My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

[Oscarsdad]

Ok- I've already touched on the fact that I have lost several lengthy posts so I am going to string several to minimize losses-( my phone is being a PITA....)

First off- No Rich- my 4 year old analogy was a good one. Assuming that the child has enough finger strength to overcome the trigger pull of the weapon, it's not speculation outside of the realm of possibility to come to the logical conclusion that it's almost a certainty that the child will discharge the firearm eventually. The unknown is where, when and how much damage and who will it affect.

So I contend that the same goes for poachers and other criminals. That they will use them is a given- where, how, and the damage are the only issues a reasonable need contemplate.

However- it did become a poor analogy when you used it....It wasn't me that compared responsible gun owners with 4 year olds- it was you. But most importantly- I used it to clarify my position that criminal activity with suppressors is a given to the reasonable mind in the middle. I think that probably got through. Instead of concentrating on debunking the fact I established- you chose to attack the anology. So my point is safe -even if the analogy is not. If it were my intention to argue the point- I wouldn't have even mentioned it as I feel that silence would be on my side.

I actually think I've made a difference here and it's pretty rewarding. I can see a big change in the contents of the posts and see people starting to think and step up to the plate.

I've said that the whole suppressor debate was a non- issue to me and that is pretty much true. The whole point of this was to try to get people to take a closer look at HOW we argue our points and where our strengths and weaknesses lie.

First of all - let's address Constitutional mumbo jumbo. The Constitution and Second Amendment are the fundamental roots and probably the most important deciding factor in our fight. They are our ace in the hole and should be used as such. They have a place in mention in every debate concerning our rights and freedoms. My point was that that alone is not going to get the job done and excessive parroting of it reduces it to mumbo jumbo in the debate. Sometimes less is more- just because you're in the choir- is your voice helping or hurting? ????

 

[Oscarsdad]

To go back to the last post- analogies can be helpful in explaining your position but they can also be a liability. Usually- it's not a good idea to try to use someone else's analogy against them, but to re-attack the issue with your own, more suited to supporting your side of the argument.

So let's start from the beginning. Divide and conquer. Very quickly, I took muzzle brakes out of the equation. This is good and bad. It's important to focus on a single issue at a time. The bad part- our focus needs to be on what we have- protecting our rights is so much more important than fighting for what we don't have.

The other point I've tried to drive home is that public perception is important. This is where all the "need" discussion comes in. The way I see it- arguing that a law is unconstitutional is going nowhere without a large percentage of the population behind it. The powers that be have little concern for the Constitution, but are very much concerned with popular opinion.

So- to be successful- you must sway public opinion, especially to overturn the status quo. So while I gave Rich hearing damage as a reason " for the moment" it's really not a very good one.

Let's examine it in the real world and "percieved reality".
Rich made the statement- "that there would be instances where you couldn't say- wait while I put my earplugs in". Well let's get back to the real world. Police officers spend entire 20+ year careers dealing with criminals every day and never fire their weapons. So now you expect someone to care about someone else's hearing in a situation that is highly unlikely to occur? And here's the thing- the bad guy is the only one likely to have a suppressor. Who would carry a weapon with a suppressor attached in the real world? So instead of hold on while I put on my earplugs- it would be- hold on while I attach my suppressor.
So- I said it was a reason- never said it was a good one.

Just bear with me here- it's not all bad. ....

 

[Oscarsdad]

So- let's look at how and why the anti-gunners took away our assault weapons when we already had them and it was unconstitutional to do so. One of their very best ploys was to change reality to a believable "percieved reality" of the folks in the middle. They did it with an out and out lie - but it was believable to the uninformed: "Assault weapons are the criminals weapon of choice." I really believe too many people ignored that and fell back on the 2nd amendment.

So that is an important part of what we need to do as well. That is why Rich's videos were so good. They go to change "percieved reality" of those in the middle.

Now JMHO - some ways that might be better to argue the same issue:

Criminals will use them ( poachers too).. These people are already breaking the law- the truth is regulating suppressors is only keeping the law abiding responsible gun owners from using them. I can make one in my garage in 1/2 an hour from stuff I hhave laying around-if they were that useful to criminals their use would be widespread already. I don't have the materials or knowledge to make meth- sooooo.

