Biden vs Gun Owners

[88man]

Just wait someone will keep you guys safe on public land and make sure guns/weapons can't be in possession on federal or state land or county owned. Coming to a state near you . Utopia

 

[Bowhunter999]

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.

! No worries

 

[Pmacc60]

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

That was outstanding and so spot on , thank you VG . I hope most of us view this .

 

[3855WIN]

why would you have to give up certain gun rights in exchange for public land protection? Please explain.

There are voters who value public land more than they do, say, AR-15 rights. They’ll vote for public land ahead of voting for an AR type gun.

 

[Sytes]

an AR type gun

Would you share, so we may better identify if you're referring to the truth according to CNN / Don Lemon defined "AR" = Assault / Automatic Rifle or... well the fake news definition = ArmaLite Rifle.

Asking for a friend...

 

[ImBillT]

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.

You missed it again. I also do not believe that a small group of citizens shooting at the feds is useful. Again, our citizens against our military is not the point. The point is that if a tyrant ordered something completely absurd, the order would not be carried out because our LEO’s and our military have the ability to do what is right. When no citizen is armed, only government, then the tyrant can order LEO’s and/or military to do anything. It doesn’t happen immediately, but it’s only a matter of time before a tyrant can put enough corrupt people and/or true followers into law enforcement and military positions and begin to abuse his power.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You missed it again. I also do not believe that a small group of citizens shooting at the feds is useful. Again, our citizens against our military is not the point. The point is that if a tyrant ordered something completely absurd, the order would not be carried out because our LEO’s and our military have the ability to do what is right. When no citizen is armed, only government, then the tyrant can order LEO’s and/or military to do anything. It doesn’t happen immediately, but it’s only a matter of time before a tyrant can put enough corrupt people and/or true followers into law enforcement and military positions and begin to abuse his power.

You are missing my point - when the tyrant's absurd order comes down, I don't believe trained and armed LEOs and Mil will refuse the order out of some theoretical fear of armed citizens. I believe that they will instead stand against the immoral order because of their values.

 

[Pmacc60]

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.

That’s some darn good typing , I am glad you took the time ! Great points

 

[ImBillT]

You are missing my point - when the tyrant's absurd order comes down, I don't believe trained and armed LEOs and Mil will refuse the order out of some theoretical fear of armed citizens. I believe that they will instead stand against the immoral order because of their values.

Today you’re correct. But, when only those authorized by government are armed, a tyrant doesn’t start by issuing the absurd order. He starts by placing the corrupt in law enforcement and the military, while removing the moral and upright. It’s not that hard.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Today you’re correct. But, when only those authorized by government are armed, a tyrant doesn’t start by issuing the absurd order. He starts by placing the corrupt in law enforcement and the military, while removing the moral and upright. It’s not that hard.

And again, in that circumstance, the armed citizen does not scare the tyrant then either. It's not that hard.

 

[Pmacc60]

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.

I do love guns , always have from my cap pistols to the guns I have today. I don’t fall into the thoughts that guns solve everything as you stated. I feel you sited to extreme groups with most of us somewhere in between. This thread has proven beyond a doubt many people don’t care about the 2nd amendment , your statement that “we have no idea what the founding fathers meant in modern context” I can tell you with much certainty that they did have an idea ! In the 18 th century there were air guns that could shoot 20 rounds on a single charge , so fierce a weapon of the time that Europe banned it ! The founding fathers did not however. As I have stated I do not own AR’s but I will stand up for those who choose to do so ! Until someone shows me real statistics that these guns are being used by law abiding citizens to commit crime or endangering the public I will continue to stand for the rights of American who choose to own AR’s and high capacity mags! Heck more people are killed with knives than AR’s !

 

[ImBillT]

And again, in that circumstance, the armed citizen does not scare the tyrant then either. It's not that hard.

The tyrant doesn’t have to. The people doing his bidding do.

If you’re asking if a very large organized group of citizens could take on the US military the answer is “probably not”. That however is a ridiculous scenario. If by some incredible circumstance a very large portion of the US population decided it was time for revolution, the idea that all of the US military and all of its bases and equipment would land on one side, and all Chads of the world would land on the other is ludicrous. It’s an implausible scenario, and it’s not one I’ve attempted to address.

