Do you ever wonder if Gun Control Advocates lurk or even sign up on Gun Forums?

[Rocketmedic40]

Well, we're going to need to repeal a heck of a lot of gun control foolishness to get back to great granddad's day. I, for one, look forward to picking up a gun and box of shells at the hardware store. Welcome to the real fight.

I routinely do that; my hardware store also does a brisk gun business. A 4473 ain’t a huge deal.

 

[goldenboy]

Another interesting statistic: Delete the 10 largest dem run US cities from the stats and per capita (also deleting those populations to keep the proportions accurate) and the USA goes to 4th most peaceful/safe nation on Earth. Just something for pondering.

 

[AlHunt]

I routinely do that; my hardware store also does a brisk gun business. A 4473 ain’t a huge deal.

Oh no, you said Grandpa's day. That's the fight. Get busy.

 

[AlHunt]

Careful...you risk becoming a burned-out zealot.

Oh, I'm long burned out and hardly have the energy for any zealotry ...

 

[Matt_X]

And the thing is, most liberals don’t actually want to get rid of carry pistols, rifles or hunting or even defensive shooting. A growing number of us understand that firearms are a tool to guarantee freedom and protect ourselves from the more…reactionary and violent elements of our society; we’re burning the zealots out of our political processes pretty thoroughly and we’re expanding our reach in the 2A community and in minority communities. But there’s nuance here- what is the social benefit of a seven-shot 1911 vs a 60-round AR15 pistol, what sporting or defensive or military uses are there for it, as balanced against the potential for misuse? The alternative is tight controls on who can possess firearms, which runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment and self-preservation- as we can see in real time, allowing government to determine **who** can own guns is subject to whomever’s in government.

So then, we’re left with hardware restrictions, knowing that it won’t prevent crime (an impossible task), it won’t really decrease the intensity or frequency of routine crimes committed (a BB gun, well-polished wooden blank, or a real gun are all useful for intimidating, etc) and there will still be shootings and gun violence…but there’s far fewer **mass shootings** than before. And that saves hundreds of lives.

Frankly you lost me here. Many who call themselves liberals do wish to restrict all firearms, or a substantial subset of them, such as 'all modern firearms'. They do so because they judge firearms to have no real utility for most people in our society, and they know little about firearms. Ironicly this position contradicts the goal of liberalism (small l) which is to protect and promote individuals.

If you're just trying to say there has been and probably always will be some amount of laws controlling the ownership of firearms and property in general, of course that is true. But hopefully we are past the time when people were restricted as a means to retain power over others (other classes, races, etc), and now stay within the tradition of English law, and restrict people based on their deeds (or mis-deeds).

As far as what the thread starter asked, clearly there are some who believe in no laws and to them anyone who supports laws would be a "gun-control-advocate". At the other extreme is the "no guns" people and I have to agree with the previous posters who noted how unlikely that they joined this forum, and even if they have, who cares.

 

[Echo40]

I don't visit this particular forum very often anymore because as of about a year ago it seemed to be getting a lot less traffic and therefore I could get away with checking in periodically, now it seems like anytime I check in I've received many likes/responses, often too many for me to read/reply to, so it seems as though the recent update to the forum's host has helped it in the search algorithm and gotten us new members.

Unfortunately, since the new members don't know me at all and therefore unaware of my online persona, responses have ranged from folks taking my old joke threads too seriously, while others are hopefully joking in response to my more serious threads like this one, but I fear that they aren't, which does not bode well for the future.

Honestly, the whole "Common Sense Gun Control" angle entirely contradicts any statement in which one claims to support the Second Amendment on the grounds that each and every one of them is a clear infringement upon the Second Amendment, unless you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers lacked the foresight to perceive advancements in firearms. Contrary to popular belief, repeating arms/machine guns did exist when The United States Constitution was written, so that narrative has been false from the beginning, and the idea that the Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly perceived that such technology would be refined is completely absurd.