Push as much as possible that the reduction in noise is absolutely so negligible that it is useless for criminals.

Now the problem with that is kinda contradicts the best argument I can think of for them that affects the man in the middle.:

It's common knowledge that the wild hog population is an inviromental epidemic catastrophe that continues to spiral out of control. They destroy untold numbers of crops and farmland and even kill and consume young livestock. We are losing the battle and they are spreading uncontrollably.

We also have in many areas coyote populations that are feasting on livestock. In many instances they are so overpopulated that they have taken to lurking around many city limits and sneaking in under cover of darkness and preying solely on unprotected dogs and cats.

Both of these species could be brought under control if we could only use suppressors as they greatly increase the success rate numbers on these animals that drive up our grocery prices and prey on our beloved pets.

Thanks for listening- hope this helped.

 

[BulkMice]

I noticed Obama touched base on "Guns" during his address to the nation. Anyone think its a good Idea for him to pose more gun control measures via Executive Order?

 

[tsst]

I noticed Obama touched base on "Guns" during his address to the nation. Anyone think its a good Idea for him to pose more gun control measures via Executive Order?

Bad idea but it's never stopped him in the past. :shrugs:

 

[Chip]

Gun control advocates lose seats every time it comes up, so it is politically not a good thing for Democrats. In my personal view, it is a downright traitorous thing.

 

[Rich Z]

I noticed Obama touched base on "Guns" during his address to the nation. Anyone think its a good Idea for him to pose more gun control measures via Executive Order?

Perhaps someone should point out to him that the office of the presidency is NOT a dictatorship whereby the POTUS can rule without the will of the people being consulted.

 

[Christen]

Bad idea but it's never stopped him in the past. :shrugs:

Perhaps someone should point out to him that the office of the presidency is NOT a dictatorship whereby the POTUS can rule without the will of the people being consulted.

Amen!!! I couldn't agree more.

 

[Rich Z]

In section 8 of the US Constitution, there is this statement made in reference to the powers of Congress:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Please note that it says "all laws", not "some laws".

Where does it state that the POTUS has the power to bypass Congress (and thereby the Constitution) in order to dictate new laws and regulations by executive orders?

It might be there in the US Constitution somewhere, and perhaps I just overlooked it.

Yeah, damned inconvenient that Congress might get in the way of what a president of the USA wants to do, now isn't it? I mean, who would possibly think that a president SHOULD be hindered by the representatives of the people?

 

[tsst]

In section 8 of the US Constitution, there is this statement made in reference to the powers of Congress:


Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Please note that it says "all laws", not "some laws".

Where does it state that the POTUS has the power to bypass Congress (and thereby the Constitution) in order to dictate new laws and regulations by executive orders?

It might be there in the US Constitution somewhere, and perhaps I just overlooked it.

Yeah, damned inconvenient that Congress might get in the way of what a president of the USA wants to do, now isn't it? I mean, who would possibly think that a president SHOULD be hindered by the representatives of the people?

The three branches.

 

[Nova_C]

So what's the plan? What do you mean to do about it?

If the US has really gone so far that it's a straight up dictatorship now, are you just going to leave things as they are?

 

[Rich Z]

So what's the plan? What do you mean to do about it?

If the US has really gone so far that it's a straight up dictatorship now, are you just going to leave things as they are?

Those are actually very good questions. Wish good answers were forthcoming...

Truth of the matter is that quite likely most people do not want what might be coming.

 

[kathylove]

Yes, VERY good questions without good answers!

I have tried for years to spread the word that there are alternatives - vote out all of the incumbents and generally DON'T vote for Republicrats (with few exceptions). But I am afraid things will have to get much worse before the voting masses will get the message.

I have read that we (U.S.) have the world's largest prison population, followed by China and Russia (maybe that was even in this thread?) Seems like there are lots of people with nothing better to do than dream up new ways to make us into criminals as we go about our daily lives - WAY too many laws, with new ones coming every day.

We are not a dictatorship - YET. I only hope voters will wake up before "1984" arrives for real. I will be 62 in a couple of months. It hopefully will not become unbearable in my lifetime. But I do fear for the youngsters growing up now.

