Virginia Gun Rights Rally

[rjthehunter]

I would normally agree with the law of diminishing returns, but in this case I don't think it applies. Typically a group gets taken over by it's most radical elements over a period of time. Take our political parties for example. They always steer to the extreme, fail and get rebuilt. Repeat process. The anti gun movement's goal is to get rid of guns. Cost effectiveness is not one of their concerns. And yes I know there is more than one anti gun group, I was painting with broad strokes.

I would likely agree at hunting firearms, but I will strongly disagree with anyone who thinks handguns and autoloaders are safe.

What makes handguns and autoloaders unsafe then? I'd like to hear you elaborate on this. I don't think any gun is unsafe. So I assume you're want them taken away? How's that going to work?

 

[VAspeedgoat]

What makes handguns and autoloaders unsafe then? I'd like to hear you elaborate on this. I don't think any gun is unsafe. So I assume you're want them taken away? How's that going to work?

Safe from legislation trying to infringe on ownership. I was commenting on the post saying there was a point at which it was not cost effective to continue pursuing legislation. I don't think any anti gun group is concerned about the economics of gun control.

 

[Keeptrying]

Myanmar... would be a better example.

Though there isn’t a country with our per capita guns that got rid them, so not perfect corollary.

Because this seems to get lost on people, I’m a dude on a hunting forum, who owns guns, and is building rifles and loading his ammo...so if I say an argument is weak... well... good luck

Our team needs to think more and articulate our position better, is what I’m driving at.

And what I'm driving at is that you are underestimating the intentions of those who would strip your rights.

https://www.police.qld.gov.au/weapon-licensing/concealable-licence-target-shooting

Along with these restrictions, and many more, the use of firearms is severely restricted for self defense. People have lost the ability to defend themselves and their homes from the evil in the world. It would be the same here if the Democrat party gets its way.

I think it's inevitable, personally. People who say things like, "Well, I don't agree with all their positions but......." will allow control to go to those who will steal your God given rights. See it all the time, especially in the anti-Trump group. I had one of the smartest people I have ever known tell me that Trump has to go, "Whatever it takes!" I asked, "So the end justifies the means, eh?" Sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And what I'm driving at is that you are underestimating the intentions of those who would strip your rights.

I'm not, I think people like Bloomberg actually want to make all firearm ownership illegal. There is absolutely a segment of the US population who has this end goal in mind.

The point I'm trying to make is that those individuals are probably only 2-5% of the electorate, if that. There is a difference between intention and achieving a political goal. This goes both ways. Your goal either needs to be extremely bipartisan in order to be accomplished. There is no way you are getting a massive gun bill, through the house, senate, passed the presidents desk, and then upheld by the supreme court.

The comparison to Australia is a bit, inaccurate. First the number of firearms, there are orders of magnitude more firearms in the United States than there were in Australia pre buy back, gun ownership in the United States is more widespread, and the number of veterans per capita in the United States is dramatically different. Essentially the gun culture, in our country is just different. The political calculus is just different.

 

[MTGomer]

That's right, gun control is racist

Worth reading twice.
it was then and it is today.

The irony in blackface, kkk loving Northam and those that sympathize with his gun control push, calling a rally made up of gays, blacks, including the panthers, antifa, and of course a bunch of conservatives- white supremacists is just too much.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Worth reading twice.
it was then and it is today.

The irony in blackface, kkk loving Northam and those that sympathize with his gun control push, calling a rally made up of gays, blacks, including the panthers, antifa, and of course a bunch of conservatives- white supremacists is just too much.

There are significant 2a interests & groups that are racist. Ignoring that doesn't help us win this fight.

 

[rjthehunter]

There are significant 2a interests & groups that are racist. Ignoring that doesn't help us win this fight.

White people are racist... How often have you heard of a minority being racist? It doesn't mean all people who are pro gun are racists. Same way it doesn't mean all white people are racist. Choosing to ignore that has nothing to do with winning the fight IMO, I would say it's more along the lines of ignoring some bs that the left came up with that's just a coincidence.

 

[Middleagedbalding]

Flag on the play.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While there is a real history of racial subjecation in the United States around gun control (That's right, gun control is racist), using the Nazi's as an argument in support of gun rights is a logical fallacy.

Classic wiki. Left wing sources citing left wing sources. Dismissive of right wing sources. The specifics are obviously complicated on this topic and even the sources cited within the above linked wiki article confirm this. There has been a lot of embellishment and over simplification on the nazi took guns case. The nazis rise to power was aided by earlier gun control policies. Gun control policies were beneficial to the nazis. By 1938 and passage of the law that people cite as the nazis being pro gun, open resistance to the nazis wasnt really a thing inside germany. the nazis did disarm their enemies within the country and outside the borders (ie vichy france). The biggest logical fallacy in this thread is that wikipedia can be used as a credible source for accurate information.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Thing to keep in mind “armed resistance to tyranny” is going to be construed as insurrection, terrorism, or treason by one side of the narrative and patriotism/ "the resistance", on the other.

Most folks who think they are for people having guns to use against our government are thinking about white folks in the burbs or rural areas protecting themselves from the evil dems. If that’s the image you are conjuring, think about the black panthers, Muslim groups, Armed green new deal folks, etc etc.

