I wish this were fake news, but he really did this - Page 7

I wish this were fake news, but he really did this

This is a discussion on I wish this were fake news, but he really did this within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As I see it, the problem is that we have a large body of "sovereign" citizens who have been lulled into complacency through decades of ...

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 150
Like Tree395Likes

Thread: I wish this were fake news, but he really did this

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    4,085
    As I see it, the problem is that we have a large body of "sovereign" citizens who have been lulled into complacency through decades of peace, prosperity, and general safety coupled with lack of education, while being awash in propaganda that conceals reality and makes "common sense" gun control appear reasonable. The irony of that phrase is that that sense of things is indeed common, although erroneous, due to that same leftist agenda and brain washing.

    That the main stream media have sided with the Left is a serious threat to our continuance as a free nation. This new age of instant communication via the internet holds some hope of a counter-balancing force coming from the people themselves. It is a great tool for education and truth—if we can learn to sift the wheat from the chaff.
    Bikenut and Merovius like this.
    ...You will understand everything immediately, when you yourself – "hands behind the back" – toddle into our Archipelago. ---Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  2. #92
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Gun owners are ashamed of their guns and afraid to carry them in plain sight lest someone be offended. The decades long tactic of playing by the rules set by the anti gunners has not only resulted in a multitude of gun control laws but has also conditioned many gun owners to think virtue signaling to the anti gunners will somehow placate and appease them into not adding even more gun control laws even though the reality of the last several decades of History shows otherwise.
    What you have to realize is that it's not about people feeling offended, it's about them feeling threatened. Guns are weapons, and in some contexts displaying a gun can legitimately be viewed as a threat. The politician in this case may be a scumbag, but I can't blame him for thinking the chucklehead outside his house with a cheap shotgun would mean him harm. And the independent voters we need to keep on our side can view it just the same way. Pretending that carrying a firearm is no different than carrying a flag or a Bible is ignoring the obvious.

    And what's so bad about the last several decades as far as gun laws go? We've seen legal concealed carry go from heavy restrictions to almost no restrictions in almost every state; a nationwide AWB go away and not come back; and the 2A incorporated against the states. How are so many convinced that we're losing the fight and the sky is falling?

    Yeah, anti politicians are constantly trying to pass more restrictions. So what? For all their efforts they're barely making a dent; even in Virginia with total control of the government they had to kill a bunch of their proposals. Do you want a system where it's impossible for politicians to even try to pass a bad law? Sorry, but that's not reality and never will be. It's a constant political battle, with no final victory, ever, and the way to keep our freedoms is to keep independents on our side.

    It's becoming clear to me that, for all their legislative failures, the antis are making progress in one significant way: convincing pro-gun folks that their side is actually losing, hoping some pull stupid stunts like this one, and the rest defend the indefensible. It's playing right into their hands.
    MYMOMSSON and Merovius like this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  3. #93
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by MYMOMSSON View Post
    He should have just shot him. He had his tacticool shotgun. The man threaten his rights. That's reason enough. Just shoot him. Some of you all make my head hurt because that's what you want. Going to man's house and act like that. I'm as BOR as anyone and would have to stop and think about dropping old Rambo myself if he came to my door.
    Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

    Don't jump the shark.
    G-man* likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #94
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,725
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    What you have to realize is that it's not about people feeling offended, it's about them feeling threatened. Guns are weapons, and in some contexts displaying a gun can legitimately be viewed as a threat. The politician in this case may be a scumbag, but I can't blame him for thinking the chucklehead outside his house with a cheap shotgun would mean him harm. And the independent voters we need to keep on our side can view it just the same way. Pretending that carrying a firearm is no different than carrying a flag or a Bible is ignoring the obvious.

    And what's so bad about the last several decades as far as gun laws go? We've seen legal concealed carry go from heavy restrictions to almost no restrictions in almost every state; a nationwide AWB go away and not come back; and the 2A incorporated against the states. How are so many convinced that we're losing the fight and the sky is falling?

    Yeah, anti politicians are constantly trying to pass more restrictions. So what? For all their efforts they're barely making a dent; even in Virginia with total control of the government they had to kill a bunch of their proposals. Do you want a system where it's impossible for politicians to even try to pass a bad law? Sorry, but that's not reality and never will be. It's a constant political battle, with no final victory, ever, and the way to keep our freedoms is to keep independents on our side.

