Gun-rights backers vow to 'go on offense' during Trump years

[chilli42]

Why not?  They have been living under the most tyrannical firearms regulations in the world.  With the elevated fear of immigrants, hostility between the public and government and police, increased racial tension, the public must be better armed to defend themselves from these growing threats.  It's time for a change.  What could go wrong?

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

Your beaten fanny.

This part is missing today. 

[elgordo38]

Dear Canadians

See what your missing. When the bogeyman comes you will be defenceless and helpless. 

[Shawn0000]

58 minutes ago, BlindMagician said:

Hhmmm..tyrant police being a mark of a mature civilised nation? Aim higher.

 

Absolutely not, but the point being, the US may not be civilized enough yet to trust the police with guns without having armed and protected civilians.

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is debatable. Gun murders decreased, but not murders in general.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

 

I wouldn't even debate his point...Australians can make whatever laws they want and good for them. It's the same for Americans and I don't care what people do with the guns they're allowed to legally own.

[Shawn0000]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

And if you don't think there are rules and regulations about purchasing and using a firearm try obtaining one in California, New York, and other "blue" states.

 

Oh, I know, but this thread is about circumventing those rules on the claim that that would be constitutional.

[new2here]

I've long considered myself to be a second amendment proponent and have (and still do) own two small arms - both given legally to me from my dad.

That said, while I recognize that owning firearms is a constitutional issue- as opposed to a lower-strength federal law or policy, I am concerned about the ease of obtaining firearms and those that misuse them.

What I guess bothers me is that this issue - even if it's a constitutional one - quickly becomes an all-or-nothing one.. in that there seems to be little room or motivation for ether "side" to agree to reasonable (and yes, reasonable is an opinion ) regulation that fairly (also an opinion) balances the constitutional right against the safety of the public.

Somewhat in the same manner as free speech is not wholly free and without any form of governmentally imposed limitations - such as making threats, calling in/saying jokes about bombs on aircraft, etc.

True, speech is not the same as a gun. A gun requires a user to interact with it, to willfully use it improperly... true... but to a somewhat parallel way, speech is the same- it requires a person to say it.

I do vote republican - but I more consider myself a pragmatic idealist in that I start my thinking from the point of what do I want in a perfect world, but then make operational decisions based largely on what is now the reality.

At present, I do think gun laws in aggregate have gone too far, and it is my own opinion that what we have, has not (in my mind) materially changed the risk factor for illegal gun use. I am also mindful of the reality that once laws (like taxes) are imposed, they're hard as hell to either reduce or eliminate entirely - but tend to remain and/expand. Therefore, I am very cautious when the talk is of new firearm laws especially given firearms constitutional element.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[tartempion]

Let's sell guns and ammunition in 7/11's, problem solved.

[sgtsabai]

Let me clarify a couple of things, first what the hell is a snowflake? What the hell to left wing, progressives, socialists etc. have to do with gun control and being scared of a gun. Pardner I'm a far left radical militant and I owned a small arsenal back in the states, I'm no snowflake, comprende' ese'? I did my own reloading and shot thousands of rounds a year and I'm damn sure not scared of some redneck macho idiot carring a semi-auto military type wepon that is more than likely to shoot his toe off, kill an innocent bystander than me. Oh, I carried, concealed and after I left New Mexico I never obtained a license, didn't need one in NM. I was a commissioned/certified law enforcement officer that had to qualify at least twice a year and was offered a weapons training position. Why in the hell should I have to go through another background check and some stupid school that can't teach me crap about gun safety and how to hit my target. Most of my guns, including my M-14 with night vision, M-1, SKS (war souvenir), AK-47-Polytech milled, not stamped, my accurized .300 Win. Mag long range Mod. 700,  etc. are in the hands of my friends and if I had to return would be in my hands as soon as I asked. As is my S&W 586 .357 service revolver. My custom .45 was sold to a friends brother after he had promised me that he wouldn't sell. I have plenty of friends that will gladly furnish me with concealed carry .45, still the best gun for a gunfight.

 

I was a member of the NRA, years ago before they became a right wing political group. They were a good, informative group back then. Great articles on shooting, hunting and gunsmithing. I wasn't aware of it being on the defensive as Obama never tried nor did he ever say he would take weapons away.

 

I will agree, there are many panty waists that are afraid to even look at a gun, it might go off on it's own...lol. But, it doesn't mean they are liberal, Democrat or progressive. I know plenty on the left that have guns and know how to use them  If you don't like guns, fine. I'm not going to try and convince you that you should, don't even lecture me on something you know nothing about.