Nevertheless, folks are free to say whatever they like on the subject, and I do appreciate having my thread validated three years later.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

I don't visit this particular forum very often anymore because as of about a year ago it seemed to be getting a lot less traffic and therefore I could get away with checking in periodically, now it seems like anytime I check in I've received many likes/responses, often too many for me to read/reply to, so it seems as though the recent update to the forum's host has helped it in the search algorithm and gotten us new members.

Unfortunately, since the new members don't know me at all and therefore unaware of my online persona, responses have ranged from folks taking my old joke threads too seriously, while others are hopefully joking in response to my more serious threads like this one, but I fear that they aren't, which does not bode well for the future.

Honestly, the whole "Common Sense Gun Control" angle entirely contradicts any statement in which one claims to support the Second Amendment on the grounds that each and every one of them is a clear infringement upon the Second Amendment, unless you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers lacked the foresight to perceive advancements in firearms. Contrary to popular belief, repeating arms/machine guns did exist when The United States Constitution was written, so that narrative has been false from the beginning, and the idea that the Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly perceived that such technology would be refined is completely absurd.




Nevertheless, folks are free to say whatever they like on the subject, and I do appreciate having my thread validated three years later.

I’m also fairly certain the Founders didn’t anticipate an era in which a single madman wielding the firepower-equivalent of an infantry company would routinely stroll through churches, schools, markets or offices executing people…

 

[Matt_X]

That's the sort of hyperbole that feeds in to the misperception by the ignorant about semi-automatic firearms. I'm sure you are better familiar than most about the T/O&E of an infantry company.

There's been a revolution in firearms manufacturing and even if they are not our personal interest, the development of the AR platform and the Glock are of major historical importance as leaders in that change. Low cost, high quality, and relative ease of use makes them more affordable and accessible to a wider range of people than the wood stocked traditional arms.

 

[SFury79]

I’m also fairly certain the Founders didn’t anticipate an era in which a single madman wielding the firepower-equivalent of an infantry company would routinely stroll through churches, schools, markets or offices executing people…

Another inane argument based on lies. History has shown such slaughters to occur frequently by tyrannical regimes for all of human history. The weapons may change, but not the killing of peasants.

The greatest mass murderer of modern times was most likely Josef Stalin. With Hitler being not far behind in sheer numbers of their own people they killed. Let's not forget the atrocities of Pol Pot. Smaller numbers, but the biggest percentage of people killed in any nation by far.

Many of the founders came to the US because of the terrible persecutions they suffered. They had firsthand knowledge of the depravities of men, and the depths their madness could lead them to. To think they could not foresee people doing despicable acts is laughable. It's that foresight that led to the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be part of the second amendment.

 

[Moose074]

I read first few pages then the last. So if I repeat I apologize. First welcome to America people are allowed to voice difference. Our founding fathers were smart not to trust the government. So they created a the Constitution and included the Bill of Rights. They knew governments would change to keep themselves or like minded people in office. They were naive in thinking Yellow journalism to click bait journalism. The media trust we won’t question them or read more than the headline and few sentences. ALL media omit or highlight what they think the viewer wants to hear or a point they want to establish. So yes I see people giving a precautionary warning to others perhaps to scare perhaps to educate.
I started taking Law enforcement classes shortly after I got out of the Air Force, my first penal code class. My professor stood up on first day referenced the tv show Cops he wasn’t a fan he thought it showed the ignorance of police officers knowledge of the penal code. Especially on the right to carry a gun in Texas in the mid 90. Now it’s been a while since I had his class and he made it clear that reading the penal code was like reading and interpreting the Bible. Everyone has their thoughts. Again ( I went into education not law enforcement) on the right to carry in Texas law basically stated you couldn’t with the exception of travel, performing certain duties ect ect. He focused on the travel portion. Define travel one judge might say you have to cross county line another might say two county lines or staying the night.
When I took my Concealed Handgun class before Texas Law changed the instructor basically had me scared out of carrying in Texas. It wasn’t the responsibility of the bulletin once it left my barrel. It wasn’t his interpretation of the law that stated per him “ if someone saw my concealed gun was fearful of said gun even if I was intentional about concealing. Then if if I was legally carrying.. I could be arrested weapon confiscated and lose my license to carry.
Now if you want to talk controversial topic go to an RV forum and talk about payload

 

[Rocketmedic40]

That's the sort of hyperbole that feeds in to the misperception by the ignorant about semi-automatic firearms. I'm sure you are better familiar than most about the T/O&E of an infantry company.

