doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Obama to seek new AW ban

If the second amendment was created for the purpose of defending ourselves from a tyrannical government, which it was , then anything the government has in the way of arms should be legal for a law biding sane citizen to have and keep. How are we to defend ourselves from armed drug gangs who have no restraints when it comes to weapons???

Grant,
Illustrating the fact that I have no problem with his 2nd, or, for that matter, 1st or any other rights, while he has a problem with mine, will really only be accepted by those who have faith in the individuality and character of their fellow citizen.

He lacks this character trait. The "herd of sheep" mentality, in which some argument of a "common good" phony outcome is the stated goal, is a complete fraud. Trying to explain it, to someone who lacks the courage to believe in his fellow citizen, is useless, because he lacks the courage to believe in himself. The second amendment conveys a responsibility, that the herd, cannot, and will not, accept.

That they have responsibility for their pursuit of a virtuous, successful, and safe life. That others, have the same responsibility. Most important, that is is no-one else's responsibility.

Those sheep that would "de-fang" the sheepdogs, are always most silent when the sheepdog is involved with the wolf. Until it is actually happening, they deny the existance of the wolf. When the wolf comes for them, they accept what he does to them, their women, their young, and their property, as their own contribution to the "common good".

I, don't.

Best,
Ted

So aptly put, Ted..... and 'Thanks for saying it. Like a number of us here, perhaps, I'm wrestling with when is enough... enough.

Rob

Perhaps someone out there chooses to live in a "gun free" zone. This, is their choice, one I have no problem with.

The problem I have, and it is a big one, is when they tell me I have to live like they choose.

I am of the belief that the amendments to the constitution are non-negotiable.

Not one of them.

Enough, is enough, when it is well illustrated that utopian ideas and ideals are complete folly, that serve no freeman.
Best,
Ted

Uh,....actually I meant was....when is enough, enough among the minority of us that still revere the constitution?

Robert,
If the founders had believed the constitution would always be safe and free from attack, including internal attack, the second wouldn't be there.

If the founders put it there, rest assured they took into consideration that one day, defenders of the constitution might well be the minority, at some point.

They were a wise, and foresighted group of men, in my humble opinion.
Best,
Ted

Will,
Sorry for having taken so long to get around to this; things here in Afghanistan have taken up much of my time.

I have to make a few comments about your reply. I will take excerpts as easiest to discuss. :

1. Will said: “My initial post was directed at the one-sided, and in some instances, deliberately (Mindless as I said, but this may have been ill-advised) provocative stone throwing at those who take a stance on the opposite side of the posters on this thread.
But then you go onto close with “I am against thoughtless name calling, rancorous partisanship and invective directed at groups in a scatter-shot manner.”

"Mindless"? "these fringes on both sides"? "Nothing is ever as simple as the lunatic fringes would have it be."?? Those comments and examples sure appear to be (thoughtless name calling, rancorous partisanship and invective) what you don’t want to have.


2. Will said:I expected some heat, but had no intention of answering personal attacks nor of elaborating on my own beliefs.
Will, who was attacking anyone? I asked for your logic and reasoning abot why you supported a person who wants to take our rights away. Not merely add a few minor rules. His past record of voting against gun rights speaks for itself.

If you come out in favor of someone who is against the tenets and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of this board, you must be prepared to answer questions about your rationale. Otherwise, don’t respond. It’s the old two kids arguing, oh yeah, yeah, oh yeah, yeah, and on and on. There has to be some meat to the matter.

3. Will said: I just wanted it understood that this forum should not be an echo chamber and there are legitimate arguments to be made in support of those who advocate other approaches or who disagree with the majority view of this board.
If there are legitimate arguments to be made, make them.

4. I simply feel that to lump all gun control legislation into one unacceptable boxlot is both short sighted and counter-productive.
True to a point. If we are talking gun legislation that is aimed at criminals, by all means. That means a national criminal database. This means marking all drivers licenses with the convictions of criminals. This means no criminals can vote. This means that no criminals can buy alcohol, this means no criminals can own cell phones without special permits. This means criminals cant own computers without special permits.
This means that all criminals must register in the locale they reside and report to their locality whenever they leave.

This means that the burden of proof and responsibility is placed on criminals who have been proven guilty by the courts. Not placed on law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong but are presumed guilty until they prove otherwise.

