Biden vs Gun Owners
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
So for clarification, I am not asking you the following questions - they are more generally directed.
I agree most of the Dems proposals are eye candy with little evidence they will reduce deaths and accidents. But tens of thousands of deaths shouldn’t be ignored. We should be able to do something productive and evidence based. Where is the 2A supporter’s legislation? Where is the support for more mental health spending. Where is the support for funding of drug rehab? Where is the willingness to treat drug addiction as a mental health and economics disease instead of a moral failing? Where is the realization that “just lock-em all up” isn’t working? Where is the conservative legislation to re-invest in our poor communities both urban and rural so the drug use and gang participation aren’t the best options in front of a young person? If almost all of us agree that certain persons (violent felons for example) should not be allowed to have firearms, why wouldn’t we want our background checks to be “universal”? Why wouldn’t we support a mandatory education program for gun owners to ensure they can operate them safely. Frankly, the closest I ever get to being anti-2A is at public gun ranges. Holy heck, half the shooters might manage to hurt themselves with a butter knife. I spend most on my time helping guys figure out how to even fire their new AR - and muzzle safety - good luck with that.
So, I want law abiding citizens to have nationwide rights to gun ownership - regardless of their color (the person or their gun). But I also want to make sure the ineligible don’t have them and the eligible know how to use them safely. I also want conservatives to bring our good ideas and financial resources to bear to reinvigorate our forgotten generationally poor areas. Not merely by paying taxes that turn into govt checks - but by investing in education and business in these communities just like we do our own.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
My intent was to simply focus my remarks on a particular part of a longer response. And unless I misunderstood your post - which is possible - my response was on point with the meaning of your words. So, either I understood your words and I stand by mine, or I misunderstood them and for that I apologize. Thumb typing on an iPhone is not always the best way to have a nuanced conversation. Thank care.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think we can all agree on this. I think the majority of Americans fall into this category. The "tails" are the "no guns" and the "guns are the solution to everything" crowds. I think addressing the mental health aspect is very important. That can't fall solely on gun owners, but a more thorough background check would be necessary. Then we need to decide on what the definitions and constraints are within the law.
Scalia defined "keep", "bear", "arms" in that opinion by citing what they meant in other decisions. This is as much "legislating from the bench" as anything else and is impossible to avoid because we really had no idea what he founding fathers meant in the modern context and they disagreed on a lot of things too. Regardless, I think the system works pretty well. But image the author of the 2a walking around Kenosha last summer and saying "this is not what I meant by militia or bear".
Someone said something about "our love of guns". I don't "Love" guns, much like I don't "love" screwdrivers or my microwave. All are simply tools. I like the tools, but there are limits.
L
longbow51
Guest
That was Ben Carson's Opportunity Zones and the other side HATED it. They don't want jobs for the urban poor, they want dependency, and therein lies the problem. The root of that lies squarely with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. We're trying to treat a "father problem", which has now spread far beyond the ghetto, as well as increased secularization, with gun and drug laws. Hasn't and won't work. Wrong Diagnosis = Wrong Treatment.
So, the only ones affected by the "treatment" are the ones without the disease.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The GOP had the House, Senate and WH for two years - show me the bill they introduced over the objections of the haters? And maybe replay some of the other GOP candidates' reactions to BC's OZs.
If we fail to act, we can't place that on the feet of anyone but ourselves. If they block our sincere and vigorous efforts then that will be on them. But the GOP has offered almost no meaningful mental health (or urban investment) ideas forward since Kennedy and Bush the elder collaborated 35 years ago.
As for LBJ GS - I find Thomas Sowell's writings very instructive. I do believe that at least from a welfare perspective it has failed the very people he wished to help. But so has the tough-on-crime approach of Nixon, Clinton and then-Senator Biden. Why shouldn't conservatives be leading this charge? We have a lot to offer and many of us are compelled by our faith to help.
I encourage all self-identifying conservatives to watch this video - it is the best 14 minutes you will spend today.
A conservative's plea: Let's work together
Conservatives and liberals both believe that they alone are motivated by love while their opponents are motivated by hate. How can we solve problems with so much polarization? In this talk, social scientist Arthur Brooks shares ideas for what we can each do as individuals to break the gridlock...
