Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
It's funny that these are both the same when discussing "common sense" gun laws but different now.
If you’re saying more than common sense gun laws are required to combat terrorism, I agree. Domestic terrorism seems to be a very white phenomenon recently.
Conflate and dissemble all you'd like, does anyone think you actually care about anyone beyond your immediate ideological motives?
I'd respect you more if you were less disingenuous. At least APAG and Cdawg just come out and say what they really think.
I think guns should be difficult to obtain and retain. Some guns should simply be illegal per se. I think penalties for misuse or illegal possession be stiff. But I’m not for banning them.
Other than repeating above exactly what I said days ago, I never say what I really want.
Which classes of guns would you ban, and why?
I'd be talking to people like you, who know something about guns, about legitimate reasons why anyone would ever want own particular types of weapons. It's not immediately obvious to me why someone should have an AK-47, for example. I realize Sled wants to over throw the Deep State, but I want to talk about reality.
I can respect that you would at least ask people who have used them and trained with them for advice. That's a good first step and way better than most would admit to.
As far as the AK-47 comment, it won't be popular with the anti-gun crowd, but the honest truth is, that old "far right" saying about protection from the government is the truth. As far fetched as it might seem in modern America, the genesis of us having a right to bear arms had fuckall to do with hunting ducks or stopping a robber. It is about being able to protect our rights from the State. The Federalist Papers make that abundantly clear that the framers saw it is the central pillar to all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. An armed populace would be able to better deter a tyrannical government than an unarmed, or in the case underarmed populace.
We can debate the relative merits of this position all day long. The anti gun crowd will say "there is no way you can stop a tank so get over it," while the gun advocate crowd will say Ho Chi Minh and his band of ragtag militiamen did a damn good job of it fighting with essentially nothing but AK-47's against our tanks, planes and high tech weaponry. In fact, they won.
The founders knew one thing - it is impossible to have a government "for the people, by the people" if those people can't instill a little fear in those who govern them. Lexington and Concorde was fought because the British were going for the armory at Concord. So this country was pretty much founded upon a hostile power (which just happened to be our own government at the time - weird to think of it that way huh...the redshirts were basically the ATF of their day in this scenario) going for guns. What does that tell you? The first thing the government wanted to do when shit went bad was to take the peoples guns. And our first response was if they get a major armory in the NE at the start of this, there will be no "this." Without a means to resist effectively the war was over before it started - the war against the current government.
So, I am not a right wing nutjob that hopes or thinks the populace will go to war with the federal government - at the same time, in some future world that I cannot even fathom right now, it could be required. And I'd like my great great great grandkids to be able to exercise their inalienable right to existence free from tyranny by fighting for that freedom with something a little more favorable than a .22 caliber pistol. So while I do not believe in my lifetime we will need to rise up and exert any force on this government, I do believe in protecting the rights of future generations to do just that in some future totalitarian world I cannot even fathom right now. We don't own these rights. We are caretakers of them for future generations because we can't know what that future will look like. And it bothers me when people are so happy to give them away for some personal safety in the present. That is why I think we should be able to keep semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines. Asked and answered.
And I'm not disagreeing about denying the government a complete monopoly on fire power. I agree that was part of the thinking. That said, once we agree that the government is going to have the overwhelmingly superior fire power, the rest is really just sweating the details of what the citizenry will or will not have available to them legally. For good or for ill, the Shah was also overthrown despite having the weapons.
I appreciate you at least conversing on it, and I never expect to change anyone's mind in the Tug. In fact, I almost never wade into this stuff at all, but you asked a fair question and I wanted to give a fair answer. Others may not know the historical underpinnings of the 2nd Amendment, so even if they still don't agree, at least they know.
To your point about "sweating the details." It is a huge detail is the issue. Can I take on the National Guard with an AR-15? Nope. Not a chance. But can a few thousand Americans armed with AR-15s at least make the government think twice? Yep. Can those same Americans do that with revolvers? Nope. And that is really what we are discussing here, as @UW_Doog_Bot deftly alluded to. Not full on open and armed revolt. But instead, just enough respect for the capability of the populace to call foul on gross government overreach. A few dozen people with revolvers are a nuisance mob, but a few dozen well trained people with AR-15s are a legit fighting force. I'm not talking those dumbfuck barneys in bullshit dink militias in Pennsylvania blabbering on about race wars. I'm talking legit well trained lifelong shooters and former military who know what they are doing. Those in power know disarming them is a nightmare, and that is a good thing to have on your side with any government, whether it ever comes to blows or not - and hopefully not.