 

One major problem America has today with all the mass shootings is the destruction of mental health care services begun under the Reagan cabal. There are some people that should never be allowed to have a gun, including some of the militarized para-military police.

 

Oh, and back when I came back from VN I worked with the Black Panthers, Brown Berets, and am a member of AIM (Wounded Knee II Vet), good folks. Let's see, kill a black man for having an unloaded BB gun bought right there in wallymart but it's OK for a white man to walk around with a semi-auto military type rifle over his shoulder. Does something strike you as wrong with that picture? If not, you might, no you are a racist.

 

Gun Control=being able to hit your target.

Edited December 5, 2016 by sgtsabai

[Sir Bogdiver]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

One of the NRA's paramount goals is getting Congress to pass a law requiring all states to recognize concealed-carry handgun permits issued by any other state. Currently, many permit holders must leave their weapons at home when traveling or risk violating other states' laws. NRA supporters say permits should be treated like driver's licenses.

Except for the fact that:

1) There is a national database for driving licenses.

2) Every holder of a driving license needs to pass a test first.

3) A driver can lose his or her license very easily due to inappropriate behavior.

 

I haven't heard the NRA saying anything about those conditions which show the comparison is absolutely invalid.

Sensible gun control WORKS.

[Jonmarleesco]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Among their priorities: eliminating gun-free zones at schools, reducing requirements for background checks and ensuring that concealed carry handgun permits from one state are recognized everywhere in the U.S.

Myopia and moronism, hand in hand.

[zd1]

 

I don't like guns even though I was around guns as a child growing up in the country and I have shot guns in the past, but as I have got older I realised that guns are for killing things and I don't want to kill things so I have no need for a gun.

I had a good debate on here a few weeks ago with a pro gun member and while I saw some of his point of view I disagreed with some as well, I think a lot of it is down to cultural differences between the US and western Europe, the gun ownership in my opinion is part of the American modern culture and the need to have a gun is instilled in the populous since the 2nd amendment.

The USA is the American peoples country and if they want guns then it is up to them but I personally think back ground checks for people wanting to acquire a firearm should be compulsory in fact I think it would be madness not to have some sort of check what with the amount of people with mental health issues, seriously there are some people out there who absolutely shouldn't be allowed to own a gun for these reasons.

Also in regards to schools they are a place for children to learn and I don't believe that there is a place for guns in the classroom, with the massacres that have occurred in American schools in recent history bringing guns into schools would be like adding petrol to a fire.

[dunroaming]

Give everyone who wants a gun, a gun  They want that wild west lifestyle so let them have it.  Just make one simple rule.  If someone doesn't have a gun then they are not in the game and you can't shoot them.  I would go along with that!

[wwest5829]

6 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The right to employment isn't a Constitional right...try to follow the logic.

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with, "a well regulated militia being necessary..." being the opening of that 2nd Amendment. Ah, that's right...inconvenient, let's just ignore...

 

[sgtsabai]

that's funny dunroaming. Well not really. While a law enforcement officer in northern New Mexico we had a vast space to cover, usually single person patrol and little back up, just other agencies that would come to each other's help. Bunch of us sitting together one day talking about a community up in the mountains (we were in the mountains) that just seemed to breed bad guys and was a constant source of trouble both in and out of the community. Jokingly we all though we should chip in, buy the ammo for them and let them just kill each other. Well, law enforcement people along with EMT's etc. tend to have a warped sense of humor. I'll add, it was already the wild, wild west up there, nobody went unarmed including my wife at the time and there were no rules. Our local magistrate and friend, another VN Vet, was headed down to Espanola (we often said we would give it to the Russians as a sacrifice to bomb) when some gang baggers pulled up along side and stuck a gun out the window. He calmly said to his gf, "open the glove box and hand to me please" and commenced to shoot the hell out of the gang banger's engine. Reload and continue on. Some of you will never understand why we carried, but I'm not asking you to, just mind your own business.

 

Nobody is going to take away the right to own a gun in America, but there does have to be some control over the types of people that become mass killers. The signs are nearly always there, there just isn't any help for those people anymore.

[OMGImInPattaya]

39 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with, "a well regulated militia being necessary..." being the opening of that 2nd Amendment. Ah, that's right...inconvenient, let's just ignore...