VikingsGuy I hate typing on this iPad and would love to debate this better but you keep posting kind of a devil’s advocate approach on this subject. As far as the big city stuff you posted above most if not all big cities are run by Dems and have been for decades. And look at the third world crap holes they have become. St Louis and Detroit used to be great cutting edge places. I agree that a lot of new shooters need help and are in need of instruction but a lot of that is because of society and how politics have demonized firearms. Gun safety and hunters Ed used to be taught in schools and should be again but the left would never allow that. And I don’t agree with universal background checks because it doesn’t solve or help the problem it just limits law abiding people. And leads down a slippery slope of now that you have to do it shops can charge what ever they want and the price could skyrocket as far as the Black rifle hate on here you could order those rifles shipped to your house in the 60’s with no background check and we didn’t have these problems so why do we keep blaming a firearm and not society for the problems? The inner city culture that you want to change is all that is promoted in music,tv,pop culture but you blame conservative‘s? We live in a society where “Baby it’s cold outside“ is an evil sexiest song but CardiB singing WAP is a role model for young girls. I’m only 41 but we used to have shotguns in our trucks at school and no one ever went postal, but we did go bird hunting after school almost everyday. I think a permit or something that you could get and just show would be awesome in theory (especially since I get delayed all the time) but the problem is that can be perverted and used against people in a stroke of a pen. Look at how EO happy the current president is. We have turned into a society that shuns and ridicules intelligence but praises athletes. A lot of People on here have no problem with me waiting 14 days to get a firearm according to your survey because they don’t get delayed, it doesn’t effect them so we can hose the other guy because it’s not me mentality. I personally think bump stocks are stupid and a gimmick but if someone wants one that’s up to them. I don‘t have a use for full auto stuff, and couldn’t afford to feed one if I did but the NFA needs to be redone and streamlined for efficiency. The wife and I did do a date night thing at a local range and did rent an MP5 and it was fun for the couple boxes of ammo we went through but I’m not shelling out 20K for one. As far as the open carry question on your survey that could be a pen stroke away from “ No open carrying on any federal property” and there goes hunting on federal grounds. People think it can’t happen but I bet the Brits hitting the beaches of Normandy didn’t think their grandkids would be turning in kitchen knives either. And I don’t know the answer to the problem either. But I do know you can’t legislate morality it has never worked and never will.
ImBillT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 3,921
In terms of Bubba taking on the US military successfully I’d say that odds are not in Bubba’s favor. The US will most likely fall to self-inflicted economic and cultural degeneration.
As far as the 2A, I believe that you’re misunderstanding the utility of an armed citizenry. As in the case of nuclear weapons, the purpose is not to win through use. In the case of citizen’s with firearms, it isn’t to mount civil war, or attack our military. It isn’t for revolution. The people who were “just following orders” while rounding up the Jews in Nazi Germany didn’t all believe in what they were doing, but all of them had this in common, they feared their government more than they feared the Jews. Neither the Jews, nor their German sympathizers were well armed. Could the blackshirts have exerted such power had the German people been armed?
Today in the US a leader couldn’t call to round up all the Christians, or Jews, or Blacks. A leader could not call to round up all the Trump voters or all the Biden voters. Who would do his bidding? Who would enter all of those homes? The tip of the government spear(law enforcement and military) should fear the sword and shield of the people more than the thrusting hand of government. Because of this, US government action against its citizens in terms of arrest and imprisonment are limited to narrow circumstances(those suspected of committing criminal acts) and come with broad citizen support. Disarm the people, and those who carry out the orders of our leaders will quickly come to fear the leaders more than the people. At that point, the leaders can issue any order they desire. Put him in jail he doesn’t have a mask on, he went to church, he voted for Trump. Push him into the oven.
ImBillT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 3,921
You can’t say that the GOP had a majority when Paul Ryan is speaker of the house, and the supposed majority in the Senate includes John McCain, Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, and John Cornyn. They all fall somewhere between closeted liberals and democrat light.The GOP had the House, Senate and WH for two years - show me the bill they introduced over the objections of the haters? And maybe replay some of the other GOP candidates' reactions to BC's OZs.
If we fail to act, we can't place that on the feet of anyone but ourselves. If they block our sincere and vigorous efforts then that will be on them. But the GOP has offered almost no meaningful mental health (or urban investment) ideas forward since Kennedy and Bush the elder collaborated 35 years ago.
As for LBJ GS - I find Thomas Sowell's writings very instructive. I do believe that at least from a welfare perspective it has failed the very people he wished to help. But so has the tough-on-crime approach of Nixon, Clinton and then-Senator Biden. Why shouldn't conservatives be leading this charge? We have a lot to offer and many of us are compelled by our faith to help.
I encourage all self-identifying conservatives to watch this video - it is the best 14 minutes you will spend today.
A conservative's plea: Let's work together
Conservatives and liberals both believe that they alone are motivated by love while their opponents are motivated by hate. How can we solve problems with so much polarization? In this talk, social scientist Arthur Brooks shares ideas for what we can each do as individuals to break the gridlock...www.ted.com
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Gentleman this is getting a bit absurd, probably time to pump the brakes.
