Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Northam pushes gun control
#11
Generally middle right in politics, could care less who you want to eff or marry and if you choose to not have a child that's your decision not mine, 2nd amendment there is no middle ground as the "middle ground" is bans and confiscation or ineffective burdensome legislation on law abiding folks that will do nothing to affect criminal behavior.

If there is some "middle ground" legislation that anyone thinks is a good idea I'd like to hear it as nothing proposed in the special session was "middle ground". If there is a true "middle ground" bill that anyone thinks is good post it I might be surprised.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
(07-11-2019, 09:33 AM)67gt390fb Wrote: Generally middle right in politics, could care less who you want to eff or marry and if you choose to not have a child that's your decision not mine, 2nd amendment there is no middle ground as the "middle ground" is bans and confiscation or ineffective burdensome legislation on law abiding folks that will do nothing to affect criminal behavior.

If there is some "middle ground" legislation that anyone thinks is a good idea I'd like to hear it as nothing proposed in the special session was "middle ground". If there is a true "middle ground" bill that anyone thinks is good post it I might be surprised.


Yeah...That AGREE
Founder: Make it Rain

If it is in season I will hunt it.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
The one thing that I seem to remember is that there are never any calls to abridge the rights of the people outlined in the bill of rights except the one that protects the other amendments. People have the right to freedom of speech and assembly, against quartering troops in their home, a speedy trial, and mostly, unreasonable searches and seizures of private property. No one except for the 4th amendment has been overturned by courts. The 2A has withstood scrutiny in the early 2010s at the Supreme Court, and it was why I believe many Americans chose to elect Donald Trump. I firmly believe that any other candidate would have wavered in its defense.

I think a center or middle of the road position is that we have plenty of "common sense" gun laws on the books, and that the penalties for violating those laws are already severe. If the people that are entrusted to provide for the general welfare, or public safety are negligent or demonstrate malfeasance in the conduct of their duties, well just like the lawsuits that target gun owners, people should target their elected officials. Mayors, Town and City Councils, and County Supervisors would be called to the carpet for enacting laws in their jurisdictions which prevent law abiding citizens from otherwise ensuring their own safety. Removing the ability of a person to be secure in their persons or effects is a violation of the Constitution IMHO.
[Image: gallardo.jpg]
You went full diabetes... Never go full diabetes.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
That was a lot more calm than I thought it would be.  Here's my dilemma.  I don't believe the second amendment says what you might want it to say.  I put that on the table because "the opposition" might someday find enough momentum to convince the legislative and judicial class to think as they do.  All it takes is for we 'sportsmen' to continue to dwindle in numbers.  I suspect it won't be long until the NRA is a shadow of its former self.  I've never been a big fan of its current face.

I have to wonder if we have a choice to make about the narrative we choose to employ to maintain our beliefs.  I sometimes find it bullying and abrasive, especially when lifted out in response to some event like the killing of school children of to what happened in Virginia Beach.  Personally, I think that's exactly what happened with the Virginia Legislature.  But, that's just my opinion.  See, it leads to something like the Battle of Stirling Bridge when some diplomacy might better serve the situation.

Personally, I don't know what the narrative should be.  Ask me and I'll tell you the world is a dangerous place.  It's impossible to remove all risks.  On any given day man or nature may do me harm.  I don't think that's going to make anybody feel any better!

I work in agriculture.  Every time a bag of lettuce shows up with e-coli, my friends bombard me with questions about the safety of our food supply.  Everyone expects 100% clean and green.  It's not possible.  The narrative there is the other side of the situation.  About how safe our food supply is.  Same hysteria around glyphosate.  I get it.  But, I don't think Bayer/Monsanto does.  

And I'm not sure we do either.  I know it's worked so far, but the future is not the past.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
It is tricky, but the common sense that has been proven is gun control doesn't work. Bad people do bad things! Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma city bombing, should we outlaw fertilizer?
Did probation work?
Would the nut job not have shot all the people in Las Vegas because bump stocks are illegal??? Don't think he would've said awe heck now I can't kill everyone...it's illegal.
Will a nut job not shoot up a school, church or some other public place because their gun of choice is now illegal??

They are just using these tragedies to push their agenda.
Escaping from NJ and all those snowflake liberals I've seen it first hand, and if we aren't untied and strong and momentum they get just empowers them more.
Vice President Peidmont Chapter NWTF, Proud member of NRA
Reply
Thanks given by:
#16
They stress name checks but the real issue with mass shootings is troubled individuals. There is no database for troubled individuals anywhere that could be accessed by a name check. If they sought help it is a medical issue and not accessible for a name check (should it be?). Further if we begin to stop gun ownership for people who have some level of medical issue then those that most need it will not seek medical treatment. That won’t help at all. It is a super tough problem that isn’t solved by any one thing. I often wonder how many of these serial killers had a strong mentor growing up that taught them how to treat guns and more importantly how to treat life. I was taught that you never point a gun at something you don’t intend to kill. Further you never kill something that you don’t intend to use.

People don’t have the same respect for life, people or property anymore and that is a generational issue to fix. Strong engaged parents, good role models and not sensationalizing bad behavior is a good start.