On the other hand, radical oppression by a nation’s own leaders has happened repeatedly throughout human history. Just imagine a scenario where a tyrannical leader of the US orders all Christians(or Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics or any other racial, political or religious group) arrested and imprisoned, and that most or all of law enforcement or military would have no moral objection. Would they try? Could it be done? With current levels of citizen armament, I suggest the answer is “no”. It would be a very dangerous thing to do something so unpopular.(dangerous for those doing the arresting) On the other hand, with no firearms, or sufficiently few of sufficiently worthless firearms, the level of moral objection becomes immaterial. The objectors have no power. Relying on the morality of law enforcement and military is useless because those who are moral can simply be replaced with those who are loyal. Once the moral are no longer in law enforcement and military they are disarmed. Tyranny may now rise.

It is not likely that the US will be disarmed by an act of tyranny. A majority of us will likely give up the majority of our arms semi-willingly after some form of legal or semi-legal action that has broad based support. The tyranny comes long after that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The tyrant doesn’t have to. The people doing his bidding do.

If you’re asking if a very large organized group of citizens could take on the US military the answer is “probably not”. That however is a ridiculous scenario. If by some incredible circumstance a very large portion of the US population decided it was time for revolution, the idea that all of the US military and all of its bases and equipment would land on one side, and all Chads of the world would land on the other is ludicrous. It’s an implausible scenario, and it’s not one I’ve attempted to address.

On the other hand, radical oppression by a nation’s own leaders has happened repeatedly throughout human history. Just imagine a scenario where a tyrannical leader of the US orders all Christians(or Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics or any other racial, political or religious group) arrested and imprisoned, and that most or all of law enforcement or military would have no moral objection. Would they try? Could it be done? With current levels of citizen armament, I suggest the answer is “no”. It would be a very dangerous thing to do something so unpopular.(dangerous for those doing the arresting) On the other hand, with no firearms, or sufficiently few of sufficiently worthless firearms, the level of moral objection becomes immaterial. The objectors have no power. Relying on the morality of law enforcement and military is useless because those who are moral can simply be replaced with those who are loyal. Once the moral are no longer in law enforcement and military they are disarmed. Tyranny may now rise.

It is not likely that the US will be disarmed by an act of tyranny. A majority of us will likely give up the majority of our arms semi-willingly after some form of legal or semi-legal action that has broad based support. The tyranny comes long after that.

You have totally lost me. You started a number of posts back by saying armed citizens won't actually use their arms, but they are like nuclear weapons - a deterrent for tyrants but not to be used. Then later they were a deterrent for LEO and mil asked to support tyrant, but then the armed citizens wouldn't actually shoot them, now you say armed citizens can't fight back against mil, but they could fight back against tyrant who orders round-up of religious groups, but then in the last sentence, the tyrant comes later. And you also said the people do the tyrant's bidding, but I thought the people were armed citizens protecting us from the tyrant. I am sure there is something here that I am missing, but I am done responding to this string of thoughts. I stand by my original point. In no real-world scenario has a modern armed civilian population held back a tyrant, this is a rhetorical gimmick that distracts folks from a real discussion about how to address gun violence. I would rather address it through economic and mental health reform, Pelosi would prefer to do by gun grabbing. On the brightside she doesn't have the votes, on the downside the GOP apparently has no ability to actually propose constructive legislation to address the root cause - and that leaves us right where we are. Arguing hypothetical scenarios and in fact doing nothing to improve the nation.

 

[4ohSick]

Until someone shows me real statistics that these guns are being used by law abiding citizens to commit crime or endangering the public I will continue to stand for the rights of American who choose to own AR’s and high capacity mags!

By definition law abiding citizens aren't committing crimes. Stephen Paddock was a law abiding citizen right up until the first shot. I don't own an AR but intend to at some point, so I'm not for gun grabbing, but you're setting an impossible standard for evidence.

