# What is gun control?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.

I wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.

It is said there are over 400 millions guns in the US. There is no way those guns will magically disappear.

No one should dispute that it is easy and very profitable to bring contraband across our southern border. If the legal sales of guns was outlawed then bad guys would still get guns.

Gun control to me is nothing but another divisive political maneuver.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The idea of gun control is deeply flawed. Justification for it is also deeply flawed. I heard someone on the radio yesterday justify more GC because we already have GC laws. (The example used was we can't buy machine guns). When she said that, I thought about Germany justifying attacking England because they already took over France.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

gun control means not letting your guns get in the hands of people that should not have them.









Maine man accused of killing Wells toddler was arguing with brother over T-shirt


Andrew Huber-Young reportedly told police an argument started over a t-shirt that belonged to him but was being worn by his brother.




bangordailynews.com


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

As someone who has had dealings with construction/renovation, I can tell you that there are enough fully functional firearms lost or hidden by someone who is now dead in this country to arm seven cartels and the Canadian army.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A big number of the 400+ million guns in the US would be on this list . Banning these guns in the US defines what many call gun control right now. 














__





Backgrounder: List of prohibited assault-style firearms


The Firearms Act and its regulations set out requirements related to the possession, sale, transfer, storage, display and movement of all firearms in Canada.




www.publicsafety.gc.ca


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530160514982105090


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Of all of the rights we have as human beings, the pre-eminent one is this right to self-defense — “The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.” Our founders weren’t thinking about hunting or sport shooting when they wrote about an armed militia being necessary for “the security of a free state.” 









The Second Amendment is a human right — ignorance toward it is troubling


Let’s be honest — as the government failed those children in Parkland so many times, why on earth would we engender more trust in government?




thehill.com


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

HDRider said:


> A big number of the 400+ million guns in the US would be on this list . Banning these guns in the US defines what many call gun control right now.
> 
> View attachment 110702
> 
> ...


If we implemented such stupidity here, we too can have our own little Castro, just like Canada.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment guarantees our right to own guns for self defense.
At the time it was written, our forefathers were just coming out of a war to fight off tyranny, they hadn't just got back from duck hunting.
The liberal politicians want tyranny in government, there's too many people telling them "No" when they want to push their pet projects.
They want total control, and "Gun Control" is the only way they can oppress this once great country.
Gun control is control of the people.
That's what it means to me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
> The Second Amendment guarantees our right to own guns for self defense.





Cornhusker said:


> Gun control is control of the people.
> That's what it means to me.


I would like to hear what those with an opposing view.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

IMO, it's not a matter of gun control. What this country needs is people who have *SELF* control. We have created a nation of whiney, snot faced pansies who think the world owes them something and that because they didn't get everything they want they can play the victim card and lash out at people around them. Perps are rarely given the punishment they deserve. Often they are left alone and occasionally encouraged to keep escalating their crappy behaviour without real consequences. We need the public and society to step up and start saying "we have had enough of your whiney garbage so grow up and behave like a decent human being".


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Danaus29 said:


> IMO, it's not a matter of gun control. What this country needs is people who have *SELF* control. We have created a nation of whiney, snot faced pansies who think the world owes them something and that because they didn't get everything they want they can play the victim card and lash out at people around them. Perps are rarely given the punishment they deserve. Often they are left alone and occasionally encouraged to keep escalating their crappy behaviour without real consequences. We need the public and society to step up and start saying "we have had enough of your whiney garbage so grow up and behave like a decent human being".


I agree 💯 %.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Gun Control is the first step to instituting totalitarianism and oppression. It has led to the murder of tens of millions of innocent people within the last century.
I will never ,and I mean never give up my guns.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Gun control is a leftists dream. They know nothing about guns, but claim to. They think inanimate objects are bad. Gun control is the art of pandering to those afraid of guns, and pretending to do something. And the leftists get sucked in, time and time again. It’s really quite predictable.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Something that seems to happen whenever there are mass shootings....which seem to happen whenever democrats are in charge. [ Coincidence theorists will disagree.]