There's been a revolution in firearms manufacturing and even if they are not our personal interest, the development of the AR platform and the Glock are of major historical importance as leaders in that change. Low cost, high quality, and relative ease of use makes them more affordable and accessible to a wider range of people than the wood stocked traditional arms.

As compared to their contemporaries, yes. A single man with a modern semiautomatic rifle has the functional ability to put about as much lead on target as an entire platoon-size volley, in a fraction of the time, and the fact that reloading takes **seconds** instead of **very long seconds** means that you’re talking about that one shooter having the functional ability to deliver a company’s worth of hot, fast lead onto targets.

Now, maybe the founders anticipated this and accepted it. Maybe they spent most of their days thinking of exactly what inane contraptions and government mechanisms they’d need to tell their great x6 grandchildren to implement. Heck, maybe they correctly predicted and understood the consequences of widely-available atom-stopping soul-splitting nuclear phaser beams and figured that our great x15-grandchildren could figure it out. Or, maybe, just maybe, they were men like us, with fervent beliefs and the courage to try to build something better, but who weren’t necessarily right about the details or even entirely aware of the implications of technology, freedom and economic prosperity that would allow individuals to access technologies unthought of.

I’m not saying we should be Luddites, but I am saying that their is something deeply wrong with American gun culture when our community reaction to repeated massacres by individual madmen is a collective shrug and a demand for **even less regulation** and even more firepower in even more affordable contexts. Y’all aren’t preparing for Stalingrad or Normandy, and y’all (the absolutists here) certainly aren’t fighting to save the future on Little Round Top. Nah….y’all are Walter Mitty, daydreaming with props, except that your demands for more potent props has the horrible unintended consequences of making highly-lethal, high-performance firearms extremely commonly available, commonly-used and universally-known while at the same time warping the culture of use **strongly** towards warfare, aggression against perceived enemies and away from anything regulated.

It’s not malice or an issue of fault, and there is something positive to be said about many aspects of advocacy that would not have been possible without organized effort, but it’s kind of insane that people gatekeep the 2A if anyone believes that **some** gun control is necessary for the preservation of a society that isn’t complete anarchy.

 

[ladder13]

I don't visit this particular forum very often anymore because as of about a year ago it seemed to be getting a lot less traffic and therefore I could get away with checking in periodically, now it seems like anytime I check in I've received many likes/responses, often too many for me to read/reply to, so it seems as though the recent update to the forum's host has helped it in the search algorithm and gotten us new members.

Unfortunately, since the new members don't know me at all and therefore unaware of my online persona, responses have ranged from folks taking my old joke threads too seriously, while others are hopefully joking in response to my more serious threads like this one, but I fear that they aren't, which does not bode well for the future.

Honestly, the whole "Common Sense Gun Control" angle entirely contradicts any statement in which one claims to support the Second Amendment on the grounds that each and every one of them is a clear infringement upon the Second Amendment, unless you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers lacked the foresight to perceive advancements in firearms. Contrary to popular belief, repeating arms/machine guns did exist when The United States Constitution was written, so that narrative has been false from the beginning, and the idea that the Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly perceived that such technology would be refined is completely absurd.




Nevertheless, folks are free to say whatever they like on the subject, and I do appreciate having my thread validated three years later.

I find many of them never come in and introduce themselves. They post a few in specific gun related parts of the forum,maybe Ike a head fake, then jump right into gun control.

 

[Greyman50]

Another inane argument based on lies. History has shown such slaughters to occur frequently by tyrannical regimes for all of human history. The weapons may change, but not the killing of peasants.