 

[ImBillT]

You have totally lost me. You started a number of posts back by saying armed citizens won't actually use their arms, but they are like nuclear weapons - a deterrent for tyrants but not to be used. Then later they were a deterrent for LEO and mil asked to support tyrant, but then the armed citizens wouldn't actually shoot them, now you say armed citizens can't fight back against mil, but they could fight back against tyrant who orders round-up of religious groups, but then in the last sentence, the tyrant comes later. And you also said the people do the tyrant's bidding, but I thought the people were armed citizens protecting us from the tyrant. I am sure there is something here that I am missing, but I am done responding to this string of thoughts. I stand by my original point. In no real-world scenario has a modern armed civilian population held back a tyrant, this is a rhetorical gimmick that distracts folks from a real discussion about how to address gun violence. I would rather address it through economic and mental health reform, Pelosi would prefer to do by gun grabbing. On the brightside she doesn't have the votes, on the downside the GOP apparently has no ability to actually propose constructive legislation to address the root cause - and that leaves us right where we are. Arguing hypothetical scenarios and in fact doing nothing to improve the nation.

An armed citizenry is a deterrent against a potential tyrant ever doing anything tyrannical because there is not a means by which he can do tyrannical things when the people who would have to carry out his orders would be met with force. No, the masses do not have to have rise up with their arms. Those who would carry out a tyrant’s orders against an unarmed citizenry likely would not attempt to against an armed citizenry, so the order is not even issued.

I’m not convinced Pelosi doesn’t have the votes to substantially limit our 2A freedoms compared to what they are today. A few Dems in the house that aren’t as far left as she is would be required to stop something, and to motivate them to do so would require that their constituents made it plain that they didn’t want it. Taking a look at all the hunters who are okay with having gun rights restricted, I’m not convinced she’s going to be short on anything but the most extreme.

I’d rather not find out what it’s like to be in a gun controlled society, but I suspect that at some point in my lifetime I will. If we’re both still around, we’ll see just how much power that constitution really has. It’s my firm belief that without the 2A, the constitution is powerless.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m not convinced Pelosi doesn’t have the votes to substantially limit our 2A freedoms compared to what they are today. A few Dems in the house that aren’t as far left as she is would be required to stop something, and to motivate them to do so would require that their constituents made it plain that they didn’t want it. Taking a look at all the hunters who are okay with having gun rights restricted, I’m not convinced she’s going to be short on anything but the most extreme.

I’d rather not find out what it’s like to be in a gun controlled society, but I suspect that at some point in my lifetime I will. If we’re both still around, we’ll see just how much power that constitution really has. It’s my firm belief that without the 2A, the constitution is powerless.

I was using Pelosi in the broadest sense of DEM leadership. I have no doubt the house can pass something I won't like, but house passage means nothing without the Senate votes - that aren't there. So I should have said Dems don't have votes in Congress. Sorry for any confusion resulting from my shorthand.

You already live in a nation with gun control and have for your entire life. The question being pushed is around the appropriate specifics.

The, "without a 2A the constitution is worthless paper" perspective is overblown in my opinion and lacks clear modern historical parallel for its support. In the last 75 years democracies have done quite nicely without resorting to armed and untrained civilians. And on top of it, it does not resonate with the very people that will decide this issue for us - middle-class and upper middle-class suburban voters. If 2A supporters keep alienating this audience, gun control will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a political process, time to stop preaching to our own choir (which by evidence of this and other 2A HT threads aren't even buying the tune any more) and work for real solutions that improve the country AND preserve our rights to self defense consistent with Heller. The right to rebel against a tyrant is just not going to carry the day in 2021.

 

[mevertsen]

You are missing my point - when the tyrant's absurd order comes down, I don't believe trained and armed LEOs and Mil will refuse the order out of some theoretical fear of armed citizens. I believe that they will instead stand against the immoral order because of their values.

No. They will follow the order as the tyrant will threaten their own family and the lives of the person receiving the order.

"Go push that Trump supporter in the oven, he has no guns after all."

"No."

Tyrant then brings in the person's family and shoots them or orders someone else to do it. Then kills the person refusing to follow the order.

The people under Hitler followed his orders because they feared him and what he would do.

The government should fear the people. The government (LEO, etc) should expect to be killed if they try to put people in ovens.

