Where's the "How can we be part of the solution?" Megathread?

[PWM]

Repeat after me - There is no gun problem in America.

By the numbers, especially by "Other Guns" .... please don't waste my goddamn time.

Mental health checks... how laughable... lets put a quack from Berkeley between lawful gun owners and a license... sure that'll go over great. "So you want a rifle? Why do you hate your mother?"

I don't see any problem to address. Swimming pools kill more children than guns. When we ban suburban deep holes in the ground with water in them, get back to me.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Repeat after me - There is no gun problem in America.

By the numbers, especially by "Other Guns" .... please don't waste my goddamn time.

Mental health checks... how laughable... lets put a quack from Berkeley between lawful gun owners and a license... sure that'll go over great. "So you want a rifle? Why do you hate your mother?"

I don't see any problem to address. Swimming pools kill more children than guns. When we ban suburban deep holes in the ground with water in them, get back to me.

this is america under Obama, facts dont matter anymore

 

[ColdDayInHell]

I seriously doubt a stupid ban like this would ever pass. The facts are there for everyone to see but we all know the moonbats and fudds are stubborn and downright impossible to talk to. Oh well, let people rush every gun shop looking for ammo and ARs, I just want my build done with!


Sent from my POS iPhone

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

I just want my build done with!


Sent from my POS iPhone

your not the only one, im slacking [sad2]

 

[TomH]

Let's get it RIGHT, in an arrangement that works for everyone.

The premise that this is your goal only proves you are wrong in the first place. Rights aren't about making others happy about how you exercise them, or compromising so they feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[drgrant]

I think background checks on all purchases (in places where it's not already required) would probably take some of the wind out of the anti-gun brigades sails. It's a concession that the firearms community could make that would probably send the right message and get some people off our backs.

Putting the obvious constitional and natural rights problems aside for a minute.... The problem is even if "We" do this, let's say, hypothetically, will anyone even be paying attention? I really doubt it. Antis will still be prattling on about the "gun show loophole" despite the facts on the ground that basically show that a gun show is the absolute last place a criminal will be buying a firearm, among other things. The problem with the Neville Chamberlain thing is it never seems to actually to buy us anything. We've suffered under NFA34, GCA68, all the Brady Bill/NICS BS, the first AWB... but nobody seems to care. Even when the old AWB was in force there were antis running around saying it needed to be expanded. Even if it does buy you something, it's only temporary. Look at NFA34 as a perfect example. Back then a bunch of moonbats at the time were shrieking about "criminals with fully automatic weapons" or whatever the BS was. So they banned them- (more or less). Now the better part of a century later comes, and we have a bunch of ignorant antis still arm flapping and shrieking about "automatic weapons". People are so ignorant on guns in this country that concessions don't have the effect one would think.

The other problem is that the "enemy" for the most part is a bunch of liars. They're not concerned about "public safety"- the architects of gun control want to ban private ownership of firearms, completely. Sure there are some useful idiots for them in the middle that probably think that gun bans have to do with public safety, but they are not the ones engineering the legislation at the root level. The mary hairnets whose friend died in a shooting and donate to VPC are not the ones crafting the legislation, etc.

Years ago there was a middle ground group known as "Americans for gun safety". By our standards they were antis, but they had a secondary goal of making changes to laws that were only minimally infringing- eg, they had a goal of making the laws better without reducing the lawful public's access to guns. They burned out pretty fast- because they weren't anti enough, so they didn't get a lot of support. That should tell you the way most antis really think- because if they were actually interested in fixing whatever the percieved symptom is (eg, violent crime, misuse of firearms) that they would all want to hop onboard with a group that was trying to form a bridge between lawful gun owners and themselves. They didn't, because they hate guns and gun owners more than they
do violent crime.

I guess my point is is that concessions rarely have the intended effect- all they usually end up doing is resulting in an erosion of rights with no real relief for us on the back end. When's the last time someone like Brady, VPC, etc, lauded a pro gun org on coming to a concensus about adding public safety provisions to something like a CCW bill? In a perfect world, concessions might work if you were dealing with honorable people. Most of the antis in power are anything but that. If they were given a button to kill us all and take all our guns away simultaneously they would slam their hand down on it in a cocaine heartbeat. It's very easy to forget that.

-Mike

 

[HTRN]

Nope. "secure" is a subjective term. Means different thing to different people, and in different areas that have different risks. I just think we as a group of gun owners should try to be as responsible as we can, given those risks, to mitigate negative outcomes of a possible breach of whatever security measures you implement.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

A gun is just another tool that man has invented to achieve work more efficiently than the alternatives or no tools at all.
There is nothing special or magical about firearms and gunowners are no different than lawnmower owners or sawsall owners.

