Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now? - Page 3

Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now?

This is a discussion on Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m At one time they only wanted to restrict machine guns. The gradual loss of freedom cannot be denied. They are winning ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44
Like Tree41Likes

Thread: Current concerns to our 2A, and what can we do right now?

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    At one time they only wanted to restrict machine guns. The gradual loss of freedom cannot be denied. They are winning no doubt about it.

    Michael
    Where is the loss of freedom? As discussed here frequently it is perfectly possible and legal to obtain FA, short
    barrel shotties, and cans. More guns are being sold nowadays than ever before. More people have licenses or
    live in constitutional carry states than ever before. There is no loss of freedom. Some inconvenience in obtaining certain
    items at least has the virtue of slowing things down and in some instance, hopefully, it provides opportunity for
    a tiny bit of rational reflection to intrude among the delusions.

    And, as with everything that has to do with freedom, our constitution isn't a suicide pact.
    DoctorBob likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Where is the loss of freedom? As discussed here frequently it is perfectly possible and legal to obtain FA, short
    barrel shotties, and cans. More guns are being sold nowadays than ever before. More people have licenses or
    live in constitutional carry states than ever before. There is no loss of freedom. Some inconvenience in obtaining certain
    items at least has the virtue of slowing things down and in some instance, hopefully, it provides opportunity for
    a tiny bit of rational reflection to intrude among the delusions.

    And, as with everything that has to do with freedom, our constitution isn't a suicide pact.
    No loss of freedom just a bit of inconvenience?
    If the government tells you that you can do something but that you can no longer do it as you normally would do, have you not lost a freedom?
    If I can no longer purchase a firearm through the mail have I not lost the freedom I once had to do that? The fact that I can purchase it through other means does not take away the fact that I have lost the freedom to purchase it the way I used to do.

    Don't get me wrong. I am not against laws. We need laws in order for our society to work. The trouble is that we have gone beyond the original ideas of using laws to punish people for what they do that hurts others. We now pass laws that take away the rights and freedoms of those who have committed no crimes because of what they might do.
    You can call that an inconvenience if you want. I cal it a loss of freedom.

    Michael
    BigStick likes this.

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Where is the loss of freedom? As discussed here frequently it is perfectly possible and legal to obtain FA, short
    barrel shotties, and cans. More guns are being sold nowadays than ever before. More people have licenses or
    live in constitutional carry states than ever before. There is no loss of freedom. Some inconvenience in obtaining certain
    items at least has the virtue of slowing things down and in some instance, hopefully, it provides opportunity for
    a tiny bit of rational reflection to intrude among the delusions.

    And, as with everything that has to do with freedom, our constitution isn't a suicide pact.
    It is a loss of freedom by definition if you need to get a permit to do something, rather than just doing it. This is critical thinking 101 here. If you want less freedom be honest about it, don't pretend getting permission from several levels of government before being allowed to own something means you're just as free as you were before those requirements were in place.
    suntzu likes this.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    I just watch a shameless "To Face the Nation" segment with Mayor Doom-Berg. The gun control folks cant even let the family grieve in peace with out assigning an agenda. Simply shameless. I wonder how Doom-Berg would be talking if CCW holder would have taken out the BG. What would his wish be if he was confronted by a gun wielding loon. Id bet it start off with " If I'd only.." Mag size is not the issue here. Tragedy by a lunatic is. Could have been a machete, a bat or a sock filled with marbles.... (that actually works pretty good)

    Where is the loss of freedom? Thats just the beginning, they will go for more as they gain traction. A well behaved society is a disarmed society. Try some reflection on a historical event called WWII? How soon we forget.

    hopefully, it provides opportunity for a tiny bit of rational reflection to intrude among the delusions. Sure, just like Occupy Wall Street

    as with everything that has to do with freedom, our constitution isn't a suicide pact. Thats a rich statement. Did the framers lose any life? Its our Constitution that has kept us free so far. Now union labor wants to rewrite and edit parts into Constitutiontition making it a right to have a job. You cant give what others dont want and on the same plane, you shouldnt be able to take what others deem as freedom. Where does it stop. If they think their adjenda is OK, who's to stop them from writing out the Second Amendment. Delusions? By who? If you accept infringements one at a time it will be too late and before you know it, you'll wake up and realize your constitution is not worth the paper its written on. We can sit back and allow it to happen and accept it as " rational reflection" or we can take to the poles to determine the direction of this country. Delusions. thats rich too.