5. You quote McIntosh: The best way to express this are quotes from a McIntosh column on this exact subject: "There are no simple answers to complex questions. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle, where it's hard to hear the voices of reason because of so much hysterical shrieking ..." "Nothing is ever as simple as the lunatic fringes would have it be."There are, unfortunately, these fringes on both sides. You, and others on this board, who believe so strongly and passionately on gun rights and object to any legislation do not do yourselves or your cause any favor by ranting and name calling. And then too, not all who disagree with you are your enemy.

Why make that quote. Hysterical shrieking??? Where, here? That is a cheap shot that isn’t warranted, justified or substantiated. By quoting him, you insinuate the same. Hardly what happens on this board.

6. Will said You asked what specifically I would support or cite. Difficult question in detail. I have no problem with registration and licensing. I've done the paperwork and classwork for hand-gun permits. I don't believe there should be unrestricted carry laws. I'm not much in favor of automatic weapons. I believe certain areas should be gun free, even though I'm of a generation that could take a gun to school and nobody thought you were there to blow away your least favorite teacher.

Registration and licensing?? Well, that’s a real tough one to swallow. Its not like registration and licensing of autos that many anti gunners love to cite.
Car registration is a means of taxing car owners, period. Licensing is more of the same. The only persons not allowed to have a license are those who have had them taken away. FOR BREAKINGTHE LAW. There is no requirement to justify a need for a car, or cars. There is no need to justify why you want or need a car or motorcycle that goes 150MPH when the speed limit is no more that 65 MPH.

I have an issue with all of this licensing and registration. For several reasons.
Automatic weapons: show me the last time a legally owned automatic weapon was used in the commission of a crime? If there is no issue with them, why cant we have them. Just because you dont like them isn’t a reason. I don’t like body piercings , maybe we should outlaw them?

Gun free zones: those work great. Most of your mass killings have happened in gun free zones or places where guns are outlawed. Bad idea that solves nothing.

Why do certain people insist on passing laws that don’t do any good. Its because they feel good about themselves when they pass them. They can say they tried to make a difference. Symbolism over substance. Show me where a gun control law reduced crime???? Did you know that since the time England passed its first major national firearms legislation back in the 20’s, their violent crime with guns has risen every year since??

7. Will said: I guess, ultimately, I don't subscribe to the Domino theory that gun regulation is the leading edge for gun banishment. I don't find it any more convincing than the theory was for world-wide Communist domination, that too, being a part of my generational received wisdom.

Why don’t you ask the Australians and the Brits about that???


8. Will said: Finally, I would point you to the Michael McIntosh column I mentioned earlier (and for which he was pilloried, but did not lose his job as Zumbo did) in the May/June 1989 issue of SPORTING CLASSICS magazine. It contains my views, reservations and uncertainties about guns and regulations. If you can, read it. McIntosh has a fluid style and it's a thoughtful article.

Why don’t you give your own answers instead of telling me to read what someone else wrote. If someone asked me my opinion, I wouldn’t tell them to read the Federalist Papers to find it out.

Zumbo: you make it sound like he shouldn’t have been fired. The consumers spoke. He bit the hand that fed him. He spoke out against a segment of his base. Whether you like AR’s or not, they are a semi automatic mechanism like any other semi auto, no different in functioning than a Remington 742 deer rifle. It’s the look. Again, the antis symbolism over substance. A very weak argument. How many times have you heard when someone passes stupid legislation that they say ‘ even if this doesn’t do anything it sends a message”????

9. Will said: Brian, I am not against you or any of the others on this board for your beliefs on this issue. I am against thoughtless name calling, rancorous partisanship and invective directed at groups in a scatter-shot manner. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I wish you well --- in all sincerity.
Will

While we can agree to disagree, I don’t really like being lumped together in rash generalization. Your words: “You, and others on this board, who believe so strongly and passionately on gun rights and object to any legislation do not do yourselves or your cause any favor by ranting and name calling.”

I consider myself an individual. I didn’t lump you with anyone else. I only asked you to tell me why you supported BHO when you claim to be a gun owner and or hunter and he has historically gone against us. I still didn’t get a real answer.