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There are bills sitting in congress just idling, written for the sole purpose of becoming law, _after_ a mass shooting.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> Gun control is a leftists dream. They know nothing about guns, but claim to. They think inanimate objects are bad. Gun control is the art of pandering to those afraid of guns, and pretending to do something. And the leftists get sucked in, time and time again. It’s really quite predictable.


Well, that is an untrue post. Most of my family is what you call the left and they own guns and support gun controls. In fact, they are what are called gun enthusiasts. In Canada as matter of fact. They are also current members of the Canadian military.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Well, that is an untrue post. Most of my family is what you call the left and they own guns and support gun controls. In fact, they are what are called gun enthusiasts. In Canada as matter of fact. They are also current members of the Canadian military.


Mao and many others would disagree with you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> Mao and many others would disagree with you.


When you always reduce statements to a group instead of individuals you taint them.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Gun control is the antithesis of government control.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Well, that is an untrue post. Most of my family is what you call the left and they own guns and support gun controls. In fact, they are what are called gun enthusiasts. In Canada as matter of fact. They are also current members of the Canadian military.


Out of curiosity, what "gun control" actions do you and your family support? It's one thing to say you support gun control but quite another matter when it comes to citing actions that should be implemented.

I will admit there are certain members of society that should not ever be allowed to touch or own guns. There are already laws set in place to keep a record of those people on a list of forbidden purchasers. But that list is not shared on a national database and updated information is so far behind that the list is worthless. And in light of protecting a person's constitutional rights, a person on that list should be allowed the opportunity to challenge being placed on that list.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Well, that is an untrue post. Most of my family is what you call the left and they own guns and support gun controls. In fact, they are what are called gun enthusiasts. In Canada as matter of fact. They are also current members of the Canadian military.


That is a very, very odd thing if you say they are left wing and are gun enthusiasts wanting more gun control in Canada that has ridiculous gun control.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Adirondackian said:


> Something that seems to happen whenever there are mass shootings....which seem to happen whenever democrats are in charge. [ Coincidence theorists will disagree.]


Our idiot Prime Minister has also reacted to the shooting down there, promising more gun measures up here. Because the relevance etc. Cops in Toronto shot a guy with a pellet gun the other day. I’d like my Canada back, please, idiot Trudeau.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> That is a very, very odd thing if you say they are left wing and are gun enthusiasts wanting more gun control in Canada that has ridiculous gun control.


Did I say they want more gun control in Canada? You seem to be reading things I never posted.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

painterswife said:


> When you always reduce statements to a group instead of individuals you taint them.


Taint the truth 😂


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Did I say they want more gun control in Canada? You seem to be reading things I never posted.


You said they’re supportive of gun control. To live in Canada, to be a “gun enthusiast” that is happy with our system up here? I have some hens with teeth to show you, because those kinds of people would be about that rare. Almost as rare are left wingers who are involved in the military.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> You said they’re supportive of gun control. To live in Canada, to be a “gun enthusiast” that is happy with our system up here? I have some hens with teeth to show you, because those kinds of people would be about that rare. Almost as rare are left wingers who are involved in the military.


Obviously not as rare as you think. You can be a gun enthusiast in Canada and fine with the laws that exist.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Obviously not as rare as you think. You can be a gun enthusiast in Canada and fine with the laws that exist.


That would be exceptionally rare. I believe I know a bit more about Canada and our gun culture and asinine laws than you do. Just a guess. Lol


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> That would be exceptionally rare. I believe I know a bit more about Canada and our gun culture and asinine laws than you do. Just a guess. Lol


Are you sure about that? I am a Canadian citizen that grew up there. I was around guns and hunting my entire life. I can reload shells. I bet my family members in Canada own more guns than you and more of a range of guns. Some of my oldest friends are RCMP and other municipal police forces. As I said I have close family in the armed forces in Canada. So yes a guess, a bad one.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> Our idiot Prime Minister has also reacted to the shooting down there, promising more gun measures up here. Because the relevance etc. *Cops in Toronto shot a guy with a pellet gun the other day.* I’d like my Canada back, please, idiot Trudeau.


