Conspiracy theorists believe that the most heavily armed and one of the most murderous governments on the planet, with a long track record of violence and injustice against its own people, wants to regulate small arms amongst civilians for the civilians’ own safety.
Biden vs Gun Owners
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
Conspiracy theorists believe that the most heavily armed and one of the most murderous governments on the planet, with a long track record of violence and injustice against its own people, wants to regulate small arms amongst civilians for the civilians’ own safety.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
You lost me, but good luck. I will point out the irony of trusting that same government’s rule of law to prevent the conspiracy.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we as hunters and gun owners cannot support each other in the interest of 2A. Those of us who respect life and law are the only ones suffering with more gun legislation ! It makes no sense to me to restrict legal gun ownership from law abiding citizens to stop crime!
Bowhunter999
Active member
“It makes no sense to me to restrict legal gun ownership from law abiding citizens to stop crime”.
That’s probably because you are looking at the situation from a point of reality and not being motivated only by emotion and false thinking. Those who are of the thought that outlawing firearms will mean that no one will have a gun......utopia ! All the laws on the books through history have never served to eliminate crime. However, those who advocate total gun control, are telling us, that even criminals will be without means of harming or killing some of us. As the thought goes, Just one more law, that’s all we need to live free.........! There is a name for these people, but I will allow others to fill in the blanks.
Bowhunter999
Active member
I can agree with you VikingsGuy on your ‘2A and public lands are very much independent issues’ when stated in that context. However, when the word hunting is added to public lands (public hunting lands) that ties the 2A directly into the issue.
3855WIN
Well-known member
More than a few hunters see it as “they’ll never take my bolt action rifle” and don’t worry about it. They’ll give up a lot of gun rights for guns they don’t personally use (AR style) in exchange for better public land protection.
You have a concern for stopping crime. Many live in low crime areas where it isn’t a big concern.
I agree because this thread pretty much confirms your thoughts. I think with a little research we all can see that the founding fathers were not speaking to our right to hunt ! They were not talking about bows and shotguns but were speaking directly to the right to own the black guns and high capacity magazines. The right of a citizen to protect his home , family and community against both foreign and domestic tyranny. I think that the well regulated militia thing hangs up a lot of people but you need to go back to 18th century language to understand that means citizens. I was a 16 year old high school student in 1976 with a .50 cent library card and I was amazed to read what our founding fathers meaning was to the 2nd amendment . I ask you all to stand for each other and our different likes of firearms. Remember the old saying United we stand divided we fall . The past several years has found the AR 15 the most popular rifle in sales , I don’t want to lose those shooters support for me to own my hunting rifles ...... do you ?
peterk1234
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 641
Stop crime? I am not giving up on gun rights because I want to be able to stop government
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Two things.
First, whenever someone finds themselves typing, "I cannot for the life of me understand . . . " in regards to ANY topic, I suggest the person stop typing and start listening and learning. It is fine to disagree with folks, but you should do so while understanding their perspective. It is this totally dismissive approach that is a big part of the problem with our currently polarized society. Sane and rational people can hold opinions different than our own. Understanding that makes us better able to argue our position, more likely to be able to persuade them of our view, and we might even learn something along the way.