R
rwc101
Guest
Did it really take 14 pages?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I prefer that love, not fear is what protects us from an unjust government. That LEO, our neighbors and the military love liberty, love freedom, love the constitution, love our system of applying the constitution through a transparent and independent judiciary, love being a nation of laws not men, love their neighbor, love what this great nation has become, love what this great nation can become if we keep pushing ourselves. This is why I believe a tyrant will fail. If it is just up to guns - the tyrant will win, tyrants are sociopaths, they don't fear an armed citizen, they trust their mob of true believers will prevail. This is not to say I believe in a 60's-style love covenant, just that I don't believe the small percentage of Americans who would actually give up their family and homes to actually shoot at government officials to be effective enough to carry the day and any good tyrant will know that. So, in this instant, our passion and belief for our system of government must carry us - carry us further than a few guns can. A committed and unified citizenry is far more dangerous to tyrants than a fragmented and armed one. If the last few months have taught us anything it is that a fragmented nation with fragmented truth is the biggest threat to our democracy.
L
longbow51
Guest
Make no mistake, LBJ did not want to help anyone. He simply wanted to secure votes, and it worked. I'm sure he was not bad enough to want to destroy the structure of the black family as thoroughly as he did (he wasn't smart enough to figure out the ramifications of his actions), nor was he likely to figure out how the plague of fatherless children would spread into the white and Hispanic communities.The GOP had the House, Senate and WH for two years - show me the bill they introduced over the objections of the haters? And maybe replay some of the other GOP candidates' reactions to BC's OZs.
If we fail to act, we can't place that on the feet of anyone but ourselves. If they block our sincere and vigorous efforts then that will be on them. But the GOP has offered almost no meaningful mental health (or urban investment) ideas forward since Kennedy and Bush the elder collaborated 35 years ago.
As for LBJ GS - I find Thomas Sowell's writings very instructive. I do believe that at least from a welfare perspective it has failed the very people he wished to help. But so has the tough-on-crime approach of Nixon, Clinton and then-Senator Biden. Why shouldn't conservatives be leading this charge? We have a lot to offer and many of us are compelled by our faith to help.
I encourage all self-identifying conservatives to watch this video - it is the best 14 minutes you will spend today.
A conservative's plea: Let's work together
Conservatives and liberals both believe that they alone are motivated by love while their opponents are motivated by hate. How can we solve problems with so much polarization? In this talk, social scientist Arthur Brooks shares ideas for what we can each do as individuals to break the gridlock...
As far as the Rs controlling WH/Congress, it takes 60 votes in the Senate, which they never had. And, the mantra was "racist" already, so any bill attempting to change welfare to correct the real problem would have been doomed.
I wish I had a solution, and while I appreciate the video link, I don't think Nancy Pelosi is interested, and unlike the Rs, they vote as a bloc.
However, this is getting pretty far afield. Adios on this thread. Be safe my friends.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Too much to respond to as I am being given the Emmy's "cue the orchestra" signal from others, but I will push back on your, "Dems make crap holes" remarks. I am a conservative who believes Thomas Sowell when he points out how many govt programs have caused harm rather than good, but that does not blind me to many other relevant truths. That the equally crappy rural meth-riddled towns have been run by the GOP. That urban failure is primarily the aftermath of economic failure driven by withdrawal of capital, businesses and jobs that create a self-fulfilling death spiral - and that this withdrawal was driven by people who fled the community rather than stay and fix it - that doesn't feel very American to me. That a significant part of urban failure was driven by red-lining and race-based lending in the 30's, 40's and 50's. And other inconvenient facts. Fix poverty and our underfunded mental health system and we fix violence and drugs, fix violence and drugs and no one cares if you have a bump stock. We are fighting the wrong battle - we need to fight poverty.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Stop blaming others for our inaction. We don't need Pelosi's permission to push the right thing. Plus we control many states - not seeing much action there either. In fact, in MN rural legislators are blocking funds to help repair parts of Minneapolis from this summer - but are happy to cash the federal checks that are largely funded via big city income taxes.
Also, I love how both the Ds and the Rs lament that the other side block votes but their side is somehow above that (or too stupid to do it).
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I would guess then that Lincoln and Teddy R were downright communists.
I hear ya and I like a good debate as much as the next guy. But I have an 11 year old trying to convince me she needs some bottle lambs in this sub zero weather because they are cute and she found a good deal on them. So I’m probably going to go get some bottle lambs.
why would you have to give up certain gun rights in exchange for public land protection? Please explain.
Panda Bear
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2019
- Messages
- 845
we knew this was coming
Whether you agree with it or not, there is no doubt that this is gun law "creep". pass what you can today, we will do more later
keep up the good fight down there
p.s. I keep forgetting. I have been asked about my rights to carry a handgun. I can now and would still be able to if this passes ( and it will ), but only when in the wildernes or running a trap line. However, I dont, as a rifle works better for me. But other's who work in the wilderness and trappers will continue to do so---In The Territories at least.
