Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Give me your guns

2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
While the NRA side of the gun debate claims the recent deaths of 20 schoolchildren and six educators from Newton, Connecticut are being exploited to promote an anti-gun agenda, another anonymous gun rights promoter has exploited the historic plight of Native Americans to fit their own political program.

In Greeley, Colorado there are signs along a busy highway that show a picture of three Native men holding guns that say, “Turn in your arms, the government will take care of you.” The people who created billboard do not want to be disclosed. Just over 200 miles away from Greeley, the site of the infamous 1864 Sand Creek Massacre took place in which 700 cowardly Colorado volunteers and soldiers gunned down over 200 mostly Arapaho and Cheyenne women, children, and elderly men while most of the warriors were out hunting.

Before the massacre, pacifist and Cheyenne “peace” Chief Black Kettle had waved an American flag he’d gotten from Abraham Lincoln himself the year prior, and told the camp they needn’t be afraid because he was assured no Americans would fire at anyone who flew this flag. The “well-regulated militia” opened fire, however, and slaughtered his people before his eyes. Later, they paraded their ghoulish “trophies” of things like women’s private parts in downtown Denver among other heinous acts.

Atrocities endured by our ancestors have seemingly become likened to a pro-NRA prop to fuel political ignorance and paranoia of G-men coming to confiscate every law abiding citizens’ guns if added modest regulations are proposed to buy them, or existing rules are actually enforced with teeth.

Disclosure: my brother, who was just a year younger than me and someone I considered my best friend, was a victim of gun violence. He died several years ago at the age of 26, exactly a month before his son’s first birthday. The impact of a bullet had shattered his pelvis, and he laid and bled out for several hours before he was begrudgingly taken to the hospital by the one who shot him where he was pronounced DOA – Dead On Arrival. It obviously pains and angers me when I think about how horrid my baby brother’s last couple of hours on this earth must’ve been.

However, I never blamed a gun for his death; I blamed the person who abused it. During the court sentencing I said to the face of my brother’s murderer, “Guns don’t kill people, idiots with guns kill people.” The presiding judge agreed and even quoted me soon after. I consider myself a crack shot, and I’ve used guns and respected them since I was a young boy wandering the Montana countryside.

I personally know at least a dozen people my age or younger I count as good friends that have served in Afghanistan or Iraq- most with multiple tours and a few that were Special Forces. I’m just noting that’s my generation and I’m proud of these warriors, and none of them need to pretend they’re manlier-than-thou because they’re playing GI Joe with a AR-15 shouting against imagined “tyranny.” They’ve seen the real oppression of Taliban and Islamic radicals firsthand.

But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

Do current gun rights advocates honestly believe there are no lines to be considered because of political partisanship? Or does a mentally ill, deranged mass murderer’s right to bear and stockpile arms that they bought with little or no questions asked before pumping rounds into civilians always trump our own right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

As far as the definition of "arms," do they think selling more firepower that includes fully automatics, Surface to Air Missiles, and grenades to any citizen is a right that "shall not be infringed" lest they can't adequately defend themselves from said theoretical government tyranny?

Am I under the mistaken belief the NRA is supposed to be about teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, or has the NRA motto become: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of schoolchildren and civilians"? Does that sound like freedom?

Rather than unite behind the unite behind the recent horrific tragedy of Newton, extremist pro-gun Americans have wrapped themselves in the same haunted American flag that Black Kettle flew over his camp while he watched women and children being slaughtered and called it patriotism.

As a proud Cheyenne who knows how hard my ancestors fought so I could speak today, I know their spilled blood should not be used as a “gun rights” Straw Man ploy. Does anyone really believe the anonymous people who created this billboard are some kind of longtime American Indian rights activists?

Not to exclude other non-white killers like that of the Korean National V-Tech and the Ojibwe Red Lake killers, but if we’re bringing race into the issue, why don’t they use pictures of mass murdering Caucasians Jared Loughner of Tucson, Newtown’s Adam Lanza, or Aurora’s James Holmes? They’d call it insensitive, while ironically telling me I should “just get over it” regarding the deaths of innocent Sand Creek children being exploited. They could have a picture of all three of them together as it says, “Buy more guns. The NRA will make it easier for these guys to do so, after all.”

Sardonic, perhaps, but at least having their photos on a billboard wouldn’t be a deflection to the real reason of why we’re having this discussion in the first place instead of using the systematic genocide of Natives as some sort of political gun nut mascot.

A lifelong Montana resident, Adrian Jawort is a freelance journalist, writer, and poet. A proud member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, he is a contributor to Indian Country Today Media Network as well as Native Peoples, Cowboys & Indians and many other publications.


https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/opinions/natives-are-not-gun-rights-mascots/
«13

Comments

  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,412
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter

    Swaye?

    He's reloading.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,487 Founders Club
    Black Kettle should have armed the women and kids in the camp. They could have taken more whites with them that day.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    Sounds like a preemptive infringement of rights. In First Amendment cases, that's called prior restraint, and civil libertarians rightly lose their minds over it. Assault rifles as a product distinction is almost completely arbitrary. It a bureaucratically driven set of rules.

    I disagree with his goal profoundly, but I respect John Paul Stevens' chintellectual honesty to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,487 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    Sounds like a preemptive infringement of rights. In First Amendment cases, that's called prior restraint, and civil libertarians rightly lose their minds over it. Assault rifles as a product distinction is almost completely arbitrary. It a bureaucratically driven set of rules.