I think it's important to not withhold all of the information.

The incident in Ontario happened yesterday. Several 911 calls reported a man carrying a long rifle walking along streets through residential areas headed towards elementary schools. Several eye-witnesses have attested that when police confronted the man on the street they told him to drop his weapon. * The 27 year old man refused to drop the weapon and instead pointed the weapon at the police and advanced towards the police.* The police shot him. Once he was down it was ascertained that the gunman had been carrying a loaded pellet gun.

I figure it was a pretty clear cut case of planned suicide by cop. Everyone in Canada knows that you can't openly carry a firearm of any kind in public in Canada and if you do and cops confront you and tell you to drop it and instead you refuse and you point it at the cops and advance towards the cops, the cops are going to shoot you. It makes no difference if it's a real firearm that shoots real bullets or if it's a pellet gun that looks like the real thing. There is no possible way that man could not know what the consequences of his actions would be ...... ergo he was committing suicide by cop.

.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I agree I think he was an idiot and suicidal for sure.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure about that? I am a Canadian citizen that grew up there. I was around guns and hunting my entire life. I can reload shells. I bet my family members in Canada own more guns than you and more of a range of guns. Some of my oldest friends are RCMP and other municipal police forces. As I said I have close family in the armed forces in Canada. So yes a guess, a bad one.


Good. Glad you love gun laws in Canada AND love guns!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the gun control laws and regulations of Canada, U.K., most of the European countries, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But I would be happier if a means could be enacted in the future that would make all firearms everywhere to be 100% accounted for at all times, and for a means that would make it impossible for illegal or contraband firearms to be smuggled across borders.

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.





painterswife said:


> my family is what you call the left and they own guns and support gun controls


Can you define what gun control they support?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> . But I would be happier if a means could be enacted in the future that would make all firearms everywhere to be 100% accounted for at all times
> 
> .


How would that be done?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Paumon said:


> …I would be happier if a means could be enacted in the future that would make all firearms everywhere to be 100% accounted for at all times, and for a means that would make it impossible for illegal or contraband firearms to be smuggled across borders.


That can’t even be achieved with nuclear warheads, and there are only about 15,000 of those on the face of the earth.

Much like with nuclear proliferation, the firearms genie has been let out of the bottle, and there’s no stuffing it back in. At this point, any additional controls placed on firearms serve to place a much larger burden on the law-abiding to defend themselves than they do to burden the criminal looking to break the law.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> How would that be done?


I don't know, because I don't make guns ..... but I think fiction can become reality. 

A time might come when all firearms manufacturers will be highly regulated with regard to the types and numbers of firearms they're allowed to manufacture and who they are allowed to sell them to. Specific types of tracking computer chips would be required to be incorporated as vital parts into the very structure and actual working mechanisms of the firearms which, without the exact original and irreplaceable chips, would be rendered inoperable and could not be activated.

Is there any reason why such a fiction cannot become a reality? And somebody might say _"Well private gunsmiths will be able to manufacture guns without computer chips built into them."_ ..... but they can't if they no longer have easy access to all the essential resources and tools needed to manufacture such things.

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I don't know, because I don't make guns ..... but I think fiction can become reality.
> 
> A time might come when all firearms manufacturers will be highly regulated with regard to the types and numbers of firearms they're allowed to manufacture and who they are allowed to sell them to. Specific types of tracking computer chips would be required to be incorporated as vital parts into the very structure and actual working mechanisms of the firearms which, without the exact original and irreplaceable chips, would be rendered inoperable and could not be activated.
> 
> ...


Hope and change


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I don't know, because I don't make guns ..... but I think fiction can become reality.
> 
> A time might come when all firearms manufacturers will be highly regulated with regard to the types and numbers of firearms they're allowed to manufacture and who they are allowed to sell them to. Specific types of tracking computer chips would be required to be incorporated as vital parts into the very structure and actual working mechanisms of the firearms which, without the exact original and irreplaceable chips, would be rendered inoperable and could not be activated.
> 
> ...