Ok I need to get off my soapbox.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#17
(07-11-2019, 09:21 PM)norrydan Wrote: That was a lot more calm than I thought it would be.  Here's my dilemma.  I don't believe the second amendment says what you might want it to say.  I put that on the table because "the opposition" might someday find enough momentum to convince the legislative and judicial class to think as they do.  All it takes is for we 'sportsmen' to continue to dwindle in numbers.  I suspect it won't be long until the NRA is a shadow of its former self.  I've never been a big fan of its current face.

I have to wonder if we have a choice to make about the narrative we choose to employ to maintain our beliefs.  I sometimes find it bullying and abrasive, especially when lifted out in response to some event like the killing of school children of to what happened in Virginia Beach.  Personally, I think that's exactly what happened with the Virginia Legislature.  But, that's just my opinion.  See, it leads to something like the Battle of Stirling Bridge when some diplomacy might better serve the situation.

Personally, I don't know what the narrative should be.  Ask me and I'll tell you the world is a dangerous place.  It's impossible to remove all risks.  On any given day man or nature may do me harm.  I don't think that's going to make anybody feel any better!

I work in agriculture.  Every time a bag of lettuce shows up with e-coli, my friends bombard me with questions about the safety of our food supply.  Everyone expects 100% clean and green.  It's not possible.  The narrative there is the other side of the situation.  About how safe our food supply is.  Same hysteria around glyphosate.  I get it.  But, I don't think Bayer/Monsanto does.  

And I'm not sure we do either.  I know it's worked so far, but the future is not the past.

We are adults here it's not like we are discussing dog hunting. rolling     SO exactly what does the second amendment say in your belief??
Reply
Thanks given by:
#18
i don't think what I believe matters. What I said was, I don't believe the second amendment says what you might want it to say. It's a presumptuous statement. I have no idea who YOU is. Nor, do I know what you think it says. I'm sure we are all well aware that there a multiple interpretations. My point is that, the numbers who keep leaning on the second amendment are dwindling (yes, perhaps an unfounded ascertain on my part), and the number of people who have an alternative view are growing. And, all I'm suggesting is to give some thought to a different response - just give it some thought.

TomcBigBucks did. See above. Luv2Fish did. See above. That's all a hoped for (I hoped for more response, but, three is good).

And even if the numbers for "us" are still good, then what's the harm in a more measured response to douse the fire on the left. OH, I used to love a good confrontation. But, I've discovered it never accomplished anything but to harden the resolve of my opponent.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#19
the democrats are coming hard for our weapons and with the current political climate of VA going so blue, they will probably eventually succeed. what irritates me the most is the laws they propose contains no grandfathering of current weapons and mags. however, grandfathering shouldn't be needed in the first place--the laws shouldn't infringe on our 2nd amendment rights in the first place. however, what should happen is not usually reality, especially when so many in our community don't use or rely on firearms in their daily lives. therefore, they don't see a need to defend the right to have them. it's similar to how so many cannot fathom the idea of us hunting animals, even though they eat meat themselves. they're so far removed from where their food comes from, they cannot connect the two, and therefore can't understand the concept of hunting for food. btw, which will be on the left's agenda too before long--banning or severely restricting hunting.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#20
(07-12-2019, 10:57 PM)norrydan Wrote: i don't think what I believe matters. (then don't say "I" don't believe try "some" or "many" people don't believe, otherwise your slip is showing) What I said was, I don't believe the second amendment says what you might want it to say.  It's a presumptuous statement.  I have no idea who YOU is.  Nor, do I know what you think it says.  I'm sure we are all well aware that there a multiple interpretations.  My point is that, the numbers who keep leaning on the second amendment are dwindling (yes, perhaps an unfounded ascertain on my part), and the number of people who have an alternative view are growing.  And, all I'm suggesting is to give some thought to a different response - just give it some thought.  

TomcBigBucks did.  See above.  Luv2Fish did.  See above.  That's all a hoped for (I hoped for more response, but, three is good).

And even if the numbers for "us" are still good, then what's the harm in a more measured response to douse the fire on the left. (simple the anti's are of the take a mile club when given an inch any measured response will be used as a "victory" to trumpet and used to get the next measured response, which are never to the benefit of gun owners and rights supporters)  OH, I used to love a good confrontation.  But, I've discovered it never accomplished anything but to harden the resolve of my opponent.

It is my opinion that the single most dangerous pitfall we face currently are the so called "red flag laws". There are too many people that think this is a reasonable measured response and it is the one of the most anti american ideas I have ever heard.

A third party can call the police and ID you as dangerous, without your knowledge a hearing is held without representation for you and before you know it you are waking up to a knock at the door and the police are serving you with a warrant to seize your property(firearms) and which forbids you from possessing a firearm while you then have to prove that you aren't dangerous. What kind of facist(prove you aren't a jew)/communist(prove you are a good party member)/puritanical(prove you aren't a witch) are we imitating here?

What kind of fool wants to be subject to that kind of persecution? Who would support giving up not only their second amendment rights but their fourth and fifth as well. This kind of measured response completely does away with the presumption of a citizen being innocent until proven guilty. Under the Red Flag law you are guilty until you are proven innocent. There is no due process protection and the fact that the "dangerous" person is still free and walking the streets is the biggest falacy of these laws. if they are truly dangerous do they think taking their guns is going to stop them from killing people? see:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl...544603002/
https://www.nap.edu/read/24862/chapter/4#24
https://ijr.com/13-mass-killings-where-n...-involved/

Why is the goal to seize a persons firearms instead of seizing the dangerous person?
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)