Every political decision goes both ways, you can’t simply look at it from the perspective of how will this help or hurt people who look and think like me.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The biggest logical fallacy in this thread is that wikipedia can be used as a credible source for accurate information.

I agree to some extent with that point.

It's also highly suspect to think that private firearm ownership would have had any net positive effect on the holocaust.

 

[Sytes]

I'm of the opinion if the action to enable genocide is declared by the governing entity... private firearm ownership would have an impact. Especially in a culture relative to ours.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm of the opinion if the action to enable genocide is declared by the governing entity... private firearm ownership would have an impact. Especially in a culture relative to ours.

Think about the genocides that have occurred. The thing they have in common is complete supremacy of force by the perpetrators and authoritarian rule.

I’m of the opinion that what makes our country strong is our democracy and system of check and balances. If all parties continue to support the system of laws, even if sometimes they lose we wont have the conditions that lead to genocide.

 

[Sytes]

I hear what you're saying Wllm however, I'm a firm believer Without the Second there is no First. Without the First, there is no freedom. A slogan banner though one based on our founders intent. It is our bill of rights, not privilege to maintain our, "check and balance" of America's most sacred Constitution.

 

[Middleagedbalding]

I agree to some extent with that point.

It's also highly suspect to think that private firearm ownership would have had any net positive effect on the holocaust.

i will not dispute that private firearm ownership would not have been a huge factor once the nazis gained power and in particular the holocaust itself. I do think many people would prefer to own firearms when they see neighbors drug out in the street and executed. I also think one could credibly dispute whether private firearm ownership in occupied territories or within Germany during the Nazi rise to power may have contributed to a stronger opposition.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I also think one could credibly dispute whether private firearm ownership in occupied territories or within German during the Nazi rise to power may have contributed to a stronger opposition.

Sure, but isn't that kinda like saying well if Doc Brown had made his time machine out of a bus instead of a delorean and had taken crates of ARs back to the Cheyenne we would be looking at a very different United States?

I get the points both you and @Sytes are making, and to some extent I agree, but I think there are also a lot of negative consequences that could potentially outweigh the benefits.

As far as the Jew, WWII, etc arguments... I just have to eye roll.

Pogroms had been going on since what 1500s... 1400s. Europeans had been rounding up Jews, killing them, beating the crap out of them and putting them in ghettos for over 400 years. Ever watched Fiddler on the Roof? No one in 1936 through even maybe 1942 really even noticed what was going on... they just thought it was just another European anti-jew thing. And if we are being honest, here in the US we hated jews as well eg... KKK et al. and the idea of rounding people up and putting them in camps was not particularly abhorrent to the country in general, see native Americans, Andrew Jackson, and then more applicably the Japanese interment. Point being, if owning personal firearms and protecting yourself from malevolent state actors was actually a thing you think the Jews would have figured that out after 400 years of violence against them... which I guess is why we have Israel and it's current level of military expenditure per capita.

Further leading to the eye roll about Vichy France et al. is the fact that a decent portion of US R and D during the war went to trying to figure out how to mass produce weapons that the resistance could even use... eg M3 sub. Thinking about the cases of successful guerrilla resistance, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Russian war), etc. The reason they worked is because a state actor was providing arms to private citizens.

There are a ton of gun experts on here, throw down some knowledge. 1935-1937 what was even available, it would have to be European made, the production company would have to be private and not state owned, and the cost would have to be at a price point that a private citizen could actually afford to buy one. The StG 44 hadn't been invented, the 1911/thompson weren't available to the European market... I don't the french were getting a sears and roebuck catalogue, if those weapons were even sold by sears. So essentially you are looking at shotguns, hunting rifles... and then maybe some MP18s or Darnes... possible at FM24, but those were produced in the thousands not the millions and I think it's highly suspect that any private citizen would, pre-war own anything like that. I think for comparison it would be interesting to look at what private citizens in the US owned... probably not much at that time.

Dropping private ownership for a second think about how many weapons the US sent the Russians and the British through the lend lease program. Which, I think goes to the idea that there was a dearth of weapons in Europe for state actors let alone private individuals.

 

[Bluffgruff]

Phew, what a heated debate.
Reality will be, things will change, fighting to keep things the same or even arguing and hoping to regress to prior states of affairs deemed better will ultimately fail and leave empty, bitter hearts.
No hope for #bringamericatogetheragain...?

 

[Bigjay73]

Sure, but isn't that kinda like saying well if Doc Brown had made his time machine out of a bus instead of a delorean and had taken crates of ARs back to the Cheyenne we would be looking at a very different United States?

That's not how time travel works. Haven't you seen Avengers? Simpletons

 

[ignorethefringes]

That's not how time travel works. Haven't you seen Avengers? Simpletons

Don't start that around here! That whole thing was a mess . . .

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's not how time travel works. Haven't you seen Avengers? Simpletons

Wait, are you telling me Back to the Future is a bunch of bullshit?

I see the knee has been jerked. Well done, @wllm1313

 

[Sytes]

Trivial fact to add a few more grey hairs... Thanks Ben,
Back to the Future was released...

/Drum roll: 1985.

Ugh!

And now back to the regular scheduled debate: Government oppression of law abiding citizens right (not privilege) to own firearms.