    Even in the Batman movie, the bad guy was punishing the successful. Problem was the bad guy, not the instrument of destruction. Go see the movie. In the movie their world turned to sharing nothing because there was nothing left but life itself.

    While I realize my rant is somewhat off target here I'm just feeling kinda PO'd at the slant to make this insanity a political adjenda. I picked my side..hope you pick yours at the poles.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    It is a loss of freedom by definition if you need to get a permit to do something, rather than just doing it. This is critical thinking 101 here. If you want less freedom be honest about it, don't pretend getting permission from several levels of government before being allowed to own something means you're just as free as you were before those requirements were in place.
    I was honest that I don't want ultra high cap magazines floating around. I suggested that they be
    dealt with as some other items are. We have so many participants come here and complain about the militarization
    of our police and their weapons and tactics. Are not 100 round drums militarization of civilian weaponry?
    Is that really acceptable?

    In post 32 Michael wrote: "If the government tells you that you can do something but that you can no longer do it as you normally would do, have you not lost a freedom?"

    OK--- SO, how many here have stood up for ID laws that prevent people from doing many things as they
    normally would do? It is always a balancing act. The only issue is where the lines are drawn, and we all know
    that very well as few here think there should be civilian ownership of mortars.

    And again, what I suggested was not a prohibition. My CHL is not a prohibition against my handgun ownership.
    A NICS check is not a prohibition (unless there are significant personal issues). Tossing an additional
    hurdle into the mix on purchase of ultra high cap is not a prohibition.

    We have to recognize that we have crazies walking among us, and pot luck isn't an answer. And neither is
    CC: not when the aggressor is able to use military/police style tactics and weaponry.

    I'm sorry, I got really annoyed reading the other thread where everyone boasted about how they might have, would
    have, could have, been the hero if only they were there and armed. That is as delusional a form of thinking
    as one can have. Either you'd be dead or you'd be flat on the floor praying. And those who tell me otherwise, well
    I think you have an exaggerated sense of your own abilities and bravery, delusions of grandeur to be blunt
    about it. If someone reading this is carrying because they think they are going to be a hero, please don't.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I was honest that I don't want ultra high cap magazines floating around. I suggested that they be
    dealt with as some other items are. We have so many participants come here and complain about the militarization
    of our police and their weapons and tactics. Are not 100 round drums militarization of civilian weaponry?
    Is that really acceptable?

    In post 32 Michael wrote: "If the government tells you that you can do something but that you can no longer do it as you normally would do, have you not lost a freedom?"

    OK--- SO, how many here have stood up for ID laws that prevent people from doing many things as they
    normally would do? It is always a balancing act. The only issue is where the lines are drawn, and we all know
    that very well as few here think there should be civilian ownership of mortars.

    And again, what I suggested was not a prohibition. My CHL is not a prohibition against my handgun ownership.
    A NICS check is not a prohibition (unless there are significant personal issues). Tossing an additional
    hurdle into the mix on purchase of ultra high cap is not a prohibition.

    We have to recognize that we have crazies walking among us, and pot luck isn't an answer. And neither is
    CC: not when the aggressor is able to use military/police style tactics and weaponry.