Please stop empowering those that would strip you of your property rights. Don't have the conversation on their terms.

You cannot prevent or eliminate evil. No amount of making the owners of certian tools jump through useless hoops will stop it.

Ask them why they want to agress force against you. Ask them why you should be defenseless againt the sociopaths in government. Stop giving them the power.

Sent from my mobile device.

 

[calsdad]

Putting the obvious constitional and natural rights problems aside for a minute.... The problem is even if "We" do this, let's say, hypothetically, will anyone even be paying attention? I really doubt it. Antis will still be prattling on about the "gun show loophole" despite the facts on the ground that basically show that a gun show is the absolute last place a criminal will be buying a firearm, among other things. The problem with the Neville Chamberlain thing is it never seems to actually to buy us anything. We've suffered under NFA34, GCA68, all the Brady Bill/NICS BS, the first AWB... but nobody seems to care. Even when the old AWB was in force there were antis running around saying it needed to be expanded. Even if it does buy you something, it's only temporary. Look at NFA34 as a perfect example. Back then a bunch of moonbats at the time were shrieking about "criminals with fully automatic weapons" or whatever the BS was. So they banned them- (more or less). Now the better part of a century later comes, and we have a bunch of ignorant antis still arm flapping and shrieking about "automatic weapons". People are so ignorant on guns in this country that concessions don't have the effect one would think.

The other problem is that the "enemy" for the most part is a bunch of liars. They're not concerned about "public safety"- the architects of gun control want to ban private ownership of firearms, completely. Sure there are some useful idiots for them in the middle that probably think that gun bans have to do with public safety, but they are not the ones engineering the legislation at the root level. The mary hairnets whose friend died in a shooting and donate to VPC are not the ones crafting the legislation, etc.

Years ago there was a middle ground group known as "Americans for gun safety". By our standards they were antis, but they had a secondary goal of making changes to laws that were only minimally infringing- eg, they had a goal of making the laws better without reducing the lawful public's access to guns. They burned out pretty fast- because they weren't anti enough, so they didn't get a lot of support. That should tell you the way most antis really think- because if they were actually interested in fixing whatever the percieved symptom is (eg, violent crime, misuse of firearms) that they would all want to hop onboard with a group that was trying to form a bridge between lawful gun owners and themselves. They didn't, because they hate guns and gun owners more than they
do violent crime.

I guess my point is is that concessions rarely have the intended effect- all they usually end up doing is resulting in an erosion of rights with no real relief for us on the back end. When's the last time someone like Brady, VPC, etc, lauded a pro gun org on coming to a concensus about adding public safety provisions to something like a CCW bill? In a perfect world, concessions might work if you were dealing with honorable people. Most of the antis in power are anything but that. If they were given a button to kill us all and take all our guns away simultaneously they would slam their hand down on it in a cocaine heartbeat. It's very easy to forget that.

-Mike

Exactly.

This is why I think that we:

1) Should not give one stinking inch on ANY sort of movement towards ANY sort of further infringement on gun rights.

2) Find the people who are on the fence and/or honestly mis-informed - and educate them if possible - or let them know in no uncertain terms that they will pay a price for agreeing to go along with any further gun legislation. I mean that as a way of saying - let the politicians know they WILL get voted out - and let everybody who is in a postition of influence in the gun industry who starts saying ANYTHING that would lend tacit support to a ban - will get ZUMBOED.

3) We should call out the antis you are referring to - for what they are. Don't be squeamish about bringing up the FACTS. Don't be squeamish about saying that the facts prove that banning rifles - will pretty much do nothing to stop these killings. Don't be squeamish about saying that if these people REALLY wanted to stop this from happening again - they wouldn't be dancing on the graves of children - and calling for another gun ban. They would take a REAL look at what is going on - and address the REAL issues.

That would be hard though. And it would like call some pretty sensiitive things into question - like the very concept of forced public schooling itself - like the mental health system, like the pharmaceutical industry - like GUN BANS in general.

So we can't have that.