    I disagree with his goal profoundly, but I respect John Paul Stevens' chintellectual honesty to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
    Do you understand what Stevens said when he called for repealing the second amendment? He wasn't saying anything about gun confiscation. It has to do with a 2008 supreme Court decision and semantics.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
    Yes I used the term assualt rifle as a generic term. I'm referring to high capacity guns that can do more damage than an average rifle. Most mass shooters are not skilled shooters and can't reload a weapon quickly like a trained military officer or cop.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
    @Swaye gets it.

  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    Sounds like a preemptive infringement of rights. In First Amendment cases, that's called prior restraint, and civil libertarians rightly lose their minds over it. Assault rifles as a product distinction is almost completely arbitrary. It a bureaucratically driven set of rules.

    I disagree with his goal profoundly, but I respect John Paul Stevens' chintellectual honesty to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
    Do you understand what Stevens said when he called for repealing the second amendment? He wasn't saying anything about gun confiscation. It has to do with a 2008 supreme Court decision and semantics.
    Sure, but a repeal is a repeal. The government wouldn't have to continue chipping away at 2A rights, as it's done with all the rest, when that right is no longer guaranteed. Neat & tidy.
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,487 Founders Club

    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
    @Swaye gets it.

    I love you man.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,499 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
    Yes I used the term assualt rifle as a generic term. I'm referring to high capacity guns that can do more damage than an average rifle. Most mass shooters are not skilled shooters and can't reload a weapon quickly like a trained military officer or cop.
    It's a political marketing term.

    Which holds more rounds?


  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
    Yes I used the term assualt rifle as a generic term. I'm referring to high capacity guns that can do more damage than an average rifle. Most mass shooters are not skilled shooters and can't reload a weapon quickly like a trained military officer or cop.
    It's a political marketing term.

    Which holds more rounds?


    Well the one on the bottom has a silencer. So there's that.
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,885
    2001400ex said:

    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    ...

    But with any proposed gun restrictions automatically being deemed "unconstitutional" by factions, I'm curious what self-proclaimed patriots think is "constitutional" regarding an amendment written when muskets fired once or twice followed by bayonet and close quarter physical fighting was the rule in 1791—not like when the Tucson killer expended over 30 rounds in a brief terrifying moment and received 19 charges of murder and attempted murder for the minimal effort of twitching his finger.

    ...

    Lost me there. Rights are rights and immutable, not subject to the state of contemporary technology. The free press in 1791 was laboriously manually. It's doubtful the Framers could imagine a HP LaserJet turning out—automatically—a thousand pages in a day, much less the Internet. Yet the principal right protected, not granted, remains.
    Serious questions.

    Do you consider a background check on a private sale an infringement on your rights?

    Do you consider the fact that felons can't legally by a guy an infringement on rights?
    Semantics, but both are absolutely infringement of rights. The issue is whether justifiable and legal. I don't know the legal means for depriving convicted but released felons from owning firearms. Felons also lose their right to vote in most states. Both constitutionally protected civil rights stripped as a consequence of a felony, for which a penal sentence has been served. I'm fine with both as a means of risk reduction if there is a reasonable appeal process to regain those rights.

    Ostensibly, your first question depends on the second, in that background checks are supposed to prevent felons and other restricted classes from legally purchasing firearms. For that purpose, it seems fine.
    Great, we agree and are getting somewhere. All I have said, along with most gun control fanatics, is for background checks on all sales. I think we should allow assualt rifles with a registry, similar to fully automatic weapons, but not nearly that intense. Maybe something like after a lame gun control class or demonstrating 5 years of gun ownership, you can own one. The vast majority of mass shooters are not people who have owned guns for a long period.

    What do you think about those measures and infringement on rights?
    My take. They aren't assault rifles, they are sporting rifles. People actually hunt with them. Mostly feral hogs, but sometimes deer, though rarely chambered for .223. Point, the only thing that distinguishes an AR (ARmalite NOT Assault Rifle) is that you can buy large magazines for them, and they look scary to city boys who have never chopped firewood, cleaned and gutted a fish, or changed their own oil. In fact, Browning (sucks) makes a very famous hinting rifle called a BAR. Stands for Browning (sucks) Automatic Rifle. Hundreds of thousands sold I'd imagine, and used all over the world to take game - box mag fed. Pretty much an AR only with wood furniture. Trying to make AR's something they aren't is silly. If you have a problem with AR's, then go after the magazine capacity - which I would still disagree with but at least makes more sense then banning an entire class of weapons because of a made up name and they look scary to the aforementioned girly men.

    FFS I can go get a BAR in 243 and do just as much damage, but they look like a regular old huntin' rifle your grand pappy had so it's hard to get people stirred up with that one.

    Also, fuck registries. Registration = confiscation. Think I'll go back to pressing out rounds now. And Taco Bell.
    Yes I used the term assualt rifle as a generic term. I'm referring to high capacity guns that can do more damage than an average rifle. Most mass shooters are not skilled shooters and can't reload a weapon quickly like a trained military officer or cop.

    Bullshit. It takes less than 3 seconds for even an idiot to drop the spent mag and reload a fresh one.
  • Pitchfork51Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 26,949
    edited April 2018

    Hondo doesn't have the guts to call for the repeal of the 2nd Ammendment. He just starts dozens of threads about grabbing guns

    Take a fucking stand. None of these half measures will do anything

    I'm all for it if it's what the people want.

    Repeal the 2nd amendment (which I'd be okay with) or don't and shut the fuck up.

    Either way it will not be interesting because I don't give a shit.
Sign In or Register to comment.