    It's becoming clear to me that, for all their legislative failures, the antis are making progress in one significant way: convincing pro-gun folks that their side is actually losing, hoping some pull stupid stunts like this one, and the rest defend the indefensible. It's playing right into their hands.
    You think that because you do not have the same pro 2A stance as many of us here. That has been shown in the past as well.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  6. #95
    Member Array demanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    US
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Actually, yeah, it IS a "gentleman's fight". There is absolutely nothing to be gained by intimidation and violence that can't be gained at the ballot box, at much lower cost. The revolution happened because there was no ballot box.

    Or would this new revolution be fought to get rid of the ballot box, since apparently it poses too great a risk to liberty?
    The ballot box only matters when you can vote for a candidate that you know will fight for what you believe in.
    If not, it's just Punch and Judy.

    Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk
    Mike1956 likes this.

  7. #96
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    You think that because you do not have the same pro 2A stance as many of us here. That has been shown in the past as well.
    Not true at all, I believe as strongly in the 2A as anybody here. What's different is that I realize it's not the word of God, it's one sentence in the law, and it's very easy for it to lose its meaning if the people want it to. Protecting it means convincing citizens it should be protected. That's the only way.

    So, did this guy's actions help to convince people that it should be protected, or the opposite?
    Merovius likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  8. #97
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Gun owners are ashamed of their guns and afraid to carry them in plain sight lest someone be offended. The decades long tactic of playing by the rules set by the anti gunners has not only resulted in a multitude of gun control laws but has also conditioned many gun owners to think virtue signaling to the anti gunners will somehow placate and appease them into not adding even more gun control laws even though the reality of the last several decades of History shows otherwise.
    What you have to realize is that it's not about people feeling offended, it's about them feeling threatened. Guns are weapons, and in some contexts displaying a gun can legitimately be viewed as a threat. The politician in this case may be a scumbag, but I can't blame him for thinking the chucklehead outside his house with a cheap shotgun would mean him harm. And the independent voters we need to keep on our side can view it just the same way. Pretending that carrying a firearm is no different than carrying a flag or a Bible is ignoring the obvious.
    While the legislator in this incident may, and I say may!, have felt intimidated I suspect the reality is he was highly offended that someone would dare protest with the very object of his hatred. And have the audacity to do it right in front of his house! And then the legislator, for all his power, couldn't do a damn thing about it. I do not believe that legislator was the least bit intimidated. More likely outraged someone would dare oppose the great and powerful lawmaker!

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    And what's so bad about the last several decades as far as gun laws go? We've seen legal concealed carry go from heavy restrictions to almost no restrictions in almost every state; a nationwide AWB go away and not come back; and the 2A incorporated against the states. How are so many convinced that we're losing the fight and the sky is falling?
    You do know that anything less than Constitutional Carry where no permit is needed is still the government infringing on the right to bear arms by requiring us to get it's permission? You do understand that if something is a right one doesn't need to have the government's permission? And I would say that with what is going on in Virginia where the anti gunners didn't get everything they wanted but they still got some of what they wanted, and what they wanted was NEW gun control measures, as the sky really is falling. And falling hard in Virginia.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Yeah, anti politicians are constantly trying to pass more restrictions. So what? For all their efforts they're barely making a dent; even in Virginia with total control of the government they had to kill a bunch of their proposals. Do you want a system where it's impossible for politicians to even try to pass a bad law? Sorry, but that's not reality and never will be. It's a constant political battle, with no final victory, ever, and the way to keep our freedoms is to keep independents on our side.
    Take a good look at Virginia. The anti gun legislators started out with a long list of proposed anti gun laws then the people protested and those anti gunners dropped some of the stuff on their list but not all and they are still going to pass new gun control laws! That is scaring gun owners with a long list of gun control and then appearing to be reasonable by dropping a few NEW gun control laws and keeping the rest. Thinking you are winning in that situation is kinda like a group of thugs threatening to break your arms and legs and you being grateful they relented and only broke your thumbs. In short, the anti gunners still win using the tactic of a little at a time to eventually gain the big goal of disarming everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    It's becoming clear to me that, for all their legislative failures, the antis are making progress in one significant way: convincing pro-gun folks that their side is actually losing, hoping some pull stupid stunts like this one, and the rest defend the indefensible. It's playing right into their hands.
    Actually some in the gun community think they are winning when the truth is they are still losing. A little at a time. And Virginia is a good example.
    RScottie and demanic like this.
    Unfortunately there are many gun owners who will still shop at Wal Mart even though they know Wal Mart partnered with Everytown for Gun Safety just because it is convenient and they can save a few bucks.