The Prez and everyone else talks about the growing wealth disparity between rich and poor, and that it is growing faster than ever before. I am beginning to worry about that more, lately, too. But I don't think that disparity is due to too few gov't handouts. I feel that it is probably due more to big corporations having bought gov't officials and the constant flow between highly paid industry jobs, and the gov't jobs in agencies that are supposed to regulate those same industries. The fox is guarding the hen house! Not only does this allow companies such as Monsanto to fill our food supply with excess glyphosate toxins due to Roundup ready GMO food plants, but it allows them to sue organic farmers who have been unknowingly contaminated by their patented seeds. The gov't is busy raiding small farms that produce raw milk or other specialty items clearly wanted by consumers. But they allow the big threats to go unchallenged, since they can buy their way in, and small companies can't buy the influence that big ones can.

On a smaller scale, HSUS buying influence so that politicians legislate against pythons instead of the real problems, is the same thing. In every industry, I see the giant corporations in bed with politicians. They not only take away our choices, but suppress small business in every way they can. By limiting small business, and even smaller home cottage business, I think we are feeding the disparity between wealthy, giant corporations and their management / owners, compared to the shrinking middle class workers, and those even less fortunate. Changing the laws to promote business on the smallest scale would encourage even poor people to start a part time cottage business that could help them in more ways than just earning a few extra dollars. Instead, we mire them in red tape and taxes, until they give up - or never get started.

I don't see a way to change this very easily. It is a snowball rolling downhill, gathering more snow as it goes. Unless we can break the cycle that makes politicians a ruling, elite class that gives favors to those who feed them, I think it will only get worse. Corruption feeds corruption, until SOMETHING changes.

 

[tsst]

 

[Beyonkah]

My dad is a gunsmith, and also his father, my grandpa. I started shooting when I was only 3 years old. I was taught gun safety before I could tie my shoes! It's in my blood to bear arms and not abuse the privilege! It's all malarkey if you ask me.
It is our 2nd Amendment and our forefathers wanted this for us. Nice you know there are more people out there who have the same views as my family raised me with.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!
That is all

 

[Michael823]

I think we all know full well, Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi would be enemies of the NRA if they were still alive today, just like the president. I personally find it hypocritical how the conservative right suddenly try to use MLK to their advantage in arguments against Obama, when in the 60's, the conservative right made the same claims about MLK as they make against Obama now.

 

[Oscarsdad]

I think we all know full well, Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi would be enemies of the NRA if they were still alive today, just like the president. I personally find it hypocritical how the conservative right suddenly try to use MLK to their advantage in arguments against Obama, when in the 60's, the conservative right made the same claims about MLK as they make against Obama now.

MLK fought to secure equal rights. He was all about equality and freedom. Obama is all about big government and taking freedoms away from the people for their own good. Obama doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same discussion as MLK- much less compared to him.

How they would feel.towards the NRA is pure conjecture on your part- especially with MLK. He spent his life fighting oppression and may well have veiwed the current government activity as just that. ....

So glad to hear you are so up on your history. ...too bad it doesn't match what people who lived it remember. Conservative Republicans weren't the only people opposing MLK's veiws- they went against the status quo and shook up a lot of white folk.....

 

[tsst]

I think we all know full well, Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi would be enemies of the NRA if they were still alive today, just like the president. I personally find it hypocritical how the conservative right suddenly try to use MLK to their advantage in arguments against Obama, when in the 60's, the conservative right made the same claims about MLK as they make against Obama now.

But in the 50s the NRA sponsored conceal carry for which MLK applied for a conceal carry permit in Alabama. He was denied by government.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

“Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor,”

:shrugs:

 

[Chip]

I think we all know full well, Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi would be enemies of the NRA if they were still alive today.

I think we know full well that we have no way in the world to make the assumption where someone who died 50 years ago would stand on a current political issue. The NRA has been around since 1871. Were they enemies of it during their lives?

 

[Rich Z]

From a historical perspective, if that is the game we are playing now, how do you think the people who penned our Constitution would feel about the government we now have? I suspect there is a LOT of general discontent that the tame media is trying hard to suppress from common knowledge.