A Truly New Approach to Gun Rights: Including the Opposition.

reply to post by projectvxn


You've had my respect for quite a while now and this is an example of why. Though I highly doubt I will ever hold let alone own a firearm, that is my choice alone, you've made a different choice and no one has the right to try to take that choice away. I don't like hand guns so I like high capacity weapons even less, but that ship sailed long ago and if a criminal can get a hold of an AR-15 then you should be able to as well. I do support a universal background check and I feel it's a needed evolution of the 2nd Amendment. Our society has changed since the 2nd was amended. There's a huge need to talk to each other, I hope we can.

I've written to Senator Warren to express my stance against Feinsteins bill.

reply to post by Kali74


I have a few thoughts On reforming background checks that makes the process equitable to the individual without having to run a BGC on his/her kids to pass down the family rifle.

There are problems with the system that could be handled wisely without further eroding the bill of rights.
I think we need to focus on those solutions.

We cannot be at war with each other when it has become painfully clear that the powers that be are at war with us too.

Maybe one day I will be able to take my friend Kali to the range for some quality bonding time projectvxn style.

Date night at the rifle range.


Mike Grouchy

You know your a lucky guy when your girlfriend considers a trip to the shooting range a date.
www.youtube.com...

I wrote this thread because I am tired of fighting.
While there are truly reasons to resist and fight, what is also true and more important is that where ever this road leads us, we are only going to get there together.

Its time for the war among the people to end. There is only one enemy and that is the enemy hellbent on eroding our rights as individuals and our liberties as a people.

Originally posted by projectvxn
There are problems with the system that could be handled wisely without further eroding the bill of rights.
I think we need to focus on those solutions.

You realize that the only lawful procedure for amending the constitution is laid out in article 5?

Originally posted by projectvxn
I wrote this thread because I am tired of fighting.
While there are truly reasons to resist and fight, what is also true and more important is that where ever this road leads us, we are only going to get there together.

Its time for the war among the people to end. There is only one enemy and that is the enemy hellbent on eroding our rights as individuals and our liberties as a people.

I totally agree with you; however, you have to understand that you are talking about undoing a multi-generational brainwashing that has been going on since the early 20th century and is reinforced every day in the media.

While it is true that there should be only one enemy of the people, that being the government. It was long ago ingrained the the American psyche that they have a voice and are somehow responsible for the direction of this government through the use of the false "left/right" paradigm. It gives them (people) a good feeling thinking their side "won" or that the other side is somehow responsible for the nation's ills, when in fact both sides are in agreement of major policy direction and the subversion of our idividual liberties. Both sides of the aisle are ultimately Collectivists in theory and practice, but people won't listen to that thanks to the "illusion of choice". This country hasn't had the same heavy handed Collectivist apporoach that the old Soviet Bloc, Communist China, or even the Theocracies of the Middle East employ. We've all been conditioned to see the other side as the enemy, meanwhile Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Act led to Bush's Patriot Act whch led to Obama's NDAA.

Carroll Quiqley talked about this very issue in "Tragedy and Hope" decades ago, yet no one knows. The gov has been using the studies of Lippmann and Bernays since the 20's to manufacture consent and shape public opinion, yet people don't think they are being played as long as they have someone else to point the finger at and blame their issues on . . . as long as at least one side of our gov gives lip service to their concerns.

The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinate and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”

Tragedy and Hope pgs 1247-1248

So, while noble and absolutely correct . . . Unless we reach a point where we see only one choice and that choice doesn't represent the will of the people, people will cling to their perceived group. Even most people in Socialist/Communist countries took several years to realize that those govs weren't really "for the people". I've tried to "wake" people up on this site and in my personal life; however, every issue has a preconceived attachment to one side or the other and when you start talking about that issue . . . you get outgrouped to that "belief" and most people write you off as such.

I would love to see your thoughts be brought to practice though, as we are both in agreement of the truth of your OP.

Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by projectvxn

 

All of us benefit from the fruits of the second amendment. All of us, regardless of politics.

Well all of us benefit from it, who don't get shot because of it

Though, I am interested, what is your reason for why you think we need guns?

I'll tell you why we need guns. Let's say all guns were outlawed, and only outlaws have guns. Let's say said outlaws happen to like your house and your wife, hell, even your daughters, and they want it all. If you have zero tactical training as to how to subdue your enemy without a firearm, and they have firearms, being the average Joe Schmoe, what the fv@k are YOU gonna do to stop them, short of firepower of your own? Call the cops? Yeah, right. The cops are not here to protect you or your family. I'll tell you what you'd do. You'd watch some very bad people do very bad things to your family as you are made to watch, while you couldn't do a damn thing about it, and if you're lucky, you'd make them whack you first. If you need more reasons, I can elaborate further.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Wrabbit,

You and vxn are gonna wind up on everyone's watch-list
if you keep making sense and building consensus.

I'm willing to be hung with both of ya.

Mike Grouchy

Damn right, Grouchy. So would I.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I wrote this thread because I am tired of fighting.
While there are truly reasons to resist and fight, what is also true and more important is that where ever this road leads us, we are only going to get there together.

Its time for the war among the people to end. There is only one enemy and that is the enemy hellbent on eroding our rights as individuals and our liberties as a people.

I couldn't agree with you more, bro. There was a thread about the ''left'', ''right'' crap and I was saying the same thing. Easy for THEM when we fight amongst each other. United we stand, divided, well, we know how that turns out.

reply to post by poloblack


Actually I don't really think that is a proper way to defend the second amendment. Guns aren't entirely necessary for protection for your family--not directly anyway. I think that argument is rather weak anyway actually because the same argument can be used in the opposite direction, that guns can be used to more easily kill your family.

BUT that being said, you obviously skipped over nearly the entirety of the rest of the thread and did not see what I have posted in reply to other people... I think we need guns. But we need them to protect us, not from each other, but from the government. I'd continue to argue that point but I can't imagine you disagreeing with me there.

Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by poloblack

 

Actually I don't really think that is a proper way to defend the second amendment. Guns aren't entirely necessary for protection for your family--not directly anyway. I think that argument is rather weak anyway actually because the same argument can be used in the opposite direction, that guns can be used to more easily kill your family.

BUT that being said, you obviously skipped over nearly the entirety of the rest of the thread and did not see what I have posted in reply to other people... I think we need guns. But we need them to protect us, not from each other, but from the government. I'd continue to argue that point but I can't imagine you disagreeing with me there.

I agree with ya. BUT there are some elements in society that can't be reasoned with, and some people simply can't fathom up close and personal combat, for instance with knives. Some people don't have the stomach for that, such as a single mother, at home alone. With a gun, she could protect herself from a safe distance, if you will. Sometimes, coming from a very military and self defense oriented background, I tend to assume my adversary knows what I know, which I know is not always the case, but it keeps one from underestimating an enemy, if that makes any sense to you. And my argument was especially referring to a SHTF scenario. If there is wanton lawlessness, you had better have firepower of some sort, and not just for the .gov. Home invasions are a prime example.

reply to post by projectvxn


Make it an archery course and you have a deal. I'd love to learn archery.

I have a few thoughts On reforming background checks that makes the process equitable to the individual without having to run a BGC on his/her kids to pass down the family rifle. There are problems with the system that could be handled wisely without further eroding the bill of rights. I think we need to focus on those solutions.

I think that is important because I know many people have inherited or would like to continue handing down guns to their heirs and I haven't heard much from law makers in the way of addressing that issue and it should absolutely be addressed before law or further executive actions take place.

reply to post by Twix404

... what is your reason for why you think we need guns?

I realize this question was addressed to the OP but, if I may, I'd like to respond with my own personal opinion.