  9. #98
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    You think that because you do not have the same pro 2A stance as many of us here. That has been shown in the past as well.
    Not true at all, I believe as strongly in the 2A as anybody here. What's different is that I realize it's not the word of God, it's one sentence in the law, and it's very easy for it to lose its meaning if the people want it to. Protecting it means convincing citizens it should be protected. That's the only way.

    So, did this guy's actions help to convince people that it should be protected, or the opposite?
    Are you saying you believe the right to keep and bear arms is something the law (the 2nd Amendment) grants/gives/allows us to have?
    Unfortunately there are many gun owners who will still shop at Wal Mart even though they know Wal Mart partnered with Everytown for Gun Safety just because it is convenient and they can save a few bucks.

  10. #99
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Are you saying you believe the right to keep and bear arms is something the law (the 2nd Amendment) grants/gives/allows us to have?
    No, I'm saying it's something the law protects.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  11. #100
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Are you saying you believe the right to keep and bear arms is something the law (the 2nd Amendment) grants/gives/allows us to have?
    No, I'm saying it's something the law protects.
    Well the law isn't doing a very good job of protecting the right to keep and bear arms but is doing a really good job of protecting the government's power to regulate and control keeping and bearing arms. Right at this moment Virginia is a good example of that.
    Unfortunately there are many gun owners who will still shop at Wal Mart even though they know Wal Mart partnered with Everytown for Gun Safety just because it is convenient and they can save a few bucks.

  12. #101
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    10,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You do know that anything less than Constitutional Carry where no permit is needed is still the government infringing on the right to bear arms by requiring us to get it's permission? You do understand that if something is a right one doesn't need to have the government's permission? And I would say that with what is going on in Virginia where the anti gunners didn't get everything they wanted but they still got some of what they wanted, and what they wanted was NEW gun control measures, as the sky really is falling. And falling hard in Virginia.
    No, the sky is not falling. Yes, there are new gun control measures. They amount to nuisances, and in a few years the government will change hands again, and there will be a chance to change the law, or challenge it in court.

    I agree, one shouldn't need a permit to carry. But in a shall-issue state, it again amounts to a nuisance.

    You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights. It's not possible, never has been, never will be. No matter how constituted or well-intentioned, through simple human fallibility, people's rights will always be violated. The danger of your way of thinking is that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can't accept that government is imperfect, it implies that we must take the most desperate action in response to the most trivial infringement, which can't make things better and will likely make them worse.
    Merovius likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  13. #102
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    You do know that anything less than Constitutional Carry where no permit is needed is still the government infringing on the right to bear arms by requiring us to get it's permission? You do understand that if something is a right one doesn't need to have the government's permission? And I would say that with what is going on in Virginia where the anti gunners didn't get everything they wanted but they still got some of what they wanted, and what they wanted was NEW gun control measures, as the sky really is falling. And falling hard in Virginia.
    No, the sky is not falling. Yes, there are new gun control measures. They amount to nuisances, and in a few years the government will change hands again, and there will be a chance to change the law, or challenge it in court.
    So infringements are nothing more than "nuisances"? Tell that to the mother who is trying to protect her 3 kids from a stalker exhusband while she works as a waitress and can barely afford a Hi Point pistol much less pay for the required carry permit class, the permit fees, and lose the time off work to attend. Ask her if her natural right to carry a gun being restricted is just a "nuisance".

    And History has shown that new people in government after elections are still the same anti gun agenda and that new batch will add to the existing ... ummm.... nuisances with more of the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    I agree, one shouldn't need a permit to carry. But in a shall-issue state, it again amounts to a nuisance.
    If you think infringements on rights are merely nuisances then you do not understand what a right actually is.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights.
    You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    It's not possible, never has been, never will be. No matter how constituted or well-intentioned, through simple human fallibility, people's rights will always be violated. The danger of your way of thinking is that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can't accept that government is imperfect, it implies that we must take the most desperate action in response to the most trivial infringement, which can't make things better and will likely make them worse.
    And with that defeatist attitude the government will always infringe.

