He easily could have dominated that discussion without yelling. DOminate but keep it together.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
He easily could have dominated that discussion without yelling. DOminate but keep it together.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Possibly. It is kind of normal for the first couple minutes then he kicks into high gear, and it looks like he is trying to get kicked off to me after that. Then he could've came out and said Piers Morgan tried to silence my viewpoint. But since Piers let him keep talking, he gladly obliged. There is no doubt he is part sensationalist/salesman.
Ron Paul is the nice guy version of Alex Jones. You can compare and contrast how the two different approaches benefit/detract by looking at those two.
I didn't think about the youtube hits on that video. Good point.
I'd like to see a mix of Jones and Paul. Be willing to take it to the next level when needed.
What do you think of the "Civil War if you try to take our guns" angle Duck, Babe, One Brow, Gyp, Candrew...
Thing about the civil war angle...we don't need to go there. My guess is and has been that very little will be accomplished in regard to gun control. Every day that goes by people get that much less enthusiastic about passing gun control legislation and the pro-2nd Amendment crowd isn't getting any less energized about protecting gun rights. The moment of opportunity fro gun control is quickly fading. We (pro-gun rights folks) can really just sit back and not give in to any silly new regulations and eventually this will go away.
I honestly think there are certain things that will get enough support to pass. I am pro gun, I own 2, and will not support removing weapons from homes.
However I could get on board with attaching mental health records to background checks if done right. I also could get on board with a limit/control on the size of clips. That second one I think would mostly be to make people feel better as it does not really change anything as you yourself have argued GF.
I agree that the whole "This means Civil War" crowd is jumping the gun. They have not even heard what the proposals are yet. Not only that but I cannot see police going into homes in their local towns and removing weapons. There are plenty of towns here in southern Utah where the police force would refuse to do so.
Edit: Reason I bring it up is that I have heard it quite a few times in very public places lately. It seems much louder than usual.
Well confiscation would certainly lead to confrontations. There are just too many people with thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns that they love almost as much as their own families. I can tell you that if I was told the guns I own were now banned and I had to give them up I wouldn't. Not willingly, anyway. If the cops knocked on the door with a list of the guns the believed I owned and said hand 'em over or we're coming in I'd go ahead and hand them over. But short something like that I just wouldn't turn them in and claim that I had sold them all. I have actually sold more of my guns than I currently own, mostly through KSL so I don't have any information on who I sold them to. With the exception of my AR-15, which I made a receipt for and took down the guys CCL#. Anyway, if there was a ban that was retroactive I expect they'd just ask for voluntary forfeiture and might even have enough sense to offer some degree of compensation. Then they'd just confiscate them as they came across them and charge whoever owned them with an assault weapons crime on top of anything else they might be charging them with.
The Ammo magazine cap bugs me a lot. It's not an anti-crime measure, it's a reduce the effectiveness of firearms measure. Very few crimes hinge on access to large capacity magazines. VERY VERY few. In the cases where someone does use them it might at the most make the difference between them killing 10 people or 11. without the higher capacity magazine they could still go on a rampage and kill several people, and they can change magazines or weapons and continue their rampage. Larger magazines aren't what makes killing sprees a problem. It's just not. It's a red herring that anti-gun folks have latched onto and it's a fight they think they might be able to win so they're making a full court press on it. So that's an issue I personally don't support at all.
A more effective and robust background check I'm all for. However, I have one big concern. I've said all along that the I believe the right to own firearms is tired directly to our right as individuals to defend our own lives. That's based on my larger belief that each individual owns their own existence, for better or worse. These ideas for me are separate and superior to any concern for public welfare. So, an individual who has not violated the law or made direct threats to others should not have their freedom to defend them self denied. I worry that this push could cause a whole bunch of people who have a marginally greater statistical chance of being a mass shooter to have their right to firearms denied. That is unacceptable to me as I think the standard needs to be pretty high before we deny people that right. So I have concerns.
Like I say, the anti-gun folks need to strike while the iron is hot and find something at least some gun rights supporters agree with, otherwise nothing is going to get passed. I'm all for gun supporters dragging thier feet until the support dies down and it's impractical once again to even broach the subject.
The Ammo magazine cap bugs me a lot. It's not an anti-crime measure, it's a reduce the effectiveness of firearms measure. Very few crimes hinge on access to large capacity magazines. VERY VERY few. In the cases where someone does use them it might at the most make the difference between them killing 10 people or 11. without the higher capacity magazine they could still go on a rampage and kill several people, and they can change magazines or weapons and continue their rampage. Larger magazines aren't what makes killing sprees a problem. It's just not. It's a red herring that anti-gun folks have latched onto and it's a fight they think they might be able to win so they're making a full court press on it. So that's an issue I personally don't support at all.
A more effective and robust background check I'm all for. However, I have one big concern. I've said all along that the I believe the right to own firearms is tired directly to our right as individuals to defend our own lives. That's based on my larger belief that each individual owns their own existence, for better or worse. These ideas for me are separate and superior to any concern for public welfare. So, an individual who has not violated the law or made direct threats to others should not have their freedom to defend them self denied. I worry that this push could cause a whole bunch of people who have a marginally greater statistical chance of being a mass shooter to have their right to firearms denied. That is unacceptable to me as I think the standard needs to be pretty high before we deny people that right. So I have concerns.
Like I say, the anti-gun folks need to strike while the iron is hot and find something at least some gun rights supporters agree with, otherwise nothing is going to get passed. I'm all for gun supporters dragging thier feet until the support dies down and it's impractical once again to even broach the subject.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Civil war just implies something way too big to happen over guns rights to me. Economic events could cause one though. 1000 little Wacos seems like something more accurate that would happen if full on gun confiscation started tomorrow or something. In a place like Syria all you have to do to get a civil war going is stir the nest of a few main cities; that's not the way it would work here.
I think it is a real possibility. Here is my scenario.
Gun laws get passed that make owning an "assault rifle" or handgun illegal. Cops are dispatched to round up the guns in their area based on registrations. The cops in places like Parowan UT refuse to confiscate the guns. Then the federal government has a problem. They can either make their law worthless or send in the military. That gives them the problem of do they send in local units or units from other states.
So now you have the 222 Utah Guard Unit (from osuthern Utah) going into Parowan to confiscate guns. Well some people in that unit are from Parowan! So you are right back to square one. Let's say that some in that unit want to do it anyways. Will the whole unit go along, will the whole unit go "rogue" or will they split? Let's say they split. Well now you have militarily equipped people on both sides.
Let's say that they use army units and send them to places that they have no association with. Such as sending the 222 to the small towns in Michigan. Do they still do it or do they refuse. I still see enough people associating those small towns with their own to either split the unit or have it go rogue.
Once they go rogue do they raid their base/armory for arms? The 222 has a wide range of military vehicle. Such humvees with .50s to smaller tanks to military helicopters. That suddenly changes everything.
This is why I don't think there is ever going to be a door-to-door confiscation. Besides that, there is no such thing as gun registration in most of the U.S. Not officially. The records from the background checks that are performed when you purchase a firearm are supposed to be destroyed at a certain point. CA, IL maybe NY and DC have handgun registration (someone please correct me if it's a lot more than this) but most places don't have any registration. It's a point the NRA has taken a pretty hard line on and won for the most part. So there is no master list of the guns you're purchased...again, not officially at least.
Door to door confiscation is so over the top even from the most extreme steps that are currently being suggested. That's just not where we're headed. Even if "assault weapons" were banned and there was no grandfather clause I assume there would be a voluntary forfeiture period and I'd hope at least some form of compensation. After the voluntary forfeiture period expires it'd be a felony to be found in possession of anything classified as an assault weapon. That way they just slowly pull the rest out of circulation as they stumble across them. Of course, if you're pretty much a peaceful, law-abiding citizen you could probably keep a stash under your floor-boards and no one would be the wiser. But you wouldn't dare go out to the west desert and actually get proficient with your semi-auto rifles. It'd be your own private symbol of defiance and not much more, since in reality all we're talking about are semi-auto rifles that accept detachable large capacity magazines. Many hunting rifles are semi-auto rifles that have internal magazines. I doubt they are going to go there as these rifles have wooden stocks and don't look nearly as threatening, although they almost always use much higher powered ammo than an AR-15. It's the EBR effect. Get rid of the scary black rifles and all will be well in the world.
larryselbows
Banned
Anybody catch the gun rant on CNN last night?
[video=youtube_share;ror9v2LwHoY]https://youtu.be/ror9v2LwHoY
[video=youtube_share;ror9v2LwHoY]https://youtu.be/ror9v2LwHoY
larryselbows
Banned
[video=youtube_share;t-v1UXFMzl0]https://youtu.be/t-v1UXFMzl0
larryselbows
Banned
lol, my bad.
Teachers love their guns too.
https://www.courant.com/news/connec...ers-to-use-guns-0109-20130108,0,4582657.story
https://www.courant.com/news/connec...ers-to-use-guns-0109-20130108,0,4582657.story
"Civil War" isn't the right term here.
First of all, I've got a book called "Treason in America" authored by one of Lyndon LaRouche's world management cadets that explored the activities of British agents, and others in obvious ways sporting British views and aims, in promoting the causes of Abolitionists in the North as well as Secessionists in the South in the run up to our 1861-1865 "civil war".
