Originally Posted By: tnshootistOn the other hand it could be that giving in to the smallest degree will not satisfy control opponents in the least.
I say fight every inch of the way. Fight every round in every magazine.
Nobody need walk in front of the bus but it would be better if gun owners of different disciplines would stick together.
If rights are lost it will be because gun owners give up other gun owners rights because they practice a different discipline.
Why should lawful owners who shoot 3gun lose their sport for example.
Nothing would please control proponents more than gun owners turning on each other.
Citizens have rights not permissions issued by the government. They work for us not the other way around. Every inch ceded is an inch lost never to be regained.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS BEARS REPEATING! ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've been around a lot longer than most here (with the possible exception of John
), entered the fight to preserve our 2A rights back in the '50s and John has absolutely nailed it!
The gun-grabbers have been around for a long, long time, and I guarantee you that they have not changed a bit, nor will they EVER, other than to turn up the volume! Their intent is to divide and conquer to the end that we are stripped of the right to "keep and bear arms".
The phrase "United we stand, divided we fall" has been attributed to John Dickinson, one of the founding fathers in the mid-1700's. The wisdom goes much farther back than that, but is equally valid today, a fact not missed by our opponents.
Originally Posted By: Mark 3:25And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand
Now for a bit of housekeeping to clarify previous post.
Quote:Hm, I don’t believe I am misguided, although I do respect your opinion to label me as such.
Quote:BD, I respect your right to your beliefs and the fact that you are personally willing to abide by those beliefs, even if it is misguided,
I apologize for the fact that my run-on sentence was not clear, leading to an understandable mis-interpretation as to my meaning. I did not intend to label you as misguided, just this particular evaluation of the cause/effect.
Sorry, but our forefathers, having just secured our freedom from an oppressive governing body, realized the importance of a "well regulated" militia to protect that precious freedom and penned the Second Amendment. And let's be clear, the 2A is NOT about hunting or recreational shooting; it is about protecting our families and our freedoms.
Let me expound a moment and share a bit of background on the wording of the 2A.
Most of the general public, and specifically our opponents either do not know, or choose to ignore the accepted meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in the mid 1700's. Well regulated referred to a well trained, NOT controlled. The amendment continues, "the right of the people", clearly identifies the right guaranteed to be an individual right as opposed to a collective right.
A more detailed and very concise interpretation can be found @
The 'Lectric Law Library
Quote:You’ve made some valid points, but I still have to go back to the fact that we as a society have decided that instruments of warfare do not belong in the hands of the general population for the simple reason that they have the power to inflict a massive amount of destruction in a short period of time.
I would beg to differ that "we as a society have decided......". I, and many others like me, all members of society, do not concede my/our right to own the means to protect my family, my country, my freedom.
Quote:I never mentioned that I was willing to give up my right to own an AR. It is a personal choice to not own one. My right to own one is still in place, for now.
Only so long as "they" (the progressives, democrats or socialists) decide to let you.
Quote:I understand the perp had a history of violence and it sure was a contributing factor in him committing this evil act. What about Stephen Paddock though? He had no criminal record and no history of a violent past. There is no way of using a system that is currently in place to screen an individual. The fact is, many people with no criminal/violent history snap, and the other end of the spectrum is many people that may have had run ins with the law or a rough upbringing change and become productive members of society.
This brings us full circle.
Originally Posted By: hm1996 These are just two of the myriad of facts which need to be considered in any intelligent attempt to reduce criminal misuse of firearms or any other tools in the commission of such heinous acts.
And while we are at it, perhaps more attention could/should be given to criminal/mental records as opposed to placing all the blame on inanimate objects.
3) The perpetrator in every mass shooting in the past several years was either mentally troubled, on mind altering drugs, or a brainwashed fanatic.
It would seem to me that targeting such misguided individuals would be much more productive in preventing these tragedies than would gun control. After all, those who have been responsible for many of these attacks around the world have used bombs, gasoline, trucks, etc. with equally deadly results.
The perpetrator of the last tragedy, for instance:
1) Was convicted of Domestic violence, served 12 months in prison and received a "less than honorable" discharge for beating and pointing a loaded firearm at his spouse and hitting his 11 month old son hard enough to crack his skull!
2) Had attempted to smuggle firearms on a military base after making death threats against his chain of command.
3) Had previously escaped from a mental institution in New Mexico.
The warnings were clear, but unfortunately fell through the cracks.
Yesterday, I suggested that more effort should be expended in accurate evaluation and consideration of mental health, drug use, criminal records, fanatical rants on Facebook, etc. which stirred up a firestorm of protest.
I realize that use of mental impairment in determining one's fitness to own a firearm is a dangerous slippery slope, but with proper safeguards, who can offer a better guideline? Maybe another "watch list", with means of appeal provided, would be helpful.
Which of the above behavior patterns would you (collectively, not individually) recommend be ignored as a qualifier to own a gun if you were in charge?
Sure, there are those like Stephen Paddock who will slip through such a system with tragic results, but how many of the other perps displayed many warning signs before committing their criminal act?
Perhaps, someone smarter than I, can figure out a way to more closely monitor those who display a propensity for violence?
I know, a lot more questions than answers, but I never claimed to have answers....just questions.
Regards,
hm