    Edited to add:
    Good thing the Founding Fathers didn't take the attitude that Kings will always be imperfect and imperfect Kings will always violate people's rights so ... get used to it.
    Osprey, Honeybee42, Havok and 2 others like this.
    Unfortunately there are many gun owners who will still shop at Wal Mart even though they know Wal Mart partnered with Everytown for Gun Safety just because it is convenient and they can save a few bucks.

  14. #103
    Member Array Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    245
    You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights.
    Did someone actually say this?

    Wow! Except for my views on woolly mammoths and who came first, I think my views are quite in line with a Constitutionalist!

    I will still keep supporting people that do 1A and 2A audits and will ALWAYS tell anyone in the Government what my rights are and the existing law. Just call me a crazy guy

    Never quit, never give in, and never let someone say "well...let us handle it later and just comply for right now". History has shown that complying has never really gone well for most people.
    Havok, RScottie, Bikenut and 1 others like this.

  15. #104
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,725
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Not true at all, I believe as strongly in the 2A as anybody here. What's different is that I realize it's not the word of God, it's one sentence in the law, and it's very easy for it to lose its meaning if the people want it to. Protecting it means convincing citizens it should be protected. That's the only way.

    So, did this guy's actions help to convince people that it should be protected, or the opposite?
    I remember when we had the dicussions we had about bump stocks, and then again about suppressors, and how your tune changed as soon as it was something you cared about. You want to talk about the past decades and how great they have been. Aside from having state governments that will now take bribes to not arrest people for exercising their rights, what do we really have now that we didn’t before? We have background chdcks(which they want more of), waiting periods, entire types of guns have been banned. We still have to bribe the government to own certain types of guns. At the federal level, the best we have done is a SCOTUS ruling that acknowledges what we already knew, but came with a caveat that is being used as the basis to justify many gun control laws. You say they are “barely making a dent” with their anti gun laws in Virginia, but I doubt the people who are there feel the same way as you do. Their rights are being restricted. Doesn’t matter how much. It’s all bad. Conservatives are fed up.
    Osprey, RScottie and Bikenut like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  16. #105
    VIP Member
    Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    So infringements are nothing more than "nuisances"? Tell that to the mother who is trying to protect her 3 kids from a stalker exhusband while she works as a waitress and can barely afford a Hi Point pistol much less pay for the required carry permit class, the permit fees, and lose the time off work to attend. Ask her if her natural right to carry a gun being restricted is just a "nuisance".

    And History has shown that new people in government after elections are still the same anti gun agenda and that new batch will add to the existing ... ummm.... nuisances with more of the same.

    If you think infringements on rights are merely nuisances then you do not understand what a right actually is.

    You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.

    And with that defeatist attitude the government will always infringe.

    Edited to add:
    Good thing the Founding Fathers didn't take the attitude that Kings will always be imperfect and imperfect Kings will always violate people's rights so ... get used to it.
    I think that Saul Alinsky's 8 steps to socialism explain a lot of what is happening. Gun control is part of their solution to the problem of citizens having too much say and power in how they are governed(controlled).

    1 HEALTHCARE- Control healthcare and you control people.
    2 POVERTY- Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you provide everything for them to live.
    3 DEBT- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. that way you can increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
    4 GUN CONTROL- REMOVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THAT WAY YOU CREATE A POLICE STATE.
    5 WELFARE- Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, income).
    6 EDUCATION- Take control of what people read and listen to. Take control of what children learn in schools.
    7 RELIGION- Remove the belief in the God from the government and the schools.
    8 CLASS WARFARE- Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

    Many of today's politicians grew up in the '60s and learned these as truth. Now that they are in power they are trying in implement it.
    Gun Control is but a small step in the socialism process, but a most important step.
    In my opinion without gun control the other 7 steps can be checked when the citizens finally wake up and see what is happening to them.
    Without our 2nd amendment rights as stated in the constitution, not the watered down version that they are trying to appease us with we are all just like that frog in the boiling water.
    Osprey, RScottie, Bikenut and 1 others like this.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •