Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[The Orwell Society]

New poll idea: Assault rifles: Should we keep them?

I am rather torn on the topic. I want to see what others have to say.

[Galloism]

New poll idea: Assault rifles: Should we keep them?

I am rather torn on the topic. I want to see what others have to say.

Assault rifles are pretty much entirely illegal. You can only have ones manufactured before 1986, and those require an NFA tax stamp, and they are rare and very expensive.

[American Legionaries]

New poll idea: Assault rifles: Should we keep them?

I am rather torn on the topic. I want to see what others have to say.

Not always, we should also give them as gifts.

[Reverend Norv]

This is, frankly, one key reason gun control has stalled in this country. Much of this country owns guns - as I do. Many of those same Americans also support additional restrictions on gun ownership - again, as I do. Second Amendment absolutists are a minority not only of Americans, but also of American gun owners.

But the loudest voices on the gun control side so often tend to be guys like you and Lumen, guys who know next to nothing about firearms and even less about the law, and the result is that you radicalize everyone on the other side - because you are the sort of men who sound like you'll take a mile if gun owners give an inch. Because you talk about having police harass people - not because they might be dangerous, not because they failed a background check, but strictly because they own a gun. Don't you realize that when you talk like this, all you are confirming for folks like Telconi is that he should never compromise - that all talk of common sense or moderation is just a smokescreen for authoritarianism - and that more moderate and credible gun control proponents can't be trusted either, because they are camouflage for your extremism?

You are poisoning the well. You are undermining the very objectives in which you claim to believe. Think about your values, and ask yourself whether ideas like this actually advance them.

Tbf Telconi's refusal to compromise isn't based on random forum posts, it's based on the actual history of the debate. The gun rights side has given up a whole lot of inches since the 1930's and we've gotten fuck all for it and the other side still keeps demanding more. At a certain point it was inevitable that people would draw the line and say no more.

I'm well aware of the history here. I just see it - or, perhaps more accurately, feel it - a little differently.

Here's how I feel it. My grandfather lived in a small town in the Midwest in the '30s. I now live in the next county over. Granddad had a few guns. The best was a Winchester Model 70: a rifleman's rifle, beautiful and precise. He used it to bag whitetail, mostly, but he also went plinking on weekends, and he taught his kids to use it and respect it. And according to family lore, he might even have used it to defend his family when one of his daughters fell for a tough guy from Chicago, and the kid wouldn't take no for an answer.

So that's my benchmark for where gun rights stood, before the modern era of gun control. That's the picture of firearms culture that I inherited, and that's the kind of armed society that I am determined to defend.

And here's the thing: almost ninety years later, after the NFA and the '94 ban and all the rest of it, after all those "inches" we've given up as gun owners - I still have exactly what my granddad had. I have a Model 70, and while I'm too sloppy a hunter to bag many whitetail, I can still plink on weekends. When I have kids, I'll teach them to use the weapon and respect it. And if I'm obliged to, I'll use it to defend my family. The rights to keep and bear arms that my grandfather relied on - that I still rely on - they have not been infringed. Not by one inch. As far as I'm concerned, nothing we've given up since the 1930s was worth a damn in the first place. In the real world, I still keep and bear arms in precisely the same way my grandfather did.

What remains, then, is fear of the slippery slope: maybe none of the gun control measures passed so far are coming for my grandfather's rifle, but the "gun grabbers" won't stop until everyone is disarmed, and then my Winchester will gather dust in an impound somewhere too. And when you listen to folks like Thomasi or Lumen, that paranoia starts to sound very persuasive: because why would I trust these guys to know the difference between me and a Chicago gangster, or between a Model 70 and a light machine gun? They know nothing about firearms, and less about the law, and they're clearly inclined to err on the side of punishing the innocent. It's enough to make you think that Telconi's right: I should oppose even sane, sensible gun control that my grandfather would have supported, because guys like Thomasi can't be trusted to respect any gun rights.

And that is why Thomasi should shut up. Because surveys show that the great majority of gun owners in this country are more like me than they are like Telconi. Most gun owners are not frothing at the bit to get our hands on tax-free machine guns, so that we can match a SWAT team round for round. We want to keep the weapons - and the firearms culture - that we have inherited from our forebears. When I talk about gun control, I try to make that clear, and I hope that at least some of my fellow gun owners can hear me - and see that there is a middle ground here. When Thomasi talks about gun control, it's enough to turn those same people into Second Amendment fundamentalists. That is what I mean by poisoning the well.

[American Legionaries]

Tbf Telconi's refusal to compromise isn't based on random forum posts, it's based on the actual history of the debate. The gun rights side has given up a whole lot of inches since the 1930's and we've gotten fuck all for it and the other side still keeps demanding more. At a certain point it was inevitable that people would draw the line and say no more.

I'm well aware of the history here. I just see it - or, perhaps more accurately, feel it - a little differently.

Here's how I feel it. My grandfather lived in a small town in the Midwest in the '30s. I now live in the next county over. Granddad had a few guns. The best was a Winchester Model 70: a rifleman's rifle, beautiful and precise. He used it to bag whitetail, mostly, but he also went plinking on weekends, and he taught his kids to use it and respect it. And according to family lore, he might even have used it to defend his family when one of his daughters fell for a tough guy from Chicago, and the kid wouldn't take no for an answer.

So that's my benchmark for where gun rights stood, before the modern era of gun control. That's the picture of firearms culture that I inherited, and that's the kind of armed society that I am determined to defend.

And here's the thing: almost ninety years later, after the NFA and the '94 ban and all the rest of it, after all those "inches" we've given up as gun owners - I still have exactly what my granddad had. I have a Model 70, and while I'm too sloppy a hunter to bag many whitetail, I can still plink on weekends. When I have kids, I'll teach them to use the weapon and respect it. And if I'm obliged to, I'll use it to defend my family. The rights to keep and bear arms that my grandfather relied on - that I still rely on - they have not been infringed. Not by one inch. As far as I'm concerned, nothing we've given up since the 1930s was worth a damn in the first place. In the real world, I still keep and bear arms in precisely the same way my grandfather did.

What remains, then, is fear of the slippery slope: maybe none of the gun control measures passed so far are coming for my grandfather's rifle, but the "gun grabbers" won't stop until everyone is disarmed, and then my Winchester will gather dust in an impound somewhere too. And when you listen to folks like Thomasi or Lumen, that paranoia starts to sound very persuasive: because why would I trust these guys to know the difference between me and a Chicago gangster, or between a Model 70 and a light machine gun? They know nothing about firearms, and less about the law, and they're clearly inclined to err on the side of punishing the innocent. It's enough to make you think that Telconi's right: I should oppose even sane, sensible gun control that my grandfather would have supported, because guys like Thomasi can't be trusted to respect any gun rights.

And that is why Thomasi should shut up. Because surveys show that the great majority of gun owners in this country are more like me than they are like Telconi. Most gun owners are not frothing at the bit to get our hands on tax-free machine guns, so that we can match a SWAT team round for round. We want to keep the weapons - and the firearms culture - that we have inherited from our forebears. When I talk about gun control, I try to make that clear, and I hope that at least some of my fellow gun owners can hear me - and see that there is a middle ground here. When Thomasi talks about gun control, it's enough to turn those same people into Second Amendment fundamentalists. That is what I mean by poisoning the well.

I'm legitimately curious if you think your opinion is somehow different from Lumen's.

[Reverend Norv]

I'm well aware of the history here. I just see it - or, perhaps more accurately, feel it - a little differently.

Here's how I feel it. My grandfather lived in a small town in the Midwest in the '30s. I now live in the next county over. Granddad had a few guns. The best was a Winchester Model 70: a rifleman's rifle, beautiful and precise. He used it to bag whitetail, mostly, but he also went plinking on weekends, and he taught his kids to use it and respect it. And according to family lore, he might even have used it to defend his family when one of his daughters fell for a tough guy from Chicago, and the kid wouldn't take no for an answer.