That war was a classic Machiavellian maneuver intended to balkanize the Union and allow British international cartels to again control the colonies. . . . Abraham Lincoln was the choice of the New York bankers under the mesmerization of sophisticated English aristocrats in various high and holy social circles. . . . and they expected that his election would precipitate the secession of Southern States. . .. but he turned out to be a huge disappointment in that he refused to anybody else's man. He had his own star to guide him, and he believed in human freedom at least in the freedom of the United States from England.
But the British were willing to bide their time, and after the war their financial tycoons moved into the United States like the carpetbaggers moved into the South, and took effective control through their financial dealings which has persisted to this day.
The ideals of the American Revolution have indeed suffered in the extreme under the influence of neo-colonialist sophisitry.
If we have to fight for our liberty, as we in fact must, the age of the gun is over. We will have to get smarter than the British, that's all it will take. And maybe impeach Obama whose chief intellectual deficit is his love of power and his willingness to subordinate all of his ideological hinge points to pleasing his puppet-masters.
I know some folks who expect to fight for their constitutional government. Like Alex Jones, they all suffer from a lack of actual understanding, and wouldn't know who to shoot at if the shooting starts.
I grew up studying LDS doctrine and prophecy, and understood that there would be a time of great civil strife, and even the Bible prophesies people in the last days being in unprecedented horrific times of trouble. I was disappointed many years ago when I knew the leaders of the LDS church, and knew their proclivities for playing a part in the last great evil government man would create. I hardly expect the likes of Romney, Huntsman, Hatch, or Reid to be in the fight to save the US Constitution.
But if anyone wants to sit out of the shooting and mayhem, it is time to find some place to gather and choose peace and refuse to be a part of the killing. So here's a hint. Don't think Chicago or any gun-free zone is going to be a place of peace.
"The New World Order" will make earlier horrors of unrestrained government in the hands of evil ambitious and paranoid men look pretty tame. But there is no place on earth where there is sufficient cognizance of the either the problem or the solution, and so it is time to vote with your feet. Come to Utah.
The LDS church has placed susbstantial amounts of money, man power adn resources into"modernizing" places. Like adding plumbing to young women camps and making out of the way places viable. I think Utah (and other LDS dominated areas like Idaho) would handle any extreme civil strife better than almost anywhere else in the US on a societal level.
this is indeed a very minimal assessment of community preparations here for human needs in time of trouble, but I was thinking more of the "critical mass" of public sentiments and virtues. People who will help their neighbors in time of need. Of how neighbors in Utah communities, particularly Mormons in their wards, would roll outta their houses to speak up against some pre-gulag gun confiscation squad breaking down Brother Jones' front door in the middle of the night.
I'm still waiting for the lights to come on at KSL news, though. They're still parroting the mainstream news talking points like any other stupid local news outfit.
The small Utah town of Spring City, in central Utah. . . sporting about a thousand residents and maygbe two hundred homes tops, has recommended every home be equipped with personal defense weapons, and announced a program to assist with concealed carry permit training, and other weapon training. Some whiners are threatening to sue against public funds being dispensed for such purposes, but it's actually very cost-effective compared to paying for a city cop to park in front of the Seven-Eleven all night drinking the free hot chocolate or Slurpees or Dr. Pepper, trying to stay awake. . . .
And if Alex Jones isn't just up in the night worrying about UN armadas of swat teams driving into town to pick up all the guns. . . . well, in this town the cop or maybe sherriff, with about a hundred "deer hunters" trained to shoot responsibly would make the three vehicles with military equipment decide to just turn around and go to the next town. . . .
So come to Utah, folks, and help declare a totalitarian governance-free zone no SRI/prozac dude would choose for a place to make a grand stand against the world by shooting unprotected kids.
I have to admit that I enojoy reading your posts Babe. Very ... provacative. I was just reading about the Spring City "recomendation". They are also trying to arm and train the 20+ elementary school teachers/officials.
As for the UN angle. If the UN (foreign troops) came onto US soil to confiscate guns there would be war. Send a UN platoon into a place like Cold Water MS to take peoples guns away and the next time you see those troops is when their bodies are dumped off at the morgue.
As for the UN angle. If the UN (foreign troops) came onto US soil to confiscate guns there would be war. Send a UN platoon into a place like Cold Water MS to take peoples guns away and the next time you see those troops is when their bodies are dumped off at the morgue.
didn't you mean check post #536? This thread is only on page 14 on my computer.
Bud...
:wink:
I thought about that after I posted. Figured larryselbows was a default settings kind of guy and let it go.