Polymer80 may survive the court battle but not their own reputation....

[serger]

In my family, gun control aversion is a big thing.

Both my parents were southerners. My mom had really old aunts
and uncles. Her father, the baby was born when his mom was 47
& had a brother who was 30 years older than him. When I was in
kinder garden one of them told the story of her mom as a child
being in one of the last groups on the Trail of Tears and herded
to the Oklahoma Territory in the late 1840's+/-.

Even though they didn't hate the government, she said they would
never let it happen again. And LBJ was a Texas A**h*** for trying to
confiscate our guns in a conversation a couple years later, probably
1968 or 69.

My father a Korean war Army vet, said he would flat out shoot every
commie bastard that showed up to take his stuff.

Then there's me and my high school story..

In debate class we had the pro/anti gun control debate. I was anti
gun control. For the debate, I brought a 3/4" dia. piece of pipe, a pipe
cap, a baggie with 2 tablespoons of paper match heads and a partial
roll of 1/4 inch plumbers solder to class.

When I was called on for my presentation I did a pass around show and
tell. I told the class they were handling a shot gun and after explaining it's
parts, said if the "Pro" gun control folks could tell us how they would
keep this stuff from people I would join them. Paladin Press was my
friend. Even back then I knew the ones with the guns had the control.

My side won that debate. And the ones with the guns? Well you know
or you probably wouldn't probably here.

 

[James Moore]

Criminals are not part of this discussion

Is that a joke or are you really that naive?
Criminals are the basis for every Libtard argument advocating for infringement of our 2A rights.

I don't understand how you can call people nincompoops for believing that putting limitations on a Constitutional right is an infringement. Are you sure you understand what an infringement is?

 

[Knack]

"If I don't use them to break laws that protect others lives, property or the pursuit of happiness, why shouldn't I be able to buy a Howitzer?"

And you want me (or anyone) to take your comments and point of view seriously? I will confess to sarcasm but subtlety is not one of my qualities. I don't think you really grasped what I wrote. Perhaps if you read the whole thread again. Or not. Suit yourself.

Good to know that someone who doesn't subscribe to your narrative is a libtard. Good luck with that in winning the great struggle that seems to be causing you so much anxiety. Because calling people names is the best way to win an argument. In the fifth grade.

 

[CECannonJr]

"If I don't use them to break laws that protect others lives, property or the pursuit of happiness, why shouldn't I be able to buy a Howitzer?"

And you want me (or anyone) to take your comments and point of view seriously? I will confess to sarcasm but subtlety is not one of my qualities. I don't think you really grasped what I wrote. Perhaps if you read the whole thread again. Or not. Suit yourself.

Good to know that someone who doesn't subscribe to your narrative is a libtard. Good luck with that in winning the great struggle that seems to be causing you so much anxiety. Because calling people names is the best way to win an argument. In the fifth grade.

I don't think you understand our Constitution very well. Especially the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson​

 

[brian]

Good to know that someone who doesn't subscribe to your narrative is a libtard. Good luck with that in winning the great struggle that seems to be causing you so much anxiety. Because calling people names is the best way to win an argument. In the fifth grade.

We are all human and at some point have a tendency to break down to the basics which at times is simple labeling. I am guilty of the same issue so I am not throwing stones. The ultimate point of our founding fathers is that we the people stand dominion over those we grant authority to govern us. As such, we the people ultimately have control (and as such the rights to control). I get your point - no I really don't want my neighbor having a nuclear bomb or weapons of mass destruction. The counter point is, if "government" has control of them then is that any better? In the end, we don't control either as they are made up of people - which I think is ultimately why the founding fathers drew up the words they did in their ultimate wisdom. Diffuse central control. Many founding fathers wanted a weak central government, no standing military, etc. and felt so for a reason.

 

[One Ping Only]

The same press and MSM who brings these inflated “guns” stories are same feces peddlers that brought us the scamdemic, funded by the same evil entities with a decidedly anti-US Constitution, Anti-freedom agenda.

I rest my case.

 

[James Moore]

"If I don't use them to break laws that protect others lives, property or the pursuit of happiness, why shouldn't I be able to buy a Howitzer?"

And you want me (or anyone) to take your comments and point of view seriously? I will confess to sarcasm but subtlety is not one of my qualities. I don't think you really grasped what I wrote. Perhaps if you read the whole thread again. Or not. Suit yourself.