So that's my benchmark for where gun rights stood, before the modern era of gun control. That's the picture of firearms culture that I inherited, and that's the kind of armed society that I am determined to defend.

And here's the thing: almost ninety years later, after the NFA and the '94 ban and all the rest of it, after all those "inches" we've given up as gun owners - I still have exactly what my granddad had. I have a Model 70, and while I'm too sloppy a hunter to bag many whitetail, I can still plink on weekends. When I have kids, I'll teach them to use the weapon and respect it. And if I'm obliged to, I'll use it to defend my family. The rights to keep and bear arms that my grandfather relied on - that I still rely on - they have not been infringed. Not by one inch. As far as I'm concerned, nothing we've given up since the 1930s was worth a damn in the first place. In the real world, I still keep and bear arms in precisely the same way my grandfather did.

What remains, then, is fear of the slippery slope: maybe none of the gun control measures passed so far are coming for my grandfather's rifle, but the "gun grabbers" won't stop until everyone is disarmed, and then my Winchester will gather dust in an impound somewhere too. And when you listen to folks like Thomasi or Lumen, that paranoia starts to sound very persuasive: because why would I trust these guys to know the difference between me and a Chicago gangster, or between a Model 70 and a light machine gun? They know nothing about firearms, and less about the law, and they're clearly inclined to err on the side of punishing the innocent. It's enough to make you think that Telconi's right: I should oppose even sane, sensible gun control that my grandfather would have supported, because guys like Thomasi can't be trusted to respect any gun rights.

And that is why Thomasi should shut up. Because surveys show that the great majority of gun owners in this country are more like me than they are like Telconi. Most gun owners are not frothing at the bit to get our hands on tax-free machine guns, so that we can match a SWAT team round for round. We want to keep the weapons - and the firearms culture - that we have inherited from our forebears. When I talk about gun control, I try to make that clear, and I hope that at least some of my fellow gun owners can hear me - and see that there is a middle ground here. When Thomasi talks about gun control, it's enough to turn those same people into Second Amendment fundamentalists. That is what I mean by poisoning the well.

I'm legitimately curious if you think your opinion is somehow different from Lumen's.

Of course I do. If you take what I just wrote in good faith, I think that's obvious. I am a gun owner, committed to a specific tradition of firearms ownership and use; Lumen is not. Do you seriously think that if you handed the two of us notepads, and had each of us draft a gun safety bill, we'd spontaneously both write exactly the same thing?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

New poll idea: Assault rifles: Should we keep them?

I am rather torn on the topic. I want to see what others have to say.

Quite literally for the cost of a transferable M16A1 I can buy a ma-duece and the truck it came on.

Or a working T-62.

[American Legionaries]

I'm legitimately curious if you think your opinion is somehow different from Lumen's.

Of course I do. If you take what I just wrote in good faith, I think that's obvious. I am a gun owner, committed to a specific tradition of firearms ownership and use; Lumen is not. Do you seriously think that if you handed the two of us notepads, and had each of us draft a gun safety bill, we'd spontaneously both write exactly the same thing?

No, but you are perfectly comfortable with every infringement that you yourself aren't personally invested in, which is Lumen's exact outlook as well.

[Reverend Norv]

Of course I do. If you take what I just wrote in good faith, I think that's obvious. I am a gun owner, committed to a specific tradition of firearms ownership and use; Lumen is not. Do you seriously think that if you handed the two of us notepads, and had each of us draft a gun safety bill, we'd spontaneously both write exactly the same thing?

No, but you are perfectly comfortable with every infringement that you yourself aren't personally invested in, which is Lumen's exact outlook as well.

I can't speak to Lumen's outlook. What I can say is that you've mischaracterized mine. I am not comfortable with any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, as it has historically been understood and practiced in my family and community. I am quite comfortable with infringements of a vastly expanded fantasy that has been read into the Second Amendment, over the last sixty years, to justify the paranoid delusions of men who would rather fire on our armed forces than serve in them. The difference between you and me is not how much we value the right to bear arms, or how much we care when it is infringed. It's what we think that right is for.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Tbf Telconi's refusal to compromise isn't based on random forum posts, it's based on the actual history of the debate. The gun rights side has given up a whole lot of inches since the 1930's and we've gotten fuck all for it and the other side still keeps demanding more. At a certain point it was inevitable that people would draw the line and say no more.

I'm well aware of the history here. I just see it - or, perhaps more accurately, feel it - a little differently.

Here's how I feel it. My grandfather lived in a small town in the Midwest in the '30s. I now live in the next county over. Granddad had a few guns. The best was a Winchester Model 70: a rifleman's rifle, beautiful and precise. He used it to bag whitetail, mostly, but he also went plinking on weekends, and he taught his kids to use it and respect it. And according to family lore, he might even have used it to defend his family when one of his daughters fell for a tough guy from Chicago, and the kid wouldn't take no for an answer.

So that's my benchmark for where gun rights stood, before the modern era of gun control. That's the picture of firearms culture that I inherited, and that's the kind of armed society that I am determined to defend.

And here's the thing: almost ninety years later, after the NFA and the '94 ban and all the rest of it, after all those "inches" we've given up as gun owners - I still have exactly what my granddad had. I have a Model 70, and while I'm too sloppy a hunter to bag many whitetail, I can still plink on weekends. When I have kids, I'll teach them to use the weapon and respect it. And if I'm obliged to, I'll use it to defend my family. The rights to keep and bear arms that my grandfather relied on - that I still rely on - they have not been infringed. Not by one inch. As far as I'm concerned, nothing we've given up since the 1930s was worth a damn in the first place. In the real world, I still keep and bear arms in precisely the same way my grandfather did.

What remains, then, is fear of the slippery slope: maybe none of the gun control measures passed so far are coming for my grandfather's rifle, but the "gun grabbers" won't stop until everyone is disarmed, and then my Winchester will gather dust in an impound somewhere too. And when you listen to folks like Thomasi or Lumen, that paranoia starts to sound very persuasive: because why would I trust these guys to know the difference between me and a Chicago gangster, or between a Model 70 and a light machine gun? They know nothing about firearms, and less about the law, and they're clearly inclined to err on the side of punishing the innocent. It's enough to make you think that Telconi's right: I should oppose even sane, sensible gun control that my grandfather would have supported, because guys like Thomasi can't be trusted to respect any gun rights.

And that is why Thomasi should shut up. Because surveys show that the great majority of gun owners in this country are more like me than they are like Telconi. Most gun owners are not frothing at the bit to get our hands on tax-free machine guns, so that we can match a SWAT team round for round. We want to keep the weapons - and the firearms culture - that we have inherited from our forebears. When I talk about gun control, I try to make that clear, and I hope that at least some of my fellow gun owners can hear me - and see that there is a middle ground here. When Thomasi talks about gun control, it's enough to turn those same people into Second Amendment fundamentalists. That is what I mean by poisoning the well.

My family's history involved "the gun that goes ping" and a belt of 7.62x51 being brought to school for show and tell.

Also, teaching how to reload shotgun hulls for an english report.... and bringing your "hunting-gun that goes ping when it's empty" to school so you could go hunting afterwards... and maybe messing around with an M1A1 Thompson and some .45-70.

And then when I thought it'd be a swell idea (I was like... 8.) my parents lamented at how much drama that stirred up rather than the act of bringing our hodge-podge collection of interesting spent cartridge cases to school.

Do you have any idea of how hard it is to find someone "in the wild" that'd just leave linked M60 ammo in the woods? Let alone a discarded thompson drum mag (spring broke) from one of the gangster-shootouts in Wisconsin?

Meanwhile my uncle was a bit more on the... uh... "jumpy side".

[American Legionaries]

No, but you are perfectly comfortable with every infringement that you yourself aren't personally invested in, which is Lumen's exact outlook as well.

I can't speak to Lumen's outlook. What I can say is that you've mischaracterized mine. I am not comfortable with any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, as it has historically been understood and practiced in my family and community. I am quite comfortable with infringements of a vastly expanded fantasy that has been read into the Second Amendment, over the last sixty years, to justify the paranoid delusions of men who would rather fire on our armed forces than serve in them. The difference between you and me is not how much we value the right to bear arms, or how much we care when it is infringed. It's what we think that right is for.

I would humbly like to retract my previous characterization, despite his zeal Lumen's views are far less vile than yours.

[Reverend Norv]

I can't speak to Lumen's outlook. What I can say is that you've mischaracterized mine. I am not comfortable with any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, as it has historically been understood and practiced in my family and community. I am quite comfortable with infringements of a vastly expanded fantasy that has been read into the Second Amendment, over the last sixty years, to justify the paranoid delusions of men who would rather fire on our armed forces than serve in them. The difference between you and me is not how much we value the right to bear arms, or how much we care when it is infringed. It's what we think that right is for.

I would humbly like to retract my previous characterization, despite his zeal Lumen's views are far less vile than yours.

Well, as you put it to the man himself:

The fact you believe this is sad and disturbing.

Thanks, I was having a rough day at work. But it's always nice to hear one's beliefs vindicated.

[American Legionaries]

I would humbly like to retract my previous characterization, despite his zeal Lumen's views are far less vile than yours.

Well, as you put it to the man himself:

Thanks, I was having a rough day at work. But it's always nice to hear one's beliefs vindicated.

Indeed.

[Oskenia]

New poll idea: Assault rifles: Should we keep them?

I am rather torn on the topic. I want to see what others have to say.

"Assault rifle" is an entirely misunderstood and abused term. It is extremely hard to define an "assault rifle" because most people's perception of such is skewed by the media and by film. In reality, most are carbines or rifles by definition.

I do think that an auto sear should be illegal, just because it sets a precedent. I don't understand the legislation against SBRs and braces. I'm no 2A absolutist, but there are definitely things that have to change, in regard to both what is available currently and what is not.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

New poll idea: Assault rifles: Should we keep them?

I am rather torn on the topic. I want to see what others have to say.

"Assault rifle" is an entirely misunderstood and abused term. It is extremely hard to define an "assault rifle" because most people's perception of such is skewed by the media and by film. In reality, most are carbines or rifles by definition.

I do think that an auto sear should be illegal, just because it sets a precedent. I don't understand the legislation against SBRs and braces. I'm no 2A absolutist, but there are definitely things that have to change, in regard to both what is available currently and what is not.

The fun part is to make a semi-auto it actually needs twice as many trigger sears.

And the difference in closed-bolt fully automatic is more in how those sears are actuated than their actual shape.

[Grinning Dragon]

HEH, in the you just can't make this shit up, gives us a dipshit prof through mental retarded gymnastics that support for the 2nd Amendment means you support slavery.
Kendi’s Claim That the 2nd Amendment is Racist Ignores Facts, History, and Reality

Kendi joined CBS’s Face the Nation and somehow equated support for the Secondment Amendment and supporting the freedom to own a firearm with supporting the “freedom to enslave” people.“There are people who are fighting for freedom – freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation,” Kendi told show host Margaret Brennan. “And there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit – freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality.”

Kendi’s estimation is that if someone supports gun ownership, they also support exploiting people. Got it. There was no follow-up or pushback from Brennan. Naturally.

Over in Fulton Co. in NY, sheriff Giardinois saying it's still going to be business as usual regardless of the USSC ruling, because dipshit believes the lower court still needs to issue a decision.
Either this mother fucker is purposely being obtuse or is just down right a dumb fuck and doesn't understand USSC>lower court.
GOA Threatens to Sue Sheriff for Ignoring NYSPRA v. Bruen

The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office in New York is defying the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the New York State Pistol Rifle Association v. Bruen, leading Gun Owners of America (GOA) to threaten to sue Fulton County, Sheriff Richard C. Giardino.

On Friday, June 24, the Sheriff’s Office made a Facebook post saying that the Supreme Court opinion isn’t in effect until the lower circuit court issues a decision based on the SCOTUS opinion or remands it back to the District Court to issue a ruling. The Sherriff said until that happens, nothing with the permitting system will change, meaning that they will use the “proper cause” provision of the now unconstitutional law.