 

It's been ignored by the Supremes as well  

[dunroaming]

20 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

that's funny dunroaming. Well not really. While a law enforcement officer in northern New Mexico we had a vast space to cover, usually single person patrol and little back up, just other agencies that would come to each other's help. Bunch of us sitting together one day talking about a community up in the mountains (we were in the mountains) that just seemed to breed bad guys and was a constant source of trouble both in and out of the community. Jokingly we all though we should chip in, buy the ammo for them and let them just kill each other. Well, law enforcement people along with EMT's etc. tend to have a warped sense of humor. I'll add, it was already the wild, wild west up there, nobody went unarmed including my wife at the time and there were no rules. Our local magistrate and friend, another VN Vet, was headed down to Espanola (we often said we would give it to the Russians as a sacrifice to bomb) when some gang baggers pulled up along side and stuck a gun out the window. He calmly said to his gf, "open the glove box and hand to me please" and commenced to shoot the hell out of the gang banger's engine. Reload and continue on. Some of you will never understand why we carried, but I'm not asking you to, just mind your own business.

 

Nobody is going to take away the right to own a gun in America, but there does have to be some control over the types of people that become mass killers. The signs are nearly always there, there just isn't any help for those people anymore.

 

My post was satire, always is when this subject comes up. I get your take on it and understand that when you are in a completely lawless area with many bad guys then you need to protect yourself and if they have guns then you need them too.  I would hope though that that isn't a description of the USA as a whole?  I lived for a while in Boston and New York and although Boston isn't typical New York has it's moments.  I never felt the need to carry a gun and apart from one armed robbery I never saw guns being fired.  I am sure that there are other areas where that isn't the case, maybe each state should make it's own gun laws?

 

One thing is for sure, you create the society you live in and if guns are an integral part of that society who are we to criticise?

[sgtsabai]

I recognized it as such and unfortunately much of the US is about that bad. You were in NY and Boston, been to both, and never felt the need to carry? I've never seen an armed robbery but I've seen more than my share of dead people and people trying to kill me (some posters on here will say "sorry they missed"). An armed robbery, damn, never saw one. Road rage is rampant, I've gone to guns when threatened by gang bangers, AK-47 was more than a match, their poor old car just couldn't go fast enough. Frankly, if I was back in the states I'd be more afraid of the cops than others.

[helpisgood]

3 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

It's been ignored by the Supremes as well  

 

What!  The Second Amendment's use of the word "militia" has not been ignored by the US Supreme Court.  (I assume you are not referring to Diana Ross.)

 

In the case I had cited above for you, viz., DC v. Heller (2008), the Court discussed this use of "militia" in great length.  For example:

 

"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it [the 2nd Amend.] protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service... Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."  [Emphasis added.]

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Obviously, the justices went back and forth about how to interpret "militia" for purposes of the Second Amendment quite a lot. 

 

Do you bother to research this at all?  I already knew about Heller from the news.  But, just for fun, I entered "militia" and "second amendment" into Google and the first entry was a Wikipedia article which mentions Heller among other related US Supreme Court cases in the opening summary of the article. 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by helpisgood
added specifics

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, helpisgood said:

 

What!  The Second Amendment's use of the word "militia" has not been ignored by the US Supreme Court.  (I assume you are not referring to Diana Ross.)

 

In the case I had cited above for you, viz., DC v. Heller (2008), the Court discussed this use of "militia" in great length.  For example:

 

"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it [the 2nd Amend.] protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service... Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."  [Emphasis added.]

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Obviously, the justices went back and forth about how to interpret "militia" for purposes of the Second Amendment quite a lot. 

 

Do you bother to research this at all?  I already knew about Heller from the news.  But, just for fun, I entered "militia" and "second amendment" into Google and the first entry was a Wikipedia article which mentions Heller among other related US Supreme Court cases in the opening summary of the article. 

 

The Heller decision was a big victory for gun rights advocates in that for the first time the Supremes ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms was an individual, not a collective [militia], right. That's the primary holding and legal importance of Heller.

[Grubster]

I grew up in the US, hunted all my life there and I never once heard of anybody that was going to take my guns away. Eventually if the NRA gets their way there will be so many killings by gun shot there that it will come to the point they will take them all away. Why in the sam hell does anybody short of law enforcement need a gun in their pocket on school grounds, public buildings, a rock concert, a football game, in a bar, etc. etc.    You wackos are going to ruin it for us hunters. Its like your getting ready for a war or something.

[gemini81]

6 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I grew up in the US, hunted all my life there and I never once heard of anybody that was going to take my guns away. Eventually if the NRA gets their way there will be so many killings by gun shot there that it will come to the point they will take them all away. Why in the sam hell does anybody short of law enforcement need a gun in their pocket on school grounds, public buildings, a rock concert, a football game, in a bar, etc. etc.    You wackos are going to ruin it for us hunters. Its like your getting ready for a war or something.