Good to know that someone who doesn't subscribe to your narrative is a libtard. Good luck with that in winning the great struggle that seems to be causing you so much anxiety. Because calling people names is the best way to win an argument. In the fifth grade.

Yep, Libtard 101.
It was your "overly dramatic" example I was referring to.
You used Howitzer, so I used Howitzer.

If you had made an example based in reality, like "Some truly believe that their inability to buy a Glock 19 at Home Dept is infringing.", rather than a Howitzer, then you wouldn't, in the Libtard fashion, be able to use an out of context quote to make me look like a "nincompoop".

 

[Knack]

<eye roll>

 

[Racer88]

<eye roll>

To be fair, you used the exact same (reductio ad absurdum) argument as the anti-2A faction with the "howitzer" (tanks, nukes, rocket launchers, etc).

I understand that it's easy to fall back on the popular and oft-repeated canards and tropes, especially when you're new to the world of privately owned firearms. Believe me... I've been there, too. I've learned a lot since then. I've even read books that focused entirely on the history of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. Fascinating stuff.

The prescience and intelligence of the Founders is truly astonishing. And they did what they did without telephones, computers, internet, air travel, etc. Just amazing. And they got it done quickly! I'm quite certain they were aliens who could see into the future.

I'll start with this first book recommendation:

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms​

by Stephen Halbrook

https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Independent-Political/dp/1566639719

 

[Knack]

We are all human and at some point have a tendency to break down to the basics which at times is simple labeling. I am guilty of the same issue so I am not throwing stones. The ultimate point of our founding fathers is that we the people stand dominion over those we grant authority to govern us. As such, we the people ultimately have control (and as such the rights to control). I get your point - no I really don't want my neighbor having a nuclear bomb or weapons of mass destruction. The counter point is, if "government" has control of them then is that any better? In the end, we don't control either as they are made up of people - which I think is ultimately why the founding fathers drew up the words they did in their ultimate wisdom. Diffuse central control. Many founding fathers wanted a weak central government, no standing military, etc. and felt so for a reason.

Well said. Nobody is advocating for more government. Quite the opposite. I know gaslighting when I see it.

What some people seem to vigorously defend is that liberty means no rules at all. They are just as corrosive to our fundamental gun right as so-called "libtards". Guntards fuel antigun sentiment with their juvenile antics and the insane things they post online, the most common of which is advocating what any sensible person recognizes as vigilantism. One of the pillars of anarchy. That is the essence of what I said here.

I think it's also important to note that most of that braggadocio I refer to is exactly that. Pompous keyboard commandos pretending to have big balls and talking tough. An assortment of grumpy old men pissed off at the world, dumb kids, and toothless mouth breathers with mullets blowing up the junk cars and refrigerators in their yard with tannerite. Still, all of them play into the hands of gun control advocates. And the gun community laps it up as entertainment. It's been said to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. The left, anti-gun lobby appears to wisely heed that advice.

My father once posited in a sermon, Is your faith so weak that you become angry and strike out against those who criticize it? I think there's a parallel to that in the gun community. Wisdom always prevails. Eventually. It seems that I disagree with some on what is wise and what isnt.

Those that don't see gun jackassery and what most rational people would consider antisocial comments online as a problem, may want to consider that they live in a bubble. Or accept that they are contributing to it and inspiring others to be anti-gun. It's self defeating.

 

[Knack]

To be fair, you used the exact same (reductio ad absurdum) argument as the anti-2A faction with the "howitzer" (tanks, nukes, rocket launchers, etc).

I understand that it's easy to fall back on the popular and oft-repeated canards and tropes, especially when you're new to the world of privately owned firearms. Believe me... I've been there, too. I've learned a lot since then. I've even read books that focused entirely on the history of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. Fascinating stuff.

The prescience and intelligence of the Founders is truly astonishing. And they did what they did without telephones, computers, internet, air travel, etc. Just amazing. And they got it done quickly! I'm quite certain they were aliens who could see into the future.

I'll start with this first book recommendation:

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms​

by Stephen Halbrook

https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Independent-Political/dp/1566639719

No. A sweeping generalization is not calling someone a name.

 

[Racer88]

No. A generalization is not calling someone a name.

Eh? Responding to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about generalizations or name calling in my comment.

Wait... I did call the Founders "aliens."

 

[James Moore]

Nobody is advocating for more government.

Again, is this a joke or are you really that naive?

Maybe you meant to say that, you're not advocating for more Government. You'd be wrong, but it could be understood that you think you're right.