Second, I agree we should support each other on common ground issues, but who decides what specific rules will be part of these shared actions? There are at least 3 or 4 different approaches to this topic in our own little HT survey. When I hear, "why cannot we support one another" I think what is being said is, "why don't you do what I tell you because I am right and you are wrong". I am a strong 2A advocate but do not at all believe hand grenades should be legally accessible, but at least 5 folks in that survey said they should be. Why is me being anti-hand grenade "not supporting them"? Why isn't their pro-hand grenade approach failing to support me? Again, if "why can't we support" is just rhetoric for do what I tell you, then it adds nothing. If you really believe we should partner in this fight, then it means you need to understand that we have to find our own alignment first - and that may take a little give and take.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Because anybody who disagrees with you lacks logic and a grasp on reality - good luck with that approach to persuading others. I don't think hand grenades should be legal, I think there is no reason not to subject private sales to simple background checks, I think open carry of locked and loaded ARs at the supermarket is bad policy. Does that make me irrational, over-emotional and a false thinker?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
They are tied no doubt, but as a matter of issue prioritization, some folks care more about the public land side of the topic. I gather from this forum that there are many who would prefer lower taxes, less govt regulation, etc yet have started voting democrat specifically because of poor public land positions by the GOP in UT and MT (and probably elsewhere). I personally don't make public lands a "single issue" voter for me, but I respect that some do. In fact, some of these folks are a big part of the bedrock HT members.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I fully agree that with a little research the "answer" is very clear. But with deeper research the story is not nearly as simple as you suggest. There were advocates for "hunting and sustainance" as being a specific part of gun rights, there where those who intended this to protect the states from the fed - not the people from tyranny (ask the Whisky rebellion folks about how that worked for them), and of course those who wanted for the people individually. There were also dozens of gun control laws in the early states and hundreds of local ones in the 1800's (lots of old black and white photos of "no guns in town" and "guns must be surrendered to the sheriff upon entering town" signs). I am pro-2A, but this overly simplistic Schoolhouse Rock approach to the issue is not helping us.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Can I get good odds on this - my money will be on the governmentStop crime? I am not giving up on gun rights because I want to be able to stop government
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Unsolicited 2 cents, I'm not a constitutional scholar but everyone gets their opinion apparently:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The Bill of rights was added to get states to ratify the constitution, states were worried about a centralized government having all the power. Madison added the 2A so the federal government wouldn't have the monopoly on force. In that context private citizens owned guns to fight for their states in militias, potentially against the federal government. Things changed a bit after the civil war with the national guard, etc.
My read, the 2A guarantees every American the right to own firearms personally to act on behalf of their state. That was the original intention. That the states could call up their citizens to fight.
Given how militias worked back then I think everyone owning a AR is exactly the intention, private citizens, on the whole, didn't own cannons/mortars etc... some outliers, but I think the general expectation was that you could call up 5,000 guys with their own basic survival gear and a "battle rifle".
To that end I will vote for ARs to be privately owned, WITH THE CAVEAT, the only legal use guaranteed by the federal government via the Bill of Rights (other state laws my give you additional rights), is in the act of defending your state. Essentially you get to own an AR, but you state gets to dictate how/when you use it.
Private individuals don't get to excise force however/wherever the want. The state you are a resident of must sanction your use of force.
To that end you have a federal right to own a gun, but then it's up to your state to regulate the use of said firearm.
ImBillT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 3,896
Ummm...had the idiots that rioted at the capital been there to murder law makers, it appears as though they’d have been quite successful.Can I get good odds on this - my money will be on the government
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Lots of decent thoughts there - but the incorporation doctrine makes it tricky, as the bill of rights now applies to the states. So in theory the states can't abridge your right to use force to defend the state - gets messy in a hurry.
I do think Scalia, the ultimate originalist and textualist justice (but watch out, Gorsuch is fast on his heels), did the best job of threading this needle in Heller. I am a 2A-guy and a Scalia-guy - I rest on his final word - that the people means the people and that if they had meant State in the second half of the sentence they would have said State a second time. But even given a personal right to bear arms, like all constitutional rights, they are subject to regulations - just upon heightened grounds and with a skeptical eye from the courts. Scalia and I both reject that the 2A guarantees to individuals the full range of implements necessary to successfully fight their own self-declared civil war. The handling of the whisky rebellion shows you just how the founders felt about self-appointed "liberty seekers".
I encourage you all to read the full text (and footnotes) of Heller and the dissent. It gives you a fairly good understanding of the mainstream views of both sides. If I get a chance later I will post a link to them, but Google will get you there too.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
A few murders, a successful rebellion does not make.
BenInMT
Well-known member
*Aims pea shooter at scud missile armed drone silently cruising at 20k feet.Stop crime? I am not giving up on gun rights because I want to be able to stop government
peterk1234
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 641
You are 99.9% right, but I would still try.Can I get good odds on this - my money will be on the government
Also important to note that the founding fathers were leery of a standing army both in terms of cost and the overreach they saw at the hands of the British army, especially in terms of confiscation of personal firearms in an era where those weapons were every bit as important as a plow or axe. The late 17th Century still had a lot of leftovers in terms of conscription in the US and elsewhere. Up until the 1600's local lords were expected to provide men & arms for kings at their own expense. The US version was local militias with free men and their own arms.
Hell, Police didn't even have standarized weapons until TR took that up at the Police Commissioner of NYC in the late 1800's or so.
Scalia's writings on Heller are brilliant, and a must read.