1) The right to bear arms

2) Head to south Chicago for a refreshing perspective on why you might need one for self defense.

[Grubster]

Just now, gemini81 said:

1) The right to bear arms

2) Head to south Chicago for a refreshing perspective on why you might need one for self defense.

Well I am from Chicago and I can tell you its a very safe town outside two major neighborhoods that are not really very easy to get too, and nearly all the killings there are gang on gang killings.   I do not feel threatened there.      Might I remind you how all these kids got these guns,  They have runners that go to the surrounding counties and buy them by the dozens with ammo at your favorite walk in buy a gun and ammo store. Or Walmart which ever is closest. At least I know where most of the gun totters are there, but now I guess its better everybody has one huh?  We are the laughing stock of the world on this issue and I see no end to it now as all the criminals already have their guns.  Trust me when they decide to shoot you they won't talk first, and you won't know its coming so what good is your gun going to do you other than the fact the criminal will be thinking everyone may have a gun so they best just shoot you first then take your money. Its gonna get ugly, real ugly.   Good luck and I hope you feel safe.  I will just stay here without a gun.

[Grubster]

15 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

Back when I was a kid, guns weren't bad, but some people were.  At Grandpa's house, all the kids knew the guns were in the unlocked closet under the stairs.  When they let us shoot the .22 rifles and pistols, we knew to scrounge through the junk drawer in the kitchen to get enough cartridges.

 

Guns are not evil.  Unless you shoot at starlings on top of the barn, miss, and poke holes in the barn roof.  That is a no-no.  Or shoot at one sitting on a power wire from the barn to the chicken coop, and sever the wire.  This is where responsibility with firearms springs from.  Your beaten fanny.

 

Yeah thats a great idea, my neighbors son got whacked out some how, got the shot gun out of the closet and killed his whole family, then himself. 15 years old. Nice huh. Starlings No. wires NO,  beaten fanny maybe.

[Grubster]

12 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Youre mixing up allot of rights in your question so it's difficult to answer succinctly. Yes, background checks are allowed to vet the sutability, experience, and qualifications of job applicants.

 

As for seeking employment "without prejudice," I'm assuming you mean without being discriminated against. Contrary to your post, background checks and inquiry into someone's protected status is expressly prohibited because of their Constitutional protections.

Your criminal record is public knowledge and not protected in any way, very easy to obtain legally by anyone.

[Grubster]

12 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Its kind of complicated.  The Black Panthers is the most interesting aspect in my opinion.  At a time when black people were regularly being assassinated by the police, the right to bear arms against a tyrant, brought them some safety.

Where the hell did that statement come from, the Black panthers were no better than the KKK, So you think its ok to shoot a cop?  Are you referring to Mayor Daily's order to shoot to kill the looters in the mass looting in Chicago brought on by the Black Panthers. I still support that call. They quit looting didn't they?

[Grouse]

All very depressing and predictable.

 

I have given up debating the issue.

 

Give them another 200 years and they'll see sense ?

[sgtsabai]

And please furnish the truth about the Black Panthers looting. Not the usual right wingnut sources that so many ill informed seem to believe here.

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Where the hell did that statement come from, the Black panthers were no better than the KKK, So you think its ok to shoot a cop?  Are you referring to Mayor Daily's order to shoot to kill the looters in the mass looting in Chicago brought on by the Black Panthers. I still support that call. They quit looting didn't they?

 

How the hell does "the right to bear arms against a tyrant, brought them some safety" translate in your mind to me saying it is OK to shoot a cop?  Funny.

 

Anyway, it came from the time when if a Black Panther was stopped in their car they would get out, load and cock their shotgun, not shoot anyone, just stand with a loaded weapon so as to avoid getting shot themselves, something you can probably appreciate, right?  The right to bear arms, remember?  It was also one time in history when the NRA were campaigning for gun control and even Reagan supported a bill that stated that open carrying is an act of violence, funny what difference the skin color of the person holding the gun makes.

[sgtsabai]

I'll add that the Black Panthers I worked with in Houston and Austin were armed as was I. Not a damn one ever threaten to just go out and kill. They were there to protect their people from the pigs. Even then they compared black neighborhoods to an occupied country, ah like Vietnam and a some had been there. The pigs won, they either imprisoned or assassinated the leaders. A cop is not always your friend, in fact if you are brown, black or poor a cop is probably your enemy and has been for a long time. It seems what is OK for white people is a real no no for black people.

 

Wait, isn't the 2nd Amendment about the right to bear arms against a tyrant? I swore and oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If it involves bearing arms, so be it.