 

[Knack]

Eh? Responding to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about generalizations or name calling in my comment.

Wait... I did call the Founders "aliens."

Some have speculated that humankind's concept of God, angels, etc. were in fact aliens. I'm uncertain.

 

[Racer88]

Again, is this a joke or are you really that naive?

Maybe you meant to say that, you're not advocating for more Government. You'd be wrong, but it could be understood that you think you're right.

I think he meant "Nobody (HERE) is advocating for more gov't."

Certainly, about half the country advocates for more and more gov't.

Where I disagree with @Knack is his assertion that it's "our fault" that there are more gun laws being promoted. Or that it's the fault of over-zealous "gun nuts." No. It is not. The reason for more and more gun control laws is that middle word in the phrase... CONTROL.

The reality is that the anti-liberty faction in this country wants us to have NO guns. They may claim "safety" and point to the "gun nuts," because that's EASY. They find it hard to admit the REAL reasons... they don't want us to have ANY guns. And the reason for THAT is that if we have guns, they cannot CONTROL US.

Using the bullshit "safety" angle is just a ruse to garner more support from the unthinking muggles.

The reason for "gun control" isn't guys like FPS Russia blowing shit up with Tannerite. That's just a convenient ruse.

 

[James Moore]

I think he meant "(nobody HERE) is advocating for more gov't."

Certainly, about half the country advocates for more and more gov't.

I'll accept that, but like I said, he'd still be wrong. Even advocating that convicted felons shouldn't have firearms or advocating background checks, even that nincompoops shouldn't be armed is "More Government".

 

[CECannonJr]

I'll accept that, but like I said, he'd still be wrong. Even advocating that convicted felons shouldn't have firearms or advocating background checks, even that nincompoops shouldn't be armed is "More Government".

The bottom line is that any and all gun laws other than the 2nd Amendment are infringements. The Howitzer argument isn't ridiculous at all. Our Founders were afraid of a standing military because they had just experienced the British military being turned on their own people. They recognized the necessity of a standing military so our new nation could defend itself, so their intent was that the people would be on equal footing with the military. That meant that the people are required by law to be able to own any and all terrible implements that the military possesses.

Man has not changed. We have the same risks today that our founders had then, except the genius of their system has been systematically eroded.

 

[Knack]

Out come the no rules advocates marching in with their tinfoil tricorns and ceremonial muskets.

But seriously, herein are some classic examples and the hazard of living in an echo chamber, which means like minded people only talking to each other.

It's about pointing out a weakness. Which I'm suggesting will end in loss. Deny it? Fine. Just own it when that happens. As my Uncle Bob used to say, Some people deny there's fly shit in the sugar.

Time will tell. Now I have to get back to work.

 

[James Moore]

Out come the no rules advocates marching in with their tinfoil tricorns and ceremonial muskets.

But seriously, herein are some classic examples and the hazard of living in an echo chamber, which means like minded people only talking to each other.

It's about pointing out a weakness. Which I'm suggesting will end in loss. Deny it? Fine. Just own it when that happens. As my Uncle Bob used to say, Some people deny there's fly shit in the sugar.

Time will tell. Now I have to get back to work.

I'm not sure what has made you believe that I don't think there should be rules. I'm not an anarchist, I understand that society needs rules, as does the government.

The 2nd rule for the government is not to infringe on my RIGHT to bear arms.

There are several rules in place that I must abide by. For instance, I shouldn't use my arms to steal maim or kill except in defense of my person or property.
If people can't abide by the rules that a free society needs to prosper, then they should be imprisoned or in some cases executed.
Again you're regurgitating the Libtard Kool-aid that anyone who doesn't think their rights should be conditioned on the behavior of others is an anarchist.

 

[RagnoROOK]

I'll try to simplify. People who take no interest in government get what they are given. Or deserve. Half the country doesn't bother to vote, couldn't tell you the names of the representatives, or describe the branches of government. Others are diabolical. They work the system to exploit the rights and freedoms we have. They advocate for laws or regulation that they say refine or modernize our fundamental rights. Like writing laws that regulate certain types of guns or devices. Or mandate diversity and inclusion with quotas vs. assuring opportunity for everyone based on merit.

Humans do need rules to live by. Everything in a civilized world needs to have some guardrails to assure order. The guy next door should not be able to buy a Howitzer and ammunition for it or six pounds of Semtex at Home Depot. But the need for provision of rules and guardrails gets exploited by people with an agenda.