The gun is the only equalizer.

<<<< LEO for 17 years and I DO fear the armed citizen who will defend against an unlawful or immoral action on my part. And it should be that way.

It is a check on my actions on a daily basis to be certain I am a peace keeper and not a tyrant.

 

[ImBillT]

I was using Pelosi in the broadest sense of DEM leadership. I have no doubt the house can pass something I won't like, but house passage means nothing without the Senate votes - that aren't there. So I should have said Dems don't have votes in Congress. Sorry for any confusion resulting from my shorthand.

You already live in a nation with gun control and have for your entire life. The question being pushed is around the appropriate specifics.

The, "without a 2A the constitution is worthless paper" perspective is overblown in my opinion and lacks clear modern historical parallel for its support. In the last 75 years democracies have done quite nicely without resorting to armed and untrained civilians. And on top of it, it does not resonate with the very people that will decide this issue for us - middle-class and upper middle-class suburban voters. If 2A supporters keep alienating this audience, gun control will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a political process, time to stop preaching to our own choir (which by evidence of this and other 2A HT threads aren't even buying the tune any more) and work for real solutions that improve the country AND preserve our rights to self defense consistent with Heller. The right to rebel against a tyrant is just not going to carry the day in 2021.

I’m not convinced the Senate wont pass some ugly things. I almost fear the House less.

When I said “gun control” I meant a more severe form of gun control, such as you would see in a lot of European countries. That was my misuse of shorthand.

75yrs isn’t very long, and you’re ignoring countries that the US couldn’t police. How safe are the citizens of China?

It’s not about organized rebellion against a tyrant. It’s about not being hauled out of your home by a goon(under orders). Yes, we haul armed criminals out of their homes all the time, but society as a whole approves of arresting these people. In general society approves of why, they approve of who, they have faith in our justice system that law enforcement turns those who are arrested over to. Occasionally law enforcement makes AN arrest that violates the conscience of a large portion of society, and the result is usually very uncomfortable for law enforcement. Can you imagine a scenario in which law enforcement would ever attempt to make 250,000 such arrests with the US as it is?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m not convinced the Senate wont pass some ugly things. I almost fear the House less.

Sincerely curious as to your thoughts here, as I would guess the other way.

The Senate currently requires 60 votes to move non-budgetary legislation. To remove this rule they would need Manchin's vote to get to 50+VP which he has said he will not give. Even if Manchin agreed to drop fillibuster rule he would then have to vote for gun control, and other than an extension of existing background checks to gun shows and other third party private sales he has said he doesn't support going further. And even if Manchin changes his mind, there are at least 3 or 4 other Dem Senators that will tread lightly on the issue. On the flip side the House rules by 50.001% and already has a 10 vote cushion. While the house does have some members in "swing" districts that may also tread lightly, all in all the senate seems a lot safer.

The real risk is not in 2021, but if the Trumpists continue to drive suburban and other moderate conservatives away from the party there is a real risk in 2022 or 2024 that the Dems get to 60 in the senate. And then you can say goodbye to a lot more than the 2A - it will be all AOC/Warren/Bernie all the time. Time for the rightest of the right to see the writing on the wall and start dancing with the broad coalition of moderate conservatives.

 

[6mm Remington]

From what I have observed and heard from Bidens mouth directly on the news, they plan to implement some Common Sense Gun Laws (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). If he can't get it done through legislation, Biden stated he might consider Executive Order. In my estimation and by what they propose, it means "We are really going to put the screws to folks who own firearms and the gun manufacturers!"

We have to contact our representatives, legislatures, governors, and the president himself. It's easy enough to do. JFGI (Just F---ing Google It) and send an email. I've started doing that myself and as of now I've sent emails on the Border Security/Immigration, their desired Firearms laws, and the Pipeline that Biden just shut down. We can chat back and forth amongst ourselves, but unless we take the same amount of time and direct it at folks where it might actually make a difference, then what we are mostly doing here is pissing in the wind. If we don't let our opinions and concerns be heard then we don't have a right to bitch when things go to hell on us.

Please take the time to personally contact the folks who need to hear what we the people want and expect from our government and the folks we elect.

David