Gun owners contributing to loss of Second Amendment?

[smithra_66]

It may have been perfectly legal but was done in poor taste. A bunch of camouflaged make believe gunfighters and imaginary front yard warriors presented a poor image of gun owners in general. These folks used no discretion. They made an appearance for themselves and no one else. Their purpose was obviously intimidation. The Second Amendment took a beackseat to their goofiness. There's really nothing arguable here.

So, just carrying a firearm is in "poor taste?"

Why? Because the modern media says so?

Nothing whatsoever happened. No crimes were committed, no buildings were burned, no stores were looted. Simply free people exercising their rights guaranteed by our founding documents.

THAT's poor taste????

 

[LVSteve]

BTW, The video and the article shows, two different sources, show the government IS, in deed, going out and confiscating registered firearms from citizens. If that's NOT confiscation, then what is it?

...in that jurisdiction, and it's hardly new. I know I generally say don't give an inch (moved here from the UK, so I know how bad it can get), but the 80% lower thing was going to bite us in the butt at some point, just like bumpstocks. On the latter, I know some pretty hardcore/gung-ho gun folks here in Nevada, and they all shook their heads on that subject long before the Harvest Music Festival shooting here.

 

[Ματθιας]

Someone possessing a weapon they already know is legally problematic trying to make it okay by online registration doesn't get me exercised, particularly when he knew others had similar weapons illegal under state law seized as contraband. No, it's not an example of a registered legal firearm being 'confiscated.'

Pushing legal limits can have consequences.

It is, however an example of the state using a registration data base in order to confiscate firearms, "legal" or not.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Any hoplophobe who came across this thread would realize very quickly how divided even hard core gun owners are. Gun owners dedicated enough to register and post on a very polite and well managed internet gun forum. View some threads on some of the internet's gun and rights zoos out there, and it gets even worse, but at least there's more profanity.

We can't even agree on what a Fudd actually is, much less how and when to carry firearms and what to do when firearms ride the fine line of legality . . .

 

[rockquarry]

So, just carrying a firearm is in "poor taste?"

Why? Because the modern media says so?

Nothing whatsoever happened. No crimes were committed, no buildings were burned, no stores were looted. Simply free people exercising their rights guaranteed by our founding documents.

THAT's poor taste????

I didn't address a lack of violence and crimes. There was no need as those things didn't happen. If you'll read the post, it's quite self-explanatory. Relax and rise above your obsessiveness with the media and also your need to treat arguing, particularly without basis, as a competitive sport.

 

[biku324]

Any hoplophobe who came across this thread would realize very quickly how divided even hard core gun owners are. Gun owners dedicated enough to register and post on a very polite and well managed internet gun forum. View some threads on some of the internets zoos out there, and it gets even worse, but at least there's more profanity.

We can't even agree on what a Fudd actually is, much less how and when to carry firearms and what to do when firearms ride the fine line of legality . . .

Precisely.

 

[Model52guy]

Most people who believe we need to compromise have never read the constitution much less the second amendment. They have no idea the second amendment was adopted to keep the government from imposing its will on the people. There is no acceptable compromise. Any compromise is the beginning of the end to our freedom as Americans.

 

[ladder13]

Yeah good luck getting Beto O'Rourke to agree with you.

Like it or not, there ARE sides on this issue. One of those sides is dead wrong.

I'm not going to play nice with people who don't believe in the constitution or in the concept of individual liberty, especially when it comes to firearms.

And actually, the reasons we have what we have right now come directly from the barrels of guns. Look at history.

Agreed, to say nothing of the Declaration of Independence which was justified by Jefferson using our natural rights. Not something given us by the whim of others.
The D of I specifically mentions rights endowed by our Creator. The first two paragraphs of that document are clear.

Anything else is just poppycock as some have a habit of saying.

That's our American history. We need make no excuses.

 

[usmc 1978]

I've never seen legal firearms confiscated (meaning kept and/or disposed) in this country from lawful owners, even when I used to live in a place where handgun possession required a permit. Pardon me if I don't buy it that such is imminent, I've heard it since the '70s. Again, firearms, ammunition, and the ability to carry and/or use the same have never been easier from the standpoint of Federal laws.

Let's talk facts. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and just because it may not have happened doesn't mean it won't. The fact is there are places where some guns have been banned. Ask someone in CT about their semi-auto rifle. They either complied and got rid of it, or they thumbed their nose and hid it. That is de facto confiscation, because now they better never take it to a public range; they better be careful who knows they have it; and when they die their kids will likely turn it in. And CT isn't the only place such a situation exists.

 

[Jon651]

There's nothing wrong or illegal with showing the government that the citizenry has some bite.

Absolutely nothing happened at those protests and open carry in that state is 100% legal.

I'm not sure why you'd think that was bad? Did the mainstream media push you into that thought?

One of the reasons I agreed with Dockmurgw's post is because I believe equating GUNS with POLITICS is often done unthoughtfully - on both sides. Sure, it is Constitutionally-protected to peacefully assemble, voice your opinion, and carry a firearm - but did any of those guys who did that at the Michigan State House honestly stop to consider if that was the BEST way to convince our elected leaders - and everyone else watching on TV - of the validity of their opinion?

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it, and every one of those demonstrators in Michigan got labeled (in the most uncomplimentary manner) before that day's local news ended at 6:30 - and pushed their cause BACKWARDS by years because they let their emotions and hormones overrule their intelligence and reason.

If you are trying to convince someone of the validity of your opinion, scaring them never works. The people who can't see that are the ones who are hurting legal and responsible gun ownership far more than they are helping.

 

[usmc 1978]

From the Urban Dictionary:

"Fudd: Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt."

From Wiktionary:

"Fudd: A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles."

I had no idea!

 

[usmc 1978]

So, just carrying a firearm is in "poor taste?"

Why? Because the modern media says so?

Nothing whatsoever happened. No crimes were committed, no buildings were burned, no stores were looted. Simply free people exercising their rights guaranteed by our founding documents.

THAT's poor taste????

There are a lot of folks out there who may not be pro or anti. They see something like that, might turn them the wrong way. I support their right to do it, but it doesn't help the cause, IMO. Just like Josh Sugarman successfully convinced the 6 o'clock news watchers that ARs are "assault weapons" and deceived them into believing they fired full auto, the commentators will hurt us by running their mouths about such appearances.

 

[usmc 1978]

It is, however an example of the state using a registration data base in order to confiscate firearms, "legal" or not.

This is so true. The problem with registration (other than the tax aspect of it) is that today, you register your gun that the gov is OK with. Three or five or ten years from now, the gov is no longer OK with it. Now they know where it is and where you are. It's a trap.

 

[delcrossv]

Most people who believe we need to compromise have never read the constitution much less the second amendment. They have no idea the second amendment was adopted to keep the government from imposing its will on the people. There is no acceptable compromise. Any compromise is the beginning of the end to our freedom as Americans.

Agreed. It has unfortunately been compromised since congress passed the NFA.

 

[llowry61]

I do not believe we should give an inch.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." ― Benjamin Franklin

We are there.

 

[hsguy]

This thread has gone completely off the rails with political and other obnoxious comments, closed. The RULES:

The following topics are BANNED on this Board:
Abortion
Religion
Racial issues
Gay rights/homosexuality
General LEO bashing
Political Discussion and Comment
Do NOT participate in discussion of banned topics.