I have not met many people who wont comment when asked several simple questions. Here they are

1. Why shouldn’t a law abiding citizen be allowed to own a gun with no restrictions?
2. Why should a law abiding citizen have to prove his innocence to buy a gun (NICS check)
3. Give me three “reasonable gun laws” you feel need to be passed and why.
4. How will these laws reduce crime without placing additional burden on law abiding citizens?
5. Why do so many politicians fear lawfully armed citizens?

Will, my belief is that those who support reasonable gun laws cant tell me what they consider reasonable (that’s not already on the books) They also cant tell me why its in my best interest to have restrictions placed on my constitutional rights.
Conversely, these same people are usually against the Patriot Act as being to intrusive on our individual rights. Weird huh??

Will,
We both have the right to speak our minds, or not. We can agree to disagree. However, I will always question ones rational that puts them in opposition to their own rights. E.g. Gun Owners who support the one politician in the US with the hands down worst gun rights voting record in history. Sort of like Bill gates campaigning for the strict regulation of the internet and computers.

The latest hue and cry of the AG, BHO, HC and others is about the legal guns purchased in the US and shipped to Mexico. hey, how do they get across the border? Sounds like they are breaking a bunch of laws to start with and the bigger issue is the corrupt police in Mexico. So, why punish US Citizens by restricting our rights because the Mexicans cant fix their problem. ??? Again, the rights of law abiding citizens are up for grabs because someone who is breaking the law cant or wont be punished for breaking the laws already on the books. And that’s exactly what E Holder and others want to do.

Will,
We both have the right to speak our minds, or not. We can agree to disagree. However, I will always question ones rational that puts them in opposition to their own rights. E.g. Gun Owners who support the one politician in the US with the hands down worst gun rights voting record in history. Sort of like Bill gates campaigning for the strict regulation of the internet and computers.

Enjoy the summer.

Brian

Brian,
I read once that people pretty much fall into one of three groups, that, for simplification, were named, "Sheep", "Sheepdogs" and "Wolves". There is a debate over when and how the attitudes displayed by the people in these groups came to be formed, but, rest assured, all of us fall into one group, or, one of the others.

While it is possible for an individual to move from one group or another, they seldom do that out of personal choice. A wolf individual may become too elderly to actively feed upon the sheep on it's own, but, that doesn't mean he is now a sheep.

I've come to the opinion, that one is biologically predisposed toward one group, or, one of the others. Think about it. The sheep mentality can, if pushed, understand the wolf exists, but, actually has at least as much, or more, fear of the sheepdog that he sees every day. The sheepdog looks a lot like the wolf.

This defect in the mindset was nature's assurance that the wolf always has something to eat. The wolf is necessary to lower life forms. Although the trait is of little use in contemporary human civilization, the wiring is all still there, and, is used every day at some level of human endeavor.

Your well written illustration will, I'm afraid, fall on completely deaf-to-the-point little sheep ears. It always does.

That, is the hell of it. The only salvation is for the sheepdogs to defend every tenant of the constitution with the same zeal they defend the sheep. Sheepdogs have a lot better record of defending sheep then of taking care of their themselves, however.
Best,
Ted

Ted, your pigeonholes or are they sheep holes don't really have a lot of credibility. They don't span the list of issues in any consistent fashion. In general, the pro gun world was hideously silent (at best) to enthusiastically supportive (at worst) of the previous administration's disregard for the first amendment, among many other things.

Meanwhile, the folks that waive the first ammendment flags and claim to, as you put it, "defend every tenant of the constitution with the same zeal" tend to be remarkably silent or opposed to assaults on the second ammendment.

Hence, sometimes the sheep, sometimes the dog, but near side has much credibility about what lurks under their clothing, and no group as a lock on being defenders of "every tenant of the constitution." Just the parts that they happen to like the most.

Brent

Brian: Very well expressed and thought out responses to "Will the gun grabber" above.
IMO: The reason an anti-gun person like Nancy Pelosi is willing to forgo another "Assault Weapons Ban" is to try and make a case for outright registration and I believe this is the next major battle we'll have to fight. Fortunately the "Canadian Experience" with their registration fiasco is well documented and provides a very good set of arguments against it.
For anyone on here that doesn't know this: The penultimate step in total firearms control in Countries such as Australia, Great Britian and Nazi Germany was registration followed by confiscation. After all that's the Nancy Pelosi's of the Socialist ilks REAL goal.
Jim