What's new
By:

Gun Control

One Brow said:
Also, in the case of guns laws, what you have are competing Constitutional rights (broadly, self-defense vs. security against threats). Not all guns should be banned, but you can accomplish self-defense without a gun that has a magazine of 30 bullets and can fire them in 15 seconds.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're defending against.
 
One Brow said:
I don't know enough about the CFR to have an informed opinion. Your wording makes me suspicious that your are engaging in the the common confusion between believing in elitism and believing in expertise, but it's a suspicion only.
Click to expand...

The CFR tries to invite selected, influential people into its membership. It has related "committees" of lesser status around the country, around fifty in number, where there are thousands of lesser "committee members". You have to have a member sponsor to get invited, though apparently you can apply yourself. The membership rules on the site that is for public viewing states that selections are made biannually, and that they are not accepting a large number of the candidates, to preserve the elite rank membership has generally.

Important founders included the Rockefeller family and other very "elite" folks, and the "club" has strong ties with the British version of the same idea, including English nobility.

Many of our media, Hollywood, corporate, and political powerhouses are well-represented. They have a rule on "non=attribution" described as a protection of members from the general public opinion in that they can speak freely their opinions within the "club" meetings with no fear of being quoted outside. . . . .

They have excellent publicity professionals managing their press, and they do indeed select many experts from many fields whose views are compatible with their aims, which are very pro-UN and aiming at managing world affairs as well as our own national politics according to their perceived benefit.

In the overall scheme of things, they are not the only game in town, globally speaking, but they are the nerve center of "American" and "British" influence in the world.

And, no, we do not get to vote on who can sit in this council, with it's tremendous influence in our community.

I call it an end run around the public, for the purpose of managing the public without "representative" governance.
 
Scat said:
This is more about culture than anything else but the most restrictive gun controls in the country haven't done a lick of good in Chicago...
Click to expand...

You know that because you ran an experiment with a duplicate of Chicago, except for laxer gun control?
 
babe said:
And, no, we do not get to vote on who can sit in this council, with it's tremendous influence in our community.

I call it an end run around the public, for the purpose of managing the public without "representative" governance.
Click to expand...

So, you meant they were elitest in their membership. In my earlier comment, I meant the implicit support that some people had votes not worthy of counting, and that is what I meant by elitest. I don't think the two notions are directly comparable.
 
One Brow said:
What would your average citizen be defending against, that required such weaponry?
Click to expand...

I've never used a gun to defend myself. This isn't about the average or common occurrence and allowing us just enough to defend against it. It's about the unusual or extreme occurrence, and being in a position to be able to defend against that. I watched the news during the riots in L.A. after the police who beat Rodney King were acquitted and I saw people defending their homes and their businesses with firearms. In those instances an AR-15 with a large magazine is much more effective against a raging mob than a bolt action rifle or semi-auto with a 5-10rd magazine.

I'm not a doomsday prepper-type, but our right to firearms is linked to our right to defend ourselves. If I had a stash of provisions in a doomsday scenario a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine is the right tool for the job.

For all the non-gun folks. are you aware that in the gun community there is a style (stress the word style) of firearms jokingly referred to as EBR's. EBR stands for Evil Black Rifle. That's because when things Sandy Hook happen there is an outcry to ban rifles based on aesthetic qualities like pistol grips, black paint, protruding magazine, etc. While other semi-automatic rifles that look more like grandpa's old hunting rifle are viewed as acceptable.

Based on this recent tragedy I'm in a softer place as far as my stand for gun rights, but still I look around and don't see any meaningful solutions. All I see are the same attempts to impose arbitrary regulations and reduce the ability of individuals to defend themselves while doing little to nothing to actually reduce the possibility of something like this happening again.

This crazy person chose an AR-15. He could have done pretty much the same thing with a pistol and several magazines, even if those magazines were restricted to 10 or fewer rounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJF
One Brow said:
What would your average citizen be defending against, that required such weaponry?
Click to expand...

Half the gun control freaks are saying, "What good will your gun do against a tyrannical government in this day and age? The government's weapons are much too powerful."

A good portion of these same people are also saying, "Why would anyone need guns powerful enough for military use?"

And this is without mentioning future possibilities, like a major earthquake/hurricane/tornado/asteroid/volcano/virus/terrorist attack/etc sending a major area into anarchy and chaos.
 
In those instances an AR-15 with a large magazine is much more effective against a raging mob than a bolt action rifle or semi-auto with a 5-10rd magazine.
Click to expand...

So, you're talking about indicriminantly shooting into a crowd. Since you are talking about the LA riots, do you have any reason to think that people defending themselves with bolt-action rifles or hand- guns were more vunerable to the crowd than those with AR-15s?

This crazy person chose an AR-15. He could have done pretty much the same thing with a pistol and several magazines, even if those magazines were restricted to 10 or fewer rounds.
Click to expand...

Then why aren't pistols with magazines good against a crowd? It's not like a mob coordinates its attacks.
 
SaltyDawg said:
And this is without mentioning future possibilities, like a major earthquake/hurricane/tornado/asteroid/volcano/virus/terrorist attack/etc sending a major area into anarchy and chaos.
Click to expand...

You mean like Hurricane Sandy? Were guns that useful in the aftermath? Did people with AR-15s fare better than those with revolvers?
 
One Brow said:
You mean like Hurricane Sandy? Were guns that useful in the aftermath? Did people with AR-15s fare better than those with revolvers?
Click to expand...

some of your replys make me question if you are mentatlly there sometimes... i dont thin you understood what salty was refering to. was there anachry breaking out?... um not i dont think so.... ur point is rather void of purpose... sometimes i just think you like to type response and leave remarks to watch your post count go up. ( and honestly that is all your accomplishing) Oh, and you are this quote to a T "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain
 
One Brow said:
So, you're talking about indicriminantly shooting into a crowd. Since you are talking about the LA riots, do you have any reason to think that people defending themselves with bolt-action rifles or hand- guns were more vunerable to the crowd than those with AR-15s?



Then why aren't pistols with magazines good against a crowd? It's not like a mob coordinates its attacks.
Click to expand...

No I'm talking about taking aimed shots at a mob attacking you or trying to loot your property. There are instances where they may very well coordinate their attacks, like, if you have a bunch of supplies in the aftermath of a natural disaster in which some people fear starving to death.

The guy in Sandy Hook was killing small children. He didn't need the AR-15, nor did it result in him killing more than he could have with pistols. He was shooting small children at close range. What gun regulation would you like to impose to make that event less deadly and tragic?
 
Gameface said:
No I'm talking about taking aimed shots at a mob attacking you or trying to loot your property. There are instances where they may very well coordinate their attacks, like, if you have a bunch of supplies in the aftermath of a natural disaster in which some people fear starving to death...
Click to expand...

lord knows you'll need them once the stampeding masses find out about that stash of Twinkies you've hidden away!
 
significantly improved medical care, particularly in the ER and by first responders

the AMA has done significant research on this, look it up

also, gun sales do not necessarily equate to gun usage
 
JGolds said:
some of your replys make me question if you are mentatlly there sometimes... i dont thin you understood what salty was refering to. was there anachry breaking out?... um not i dont think so.... ur point is rather void of purpose... sometimes i just think you like to type response and leave remarks to watch your post count go up. ( and honestly that is all your accomplishing) Oh, and you are this quote to a T "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain
Click to expand...

Take that advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top