 

[Horrible]

Putting the obvious constitional and natural rights problems aside for a minute.... The problem is even if "We" do this, let's say, hypothetically, will anyone even be paying attention? I really doubt it. Antis will still be prattling on about the "gun show loophole" despite the facts on the ground that basically show that a gun show is the absolute last place a criminal will be buying a firearm, among other things. The problem with the Neville Chamberlain thing is it never seems to actually to buy us anything. We've suffered under NFA34, GCA68, all the Brady Bill/NICS BS, the first AWB... but nobody seems to care. Even when the old AWB was in force there were antis running around saying it needed to be expanded. Even if it does buy you something, it's only temporary. Look at NFA34 as a perfect example. Back then a bunch of moonbats at the time were shrieking about "criminals with fully automatic weapons" or whatever the BS was. So they banned them- (more or less). Now the better part of a century later comes, and we have a bunch of ignorant antis still arm flapping and shrieking about "automatic weapons". People are so ignorant on guns in this country that concessions don't have the effect one would think.

The other problem is that the "enemy" for the most part is a bunch of liars. They're not concerned about "public safety"- the architects of gun control want to ban private ownership of firearms, completely. Sure there are some useful idiots for them in the middle that probably think that gun bans have to do with public safety, but they are not the ones engineering the legislation at the root level. The mary hairnets whose friend died in a shooting and donate to VPC are not the ones crafting the legislation, etc.

Years ago there was a middle ground group known as "Americans for gun safety". By our standards they were antis, but they had a secondary goal of making changes to laws that were only minimally infringing- eg, they had a goal of making the laws better without reducing the lawful public's access to guns. They burned out pretty fast- because they weren't anti enough, so they didn't get a lot of support. That should tell you the way most antis really think- because if they were actually interested in fixing whatever the percieved symptom is (eg, violent crime, misuse of firearms) that they would all want to hop onboard with a group that was trying to form a bridge between lawful gun owners and themselves. They didn't, because they hate guns and gun owners more than they
do violent crime.

I guess my point is is that concessions rarely have the intended effect- all they usually end up doing is resulting in an erosion of rights with no real relief for us on the back end. When's the last time someone like Brady, VPC, etc, lauded a pro gun org on coming to a concensus about adding public safety provisions to something like a CCW bill? In a perfect world, concessions might work if you were dealing with honorable people. Most of the antis in power are anything but that. If they were given a button to kill us all and take all our guns away simultaneously they would slam their hand down on it in a cocaine heartbeat. It's very easy to forget that.

-Mike

Yup. If they go and pass another (even stricter) AWB, we all know that will change NOTHING and another Newtown shooting will happen again. Then they will be looking to ban all semi-autos, Shotguns or whatever weapon they think was used. This won't stop until a full-up gun ban is in place.

This is why we shouldn't budge on the issue, because guns are not the cause of this.

To truly stop this from happening again, you need to take away the incentive. These homicidal maniacs are driven by the instant fame that they get from the media. They are already suicidal and figure why not go out in blaze of glory and become the next Charles Manson!

Until the real causes and incentives are removed, this will continue to happen with whatever weaponry is available. Bombs and guns can be made. You don't need to look to far or long ago to see these nut-jobs using this to their advantage in other countries with some of the strictest gun laws (Shooting in England in July 2010 and shooting/bombing Norway in July 2011).

My solution is to institute a ban on murder!

 

[HTRN]

Yup. If they go and pass another (even stricter) AWB, we all know that will change NOTHING and another Newtown shooting will happen again. Then they will be looking to ban all semi-autos, Shotguns or whatever weapon they think was used. This won't stop until a full-up gun ban is in place.

This is why we shouldn't budge on the issue, because guns are not the cause of this.

To truly stop this from happening again, you need to take away the incentive. These homicidal maniacs are driven by the instant fame that they get from the media. They are already suicidal and figure why not go out in blaze of glory and become the next Charles Manson!

Until the real causes and incentives are removed, this will continue to happen with whatever weaponry is available. Bombs and guns can be made. You don't need to look to far or long ago to see these nut-jobs using this to their advantage in other countries with some of the strictest gun laws (Shooting in England in July 2010 and shooting/bombing Norway in July 2011).

My solution is to institute a ban on murder!

This is why we need to insist that the conversation be changed.

Ask them why we shouldn't be able to protect ourselves?
I loved the JFPO article, the citizen is ALWAYS the first responder.

Are we not a nation of government by the people? Aren't LEOs just citizens too? There should be no distinction at all WRT the ability to be properly equipped to defend one's self.


We as "gun owners" need to get in the face of these idiots and show them the truth, and when they refuse to listen we need to make them understand just how wrong and evil they are. Why do they want more death? That is what banning guns will bring. Show the Australia 34% RISE in violent crime.. Ask them why they INSIST on more violence?
Then let them know just how unreasonable they are and how they are letting their emotions control them and how this is so very evil.

 

[StevieP]

Here's an interesting idea -- creating a nationwide network of "minutemen" to protect our school children:

http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...inutemen-can-protect-against-active-shooters/