[The Lone Alliance]

Tbf Telconi's refusal to compromise isn't based on random forum posts, it's based on the actual history of the debate. The gun rights side has given up a whole lot of inches since the 1930's and we've gotten fuck all for it and the other side still keeps demanding more. At a certain point it was inevitable that people would draw the line and say no more.

Time to post the cake again?

Gun owners have almost always gotten the short end everytime they "compromise" with anti gunners...

As Illustrated.

[American Legionaries]

Tbf Telconi's refusal to compromise isn't based on random forum posts, it's based on the actual history of the debate. The gun rights side has given up a whole lot of inches since the 1930's and we've gotten fuck all for it and the other side still keeps demanding more. At a certain point it was inevitable that people would draw the line and say no more.

Time to post the cake again?

As Illustrated.

I find the entire concept that such positions represent a small portion of gun owners to be pretty damn dubious too.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Tbf Telconi's refusal to compromise isn't based on random forum posts, it's based on the actual history of the debate. The gun rights side has given up a whole lot of inches since the 1930's and we've gotten fuck all for it and the other side still keeps demanding more. At a certain point it was inevitable that people would draw the line and say no more.

Time to post the cake again?

As Illustrated.

Now I want cake.

[Grinning Dragon]

Senators Used the Gun Control Bill to Hide Language Shielding Drug Middlemen from an Anti-Kickback Law

Many Americans across the political spectrum are clamoring for federal action on guns in the wake of a mass shooting at an Uvalde, Texas, elementary school, a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store and hundreds of other places.

But buried in a bipartisan compromise hashed out by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday is an unrelated provision they might not be so happy about. Apropos of nothing, the gun bill would enhance the exemption drug middlemen working with Medicare have from the federal “Anti-Kickback Statute.”

That means, in this era of soaring costs, Senate negotiators decided to further insulate the nation’s largest health care companies from a federal law against accepting “any kickback, bribe, or rebate” — using a bill that’s supposedly about regulating guns.

The offices of the two lead negotiators, Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

[Arengin Union]

Dont quite get the logic of arguing that the 2nd Amendment is racist and then wanting it to be overturned or guns to be highly regulated since those regulations tend to target minorities a lot more. But hey, I guess libs are just not very good at consistency among with getting SCOTUS judges.

[Thomasi]

Dont quite get the logic of arguing that the 2nd Amendment is racist and then wanting it to be overturned or guns to be highly regulated since those regulations tend to target minorities a lot more. But hey, I guess libs are just not very good at consistency among with getting SCOTUS judges.

Nah conservates use the past racist gun laws that THEY put in place as reason why non racists gun control laws should be banned in liberal states.

[Galloism]

Dont quite get the logic of arguing that the 2nd Amendment is racist and then wanting it to be overturned or guns to be highly regulated since those regulations tend to target minorities a lot more. But hey, I guess libs are just not very good at consistency among with getting SCOTUS judges.

Nah conservates use the past racist gun laws that THEY put in place as reason why non racists gun control laws should be banned in liberal states.

The law in question was put in place in 1913 and was explicitly to avoid undesirables from carrying arms.

[Thomasi]

Nah conservates use the past racist gun laws that THEY put in place as reason why non racists gun control laws should be banned in liberal states.

The law in question was put in place in 1913 and was explicitly to avoid undesirables from carrying arms.

Okay and? its not the reason today. It seems like guns are the only time conservatives come to the "defense" of minorities almost like its an excuse to say gun control bad despite no one in liberal states proposing gun control for racist reasons.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The law in question was put in place in 1913 and was explicitly to avoid undesirables from carrying arms.

Okay and? its not the reason today. It seems like guns are the only time conservatives come to the "defense" of minorities almost like its an excuse to say gun control bad despite no one in liberal states proposing gun control for racist reasons.

No it definitely still was the reason today, hence why minorities could almost never carry even with good reason.