My observation is a staggering number of people confuse freedom and individual liberty with anarchy. I'll give an intentionally overdramatic example: Some truly believe that their inability to buy a Howitzer or plastic explosives at Home Dept is infringing. These people are stupid. Their dislike, often hatred, for any sort of government is a product of their low IQ. Ironically, one reason we have restrictive laws and regulations is because of them. Because good judgement and common sense eludes them.

This has become cliche, but it sums up my point of view about people who talk about the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the motivations and philosophy of our founders but really never read any of it:

Wanda: Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people. Apes are smarter than you.
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy
Wanda: Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

Petulant government haters are just as dangerous to ordered society as the lowlife who riot, shoplift in mobs, or otherwise dismiss the rule of law and even basic decency.

I dont disagree with your thoughts and writing about the 2A or other freedoms. I'm simply suggesting that the number of people who understand all that is a very small club. I am firmly planted in the 80/20 philosophy. Twenty percent of humanity does all the thinking. The rest are dumb as rocks. Our founders were not a bunch of musket toting bubbas who simply resented authority. These were educated, intelligent men with a vision who among other things believed men should not be governed by kings and despots. I think we can agree on that too. The question is, where are those leaders in today's world? That intellect cannot be found in Obama, Biden, nor Trump. They are all game show hosts playing to their audience.

It's not a straw man. The actual numbers of nincompoops who think every gun law is infringement is not fallacy. It's an easy pattern to detect in what people say in forums, reddit, social media. Wackos. It's disproportionate to the sensible people in those same groups.

I said was being intentionally overdramatic mentioning a Howitzer. But if arms in the context of the 2A are anything a person can 'bear' that includes a lot. How about hand grenades? Full auto weapons? Why are knives of a certain length or brass knuckles restricted in most states? The answer is because irresponsible people who use them for the wrong reasons.

I'll say it again. An excess of regulation is enabled by the stupid and irresponsible among us. I read that Col. Jeff Cooper once wrote that owning a gun doesnt make someone armed any more than owning a guitar makes someone a musician. Paraphrasing the Colonel, owning a gun doesn't make anyone smart, righteous, or a right-fighter. Or a hedge against tyranny. There's no IQ or civics test required for buying one. So we have a lot of regulation.

As a newcomer to the gun community I may see things differently. It could be that what I'm observing is that the knobs do most of the talking on gun forums, especially the big ones like Reddit. The sensible, reasonable members of the community are more reserved. A silent majority? Perhaps that is the case.

With that I have to get to work. Maybe we can resume this at another time.

Well said. Nobody is advocating for more government. Quite the opposite. I know gaslighting when I see it.

What some people seem to vigorously defend is that liberty means no rules at all. They are just as corrosive to our fundamental gun right as so-called "libtards". Guntards fuel antigun sentiment with their juvenile antics and the insane things they post online, the most common of which is advocating what any sensible person recognizes as vigilantism. One of the pillars of anarchy. That is the essence of what I said here.

I think it's also important to note that most of that braggadocio I refer to is exactly that. Pompous keyboard commandos pretending to have big balls and talking tough. An assortment of grumpy old men pissed off at the world, dumb kids, and toothless mouth breathers with mullets blowing up the junk cars and refrigerators in their yard with tannerite. Still, all of them play into the hands of gun control advocates. And the gun community laps it up as entertainment. It's been said to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. The left, anti-gun lobby appears to wisely heed that advice.

My father once posited in a sermon, Is your faith so weak that you become angry and strike out against those who criticize it? I think there's a parallel to that in the gun community. Wisdom always prevails. Eventually. It seems that I disagree with some on what is wise and what isnt.

Those that don't see gun jackassery and what most rational people would consider antisocial comments online as a problem, may want to consider that they live in a bubble. Or accept that they are contributing to it and inspiring others to be anti-gun. It's self defeating.

Splash some water on your face, breathe, and read again. You furiously typed out these messages without reading and understanding what has been said to you. You’re too busy fighting with Reddit boogeymen, which is counterproductive: when you fight with an idiot, no one can tell the difference.

You write lengthy posts, indicating there’s plenty of thought going on; stop trying to fight your allies and spend more time figuring out who your adversaries truly are.

I think you’ll find most of us seek to “level the playing field” with these tools, not to abuse the power they come with.

Some of us even seek to level the playing field because we’ve experienced abuse of authority first-hand. It doesn’t mean we’re insurrection-ing or whatever false equivalent you would like to propose; we just oppose more concessions to our abusers.