    I'm sorry, I got really annoyed reading the other thread where everyone boasted about how they might have, would
    have, could have, been the hero if only they were there and armed. That is as delusional a form of thinking
    as one can have. Either you'd be dead or you'd be flat on the floor praying. And those who tell me otherwise, well
    I think you have an exaggerated sense of your own abilities and bravery, delusions of grandeur to be blunt
    about it. If someone reading this is carrying because they think they are going to be a hero, please don't.
    The bottom line is that you are adopting the mentality that everyone should be punished or "inconvenienced" because one yahoo broke many laws to mow down people in public. That is a ridiculous way of thinking and I don't care how you try to phrase it. What you're proposing will do absolutely nothing to make us safer and even you come close to admitting it. Even in the UK, post-1997 ban, they have had a mass shooting involving a guy with a bolt-gun mowing down all his disarmed neighbors. In Japan several years back a lunatic drove his car into an arcade and stabbed dozens of people before he was brought down. There is no "balance" to be found when you start down the rabbit hole of protecting a fictional "group" by restricting every individual in that group. There is no logical end to it, and sacrificing freedom for false security is immoral and quite frankly, stupid. As far as the internet heroes who would have stopped this guy, I agree it was pretty much a hopeless situation. The fact that it seems to have been a posted gun-free zone just made it that much more hopeless. An idiotic law pushed by those who think "well I don't need this so no one else should be able to easily get it, or maybe get it at all" would not have prevented it either.
    DPro.40 likes this.

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,756
    Prohibition, inconvenience, tax, permission, whatever. Everyone of them is an infringement.

    How on earth are we supposed to get permission to arm ourselves from the same entity that wants to disarm us?

    2A was never about collecting, hunting, sporting, competition or even self-defense from random thugs and lunatics. It is at the core a means of last resort for the people to defend themselves against a government run amuck.

    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    DPro.40 and ppkheat like this.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  8. #38
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,159
    There are already too many gun laws that can't be enforced, I think more laws is only feel-good stuff that does nothing past making someone feel good.

    I'll stop calling my legislators when they pry my cold, dead fingers off of the telephone.
    DPro.40 and Spirit51 like this.
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Since that tax was established in 1934, in today's worth it would be over 3300 bucks per suppressor.Luckily for us, its about the only tax left that hasn't been raised.
    Oh now you done done it. Now they will know to raise taxes on that too.

    Seriously....I agree with all you said. (Just talk softly about things they have forgot to tax. )
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    There will no doubt be lots of pressure for additional gun control, and none of it will be good or reasonable.
    But, there is one thing that I personally do think needs control. Magazine capacity. If it is true that he went
    in there with a 100 round drum, that is concerning. I see no civilian purpose for such. Oh, I'm sure if
    you had an FA with 100 round drum it would be a fun thing to throw money away with, but I'm not happy
    with the ready availability of ultra high capacity magazines ---and think they should be regulated about the way
    silencers, FA, and short barrel shotties are.

    I refer one and all to the other thread about "is 5 enough." I think a 15 rnd limited is plenty
    for ordinary civilian purposes and would regulate ultra high cap.

    I don't consider magazine capacity regulations 'gun control.' It is related but not the same thing.

    When I listened to the Police Chief of Aurora last night he was uncertain if the AR was fired as a semi-auto
    or if it was fired FA/bursts. He just didn't have the info. That creep who shot everyone was smart enough
    to have converted his AR, but doing so would have been near worthless if his magazine capacity were limited.

    I don't feel super strongly about the capacity issue either way, but if it turns out that he was enabled to do
    the massacre because he could readily buy a 100 round drum; I'd cut those from legal sale except with
    special procedures as are in place with cans. That won't stop everyone, but it will slow many down and stop many.

    I know I'll get flamed and cussed. Someone will use the tired argument that the fault lies with the
    shooter not the magazine. True enough, but we don't have to make life easy for the truly crazy.
    No Flame and no cussing out. You are having the typical Knee jerk reaction that give us law abiding gun owners headaches.
    DPro.40 likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by HotGuns
    Since that tax was established in 1934, in today's worth it would be over 3300 bucks per suppressor.Luckily for us, its about the only tax left that hasn't been raised.
    Ever wonder why that tax was imposed instead of a direct restriction or total ban on certain types of weapons? Could it be that in 1934 the Government actually believed in what the 2nd amendment said? Instead of what later happened when the Government told the people that they decided the 'the people' meant the government and 'shall not infringe' meant that the Government could infringe if they needed to?