History shows that, regardless of original intent that governmental power, when centrally collected and held, is untrustworthy. Boiled down to its most basic substance; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Founding Fathers understood this... though admittedly, some more than others. But the final outcome was both correct and now, over time, has proven itself; with authority spread between a federal government, the state governments and We the People, there is (or perhaps, was) no one central source that could move to assume full control and destroy the original design.

So, in a nutshell, by having an armed citizenry, there is an otherwise dormant force that must be considered by any one or any group before making any attempt to subvert the US Constitution and its spread-delegation of power/authority.

Now, to be sure, such a decentralized power distribution runs entirely counter to the most basic concepts of socialism and, on the opposite side, what capitalism morphs into in its extremist form; fascism. In both, common people having any authority at all is not in the game plan... most assuredly, not common people with guns.

So long as we defend our constitution and refuse, under any circumstances, to allow it to be bent or broken for the benefit of those who would disarm... and by so doing, disempower the population, we will remain exactly as it was intended; an obstacle to tyranny.

Cheers

This was in the news. I think its a smart move by the states ahead of the proposed law by the Federal Government.

These bills have a long way to go before they become law - if they ever do - but states across the nation are introducing their own legislation to preemptively defeat any new federal gun laws.

In Ohio, two senators have introduced SB36, which would prohibit firearms seizures, registration and bans in their state.

Sen. Jared Carpenter introduced a bill that would prohibit Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they're enacted. The measure passed by a vote of 34-3.

The Idaho House of Representatives passed a bill that criminalizes the act of enforcing any new federal laws than ban, restrict, confiscate, or require registration of firearms or ammunition in violation of the state's constitution.

HB219 passed by a 55-13 vote.

In Louisiana, Rep. Jim Morris sponsored a bill that "prohibits the enforcement of federal restrictions regarding the ownership or possession of semi-automatic firearms."

The House Public Safety Committee in Oklahoma passed HB2021 that would also prohibit the enforcement of federal gun laws.

House Bill 1076, sponsored by Rep. Steve Toth in Texas, would disallow state and local police from enforcing new gun control measures passed by the federal government.

In Kansas, the House approved three pro-gun bills, one of which prohibits the federal government from enforcing gun laws or bans on firearms and accessories manufactured, sold, or kept in the state.

The "Arizona Firearms: Prohibited Enforcement" bill would make it a Class 6 felony for the federal government to enforce new laws or regulations on guns, accessories and ammunition owned or manufactured in the state.

Senate bill 63 in Michigan would exempt firearms and firearms accessories made and sold exclusively in Michigan from federal gun restrictions.

And in Washington State, a state that recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana, the House has introduced HB 1371 which reads as follows:

"Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable within the borders of Washington if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to: (a) Ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or (b) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner."

SOURCE

reply to post by Kali74


Well Kali, my fellow denizen of the commonwealth, color me surprised at your replies.

I have a question for you.

Do you think that congress alone may lawfully legislate or make new interpretations of portions of the Constitution they don't like without following the lawful procedure that is specifically written out in article 5 of the Constitution?

I have never supported a ban on any weapons, I don't think I would ever be ok with any type of law that infringed on the rights of Americans. I have a different opinion as to how we should deal with the current problem we have, but I would never support a ban.

I support a stricter enforcement of the current laws we have and a better system to deal with mentally unstable individuals.

reply to post by METACOMET


No, I don't think Congress has or should have the authority to make laws that actually change the Constitution. It's usually debatable whether a law does or not. So I think I'd need a specific to properly answer your question.

reply to post by redoubt


Very good! That is completely the correct way to approach the gun issue, I believe. I am pro guns, though I think the reasons of hunting and crime prevention are nearly illogical ones. I believe that every mentally stable person with a clean background deserves to own guns, for sure. HOWEVER, I only think they should be defended as a right to arm ourselves versus government, not each other.

Glad we agree, cheers back to ya.

how many more kids need shooting before the usa learn