frogs a little bit more.