    Michael
    Last edited by mlr1m; July 22nd, 2012 at 04:58 PM. Reason: I made an oopsie

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I was honest that I don't want ultra high cap magazines floating around. I suggested that they be
    dealt with as some other items are. We have so many participants come here and complain about the militarization
    of our police and their weapons and tactics. Are not 100 round drums militarization of civilian weaponry?
    Is that really acceptable?

    In post 32 Michael wrote: "If the government tells you that you can do something but that you can no longer do it as you normally would do, have you not lost a freedom?"

    OK--- SO, how many here have stood up for ID laws that prevent people from doing many things as they
    normally would do? It is always a balancing act. The only issue is where the lines are drawn, and we all know
    that very well as few here think there should be civilian ownership of mortars.

    And again, what I suggested was not a prohibition. My CHL is not a prohibition against my handgun ownership.
    A NICS check is not a prohibition (unless there are significant personal issues). Tossing an additional
    hurdle into the mix on purchase of ultra high cap is not a prohibition.

    We have to recognize that we have crazies walking among us, and pot luck isn't an answer. And neither is
    CC: not when the aggressor is able to use military/police style tactics and weaponry.

    I'm sorry, I got really annoyed reading the other thread where everyone boasted about how they might have, would
    have, could have, been the hero if only they were there and armed. That is as delusional a form of thinking
    as one can have. Either you'd be dead or you'd be flat on the floor praying. And those who tell me otherwise, well
    I think you have an exaggerated sense of your own abilities and bravery, delusions of grandeur to be blunt
    about it. If someone reading this is carrying because they think they are going to be a hero, please don't.
    Honestly, to me whether you have a five round magazine or a five thousand round magazine, murder is still murder. Supposedly, murder is against the law. Since it's illegal, nobody will do it. Correct?

    OK, so obviously that didn't work. Fictitious FBI statistics show that 78% of all murderers drink Coca-Cola. The rest prefer Pesi. So, banning Coca-Cola will reduce the instances of murder.
    ppkheat likes this.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array Jason Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Where is the loss of freedom? As discussed here frequently it is perfectly possible and legal to obtain FA, short
    barrel shotties, and cans. More guns are being sold nowadays than ever before. More people have licenses or
    live in constitutional carry states than ever before. There is no loss of freedom. Some inconvenience in obtaining certain
    items at least has the virtue of slowing things down and in some instance, hopefully, it provides opportunity for
    a tiny bit of rational reflection to intrude among the delusions.

    And, as with everything that has to do with freedom, our constitution isn't a suicide pact.
    Inconvenience is a compromise in our 2nd Amendment freedoms. I and most others here will not settle for hi-capacity limitations period. And limiting hi-cap magazines will not work on crime as it never did when it first came out in 1994.

  14. #44
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    We should definitly limit "high capacity ammo clips" because they allow a few people to break the law more effectively and have "no civilian use" (whatever that means) and they look evil. We should also ban sports cars, because they have no civilian use outside of a racetrack, and allow speeders to break the speed limit more effectively.

    People would balk at the idea of banning cars that can drive over the speed limit, and owning cars is not a fundamental right, protected by our constitution. It is the same logic that drives the argument to ban high capacity magazines. Rediculous when you break it down and apply it to other sittuations.


    I am also sick of the whole "nobody needs that many shots" or "there is no civilian need or purpose". Well, guess what, the 2A wasn't about civilian purposes! It was about military purposes. What is it that the antis are always saying? The 2A is about the militia, well that is pretty militarized. Wouldn't we want our militia to be armed with the most effective and up to date arms available to provide for the security of a free state? So where does banning common guns and accessories fit into that?
    Walk softly ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

arkansas black powder restrictions
,

constitutional carry now

,
mortar civilian ownership
,
powered by mybb best toys for 5 year old
,
powered by mybb family pact
,
powered by mybb fixed income
,

powered by mybb second industrial revolution

,

powered by mybb should beauty contest imposed on a ban

,
what should we do right now
,
why can't they restrict the 2a
Click on a term to search for related topics.