I blathered a length about this in some other shitty thread. An armed citizenry dramatically raises the cost of tyrannical action.
Ask Vietnam and the VC
Ask the Patriots in our? Revolution
A great power will find a cost that is too high to win.
Our military would probably be involved in a civil war between those who love the country and those who love the tyrant asking them to turn weapons on fellow Americans
Meanwhile the Wolverines will be bringing some push up the middle and heat off the edge
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
In Virginia you get a double check. NICS and the Virginia State Police run a database. If you are a CCW holder though the Virginia database thing is pretty much instant.
I've always wondered why more liberals don't support CCW. I got a background check, fingerprints, and was required to take a gun safety course (waived for military service) to get it. CCW is the BEST tool currently to make sure people using guns are not fuckheads.
There's no course requirement in Washington, strangely enough. Washington had been pretty liberal with firearms law, but that's getting more regressive now.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
We have the ability to have a free press but at present time we have a dishonest collection of fucking lying hacks
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
I get what you're saying from goal standpoint. But one must think it through from a legal, civil liberties view. This verges into pre-crime, which our system is supposed to avoid, with the aforementioned due process, equal protection, etc. If there's a legal, narrowly-applied method for this, I'm all ears.
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The issue is, and I am not trying to make this a shit throwing thing because I have been amazed at how level headed this has been so far, is that the NRA feels attacked right now. They see themselves as the last bulwark between freedom and lunatics who hate THEM. Rightly or wrongly.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides).
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The issue is, and I am not trying to make this a shit throwing thing because I have been amazed at how level headed this has been so far, is that the NRA feels attacked right now. They see themselves as the last bulwark between freedom and lunatics who hate THEM. Rightly or wrongly.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides).
It's that. Tims 1000x. Actual change, as we are discussing, is wonkishly difficult. Much easier to yell about the other guys and fire up the base. Same can be said for lots of issues.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.
You're most optimistic than I am. In my former life, I would have seen that as a supreme challenge, getting a major news outlet to cover a gun issue of some kind as civil rights violation.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.
You're most optimistic than I am.
I think conservatives tend to play the victim of “the press”. Even the term MSM implies that somehow there is a bar to conservative voices in reporting news. Obviously that’s not true.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.
You're most optimistic than I am.
I think conservatives tend to play the victim of “the press”. Even the term MSM implies that somehow there is a bar to conservative voices in reporting news. Obviously that’s not true.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.
Absolutely nothing prevents an advocate of gun rights from working in the Press. It’s not a monolith; it’s a bunch of private organizations.
In principle, of course. But would you honestly expect the LA Times to take up the cause of some guy's guns being illegally seized?
It doesn’t take every press organization to shine a light on a subject. It can take as few as one.
You're most optimistic than I am.
I think conservatives tend to play the victim of “the press”. Even the term MSM implies that somehow there is a bar to conservative voices in reporting news. Obviously that’s not true.
Yeah, you're missing the point.
I think your point is that an “established” outlet won’t be interested. But that is my point too. There’s less of a monopoly on news distribution in some ill defined “establishment” than there’s ever been in history. And speaking of getting it reported, isn’t talk radio still a thing? Conservatives own talk radio.
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
I get what you're saying from goal standpoint. But one must think it through from a legal, civil liberties view. This verges into pre-crime, which our system is supposed to avoid, with the aforementioned due process, equal protection, etc. If there's a legal, narrowly-applied method for this, I'm all ears.
I agree with that completely. The mental health part I am not a fan of. Just because a dude is fucked up, doesn't mean they are going to go crazy and shoot up a public place. So I have a tough time taking guns from what is to be classified as mentally ill people. Also, many people who do these don't appear mentally ill until the day comes.
And agreed on pre crime issues. This isn't minority report. That's why I say the barrier is proper gun training. I'd support the NRA and government having an extensive gun safety course, preferably at a young age, you can choose which to use. Then if you go through that, no barriers to gun possession. If not, then there's more hoops. But you still get to exercise your rights.
Comments
Ask the Patriots in our? Revolution
A great power will find a cost that is too high to win.
Our military would probably be involved in a civil war between those who love the country and those who love the tyrant asking them to turn weapons on fellow Americans
Meanwhile the Wolverines will be bringing some push up the middle and heat off the edge
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides).
Not to be solved
And agreed on pre crime issues. This isn't minority report. That's why I say the barrier is proper gun training. I'd support the NRA and government having an extensive gun safety course, preferably at a young age, you can choose which to use. Then if you go through that, no barriers to gun possession. If not, then there's more hoops. But you still get to exercise your rights.