The greatest mass murderer of modern times was most likely Josef Stalin. With Hitler being not far behind in sheer numbers of their own people they killed. Let's not forget the atrocities of Pol Pot. Smaller numbers, but the biggest percentage of people killed in any nation by far.

Many of the founders came to the US because of the terrible persecutions they suffered. They had firsthand knowledge of the depravities of men, and the depths their madness could lead them to. To think they could not foresee people doing despicable acts is laughable. It's that foresight that led to the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be part of the second amendment.

Left out Mao as he killed millions.

 

[Greyman50]

Amazing thread. Solution is very simple, you remove criminals period. Short rope, tall tree or old style prisons. Certain part of our population cause all the crime and there are little consequences.

 

[ladder13]

Amazing thread. Solution is very simple, you remove criminals period. Short rope, tall tree or old style prisons. Certain part of our population cause all the crime and there are little consequences.

I’d be a little more caring. The US owns a few uninhabited islands. Drop them all off on an island and let things run its course. Add more as needed.

 

[dogkinkead]

Actually according to the FBI Stats 54.3 % of people murdered are killed by people who knew each other and a large percentage of those are women killed by their boyfriends or husbands. That is exactly why Red Flag laws were passed in many States.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

And if we look at your statement about criminals who were imprisoned for murder that is what I would call "after the fact" which simply means that putting the murderers in prison does not bring the dead back to life.

Rather preventing criminals from getting guns in the first place would have saved the majority of those that were murdered. Only severe and thorough vetting before the purchase of a weapon along with registration has proven effective in keeping criminals from getting guns.

Here is a "German incident" from last year about how gun control often works more of the time than it fails. A Nut Case was refused purchase of a handgun and rifle but he attempted to make his own. He attacked a Jewish Synagogue and the people saw him coming with the home made pistol in his hand. The nut case shot the gun but it misfired as his home made zip gun was not of the best quality. The German Police were on the scene in minutes and nabbed him. Again vetting prevented this nut from getting a lot of firepower that could have resulted in him wiping out the entire church crowd in seconds much as Dillan Roof did in the U.S. several years ago. He was a nutcase that should never have been permitted to own a weapon.

No system is perfect but to have "no system" as we currently have at the Federal Level is pure insanity as once a newly purchased gun is re-sold in most states it becomes lost to vetting and many find their way into the hands of criminals and psycho's.

As a matter of fact Law Enforcement has found that there is an "Iron Highway" of unregistered weapons that is in constant flow from Southern States with lax gun laws into Northern Big Cities that have tough laws which renders their gun control totally useless. Again pure insanity.

About 2 years ago in London (The London Bridge Incident) a group of nutcases wanted to commit mass murder but the British Vetting System flagged them and refused them even the purchase of a shotgun. The Nut Cases then attacked a bar full of people with knives and the bar patrons then attacked the Nut Cases with broken beer bottles and chairs and beat the "H" out of them. Again the British Vetting system worked and worked well.

As one can see gun control does work more of the time than it fails but people do not want to be inconvenienced with paperwork and they think "It will never happen to me anyway" so why should I support gun laws. Famous last words.

People will then scream that registration leads to confiscation but they ignore the fact that Europe is still awash in guns and you can still buy guns in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Thailand and the list is endless. I had a buddy who had a penpal female in Thailand (if I remember correctly the Asian country) and he and I were both shocked out of our shoes when she sent him pictures of her "brand new" machine guns she purchased and yes they were registered. Now even we Americans are not allowed to buy brand new machine guns but they are and again they are all registered and quite legal.

I think too that people who go paranoid over registration fail to realize that the U.S. could outlaw a certain class of weapons even without registration because once a certain type of weapon is outlawed you could never use it in self defense, never take it to a public range to shoot it or take the risk of selling it and then getting caught and going to prison. In short a newly prohibited weapon owned by a law abiding citizen becomes totally useless to him even if it was before never registered.

People are going to kill each other with or without a gun. Point in fact are the knife killing in London. Refusing access to firearms only harms the victims.