Machinists can make all those things you think access to should be blocked. They can make their own tooling, we do! They can use scrap steel that's easily obtained. Guns are nothing but bits of metal. Are you going to ban metal? The machines that make the goods you use daily? Never ever going to happen. Think...3D printing. Those are easy to build at home, so there's that. Lets not mention that no gun has ever jumped up and shot anything, anybody...ever! A human was always holding it. Lets do something about the criminals and enforce the laws we already have. Cars, kill more people than guns do. Whats your solution to those deadly cars?
License the drivers? Training classes? Register them? Insure them? Oh....wait....already done, yet still more deaths than guns.....😬


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I don't know, because I don't make guns ..... but I think fiction can become reality.
> 
> A time might come when all firearms manufacturers will be highly regulated with regard to the types and numbers of firearms they're allowed to manufacture and who they are allowed to sell them to. Specific types of tracking computer chips would be required to be incorporated as vital parts into the very structure and actual working mechanisms of the firearms which, without the exact original and irreplaceable chips, would be rendered inoperable and could not be activated.
> 
> ...


Firearms are not some voodoo product made of unicorn horns and baby seal retinas. They are relatively simple tools made of steel, aluminum and plastic.

The genie is out of the bottle.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I like unicorns. I'd like to see one.










Now hold onto your seats boys and girls, but criminals don’t obey our laws. Criminals break the law every day. That includes the 23 thousand firearms regulations we already have in the books. 








My Gun Control Unicorn is Named Chet


The fantasy of gun-control is easy. The sales pitch is a politician’s dream. “No one will get shot ever again if we make guns illegal.” That promise sounds great if you don’t know very much. Who wo…




slowfacts.wordpress.com


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Machinists can make all those things you think access to should be blocked. They can make their own tooling, we do! They can use scrap steel that's easily obtained. Guns are nothing but bits of metal. Are you going to ban metal?.......





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Firearms are not some voodoo product made of unicorn horns and baby seal retinas. They are relatively simple tools made of steel, aluminum and plastic.
> 
> The genie is out of the bottle.


You guys are talking about NOW, when the resources for making those things are still available. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the future when the resources you all take for granted now are not going to be available to any old Tom-Dick-'n'-Harry who wants to do whatever and whenever he pleases.

Genies can be put back into bottles.

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> You guys are talking about NOW, when the resources for making those things are still available. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the future when the resources you all take for granted now are not going to be available to any old Tom-Dick-'n'-Harry who wants to do whatever and whenever he pleases.
> 
> Genies can be put back into bottles.
> 
> .


Scrap steel and power will always be available. Thats all thats really needed. Anyone can make other weapons too. Knives kill people. My friend was killed in a Walmart by an insane man with a baseball bat because Dave didn't have any money to give to him. Murder is still murder regardless of the weapon used. Going to ban trees too?
So, please enlightening us on whats going to happen to these items used everyday by everyone?
Even an asteroid impact won't remove our billions of tons of scrap metal. How many cars and trucks have been scraped and just sit in fields around the world.
Your fantasy of an unarmed, polite society is a fictional dream. The genie you think is your hero, is out if the bottle forever. Don't like guns, fine, don't like them, but don't impose your feelings on others, you won't like the outcome.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Paumon said:


> You guys are talking about NOW, when the resources for making those things are still available. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the future when the resources you all take for granted now are not going to be available to any old Tom-Dick-'n'-Harry who wants to do whatever and whenever he pleases.
> 
> Genies can be put back into bottles.
> 
> .


I can smelt iron ore and make my own steel 😂(I’ve done it several times). I’ve made my own firearms from scratch…
The only way to stop me and others like me is to kill us… and that’s exactly why we’ll never give up our guns.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> ........ The genie you think is your hero, is out if the bottle forever. Don't like guns, fine, don't like them, but don't impose your feelings on others, you won't like the outcome.


Jeffrey, I'm a firearms owner, I always have been, and I like my guns just fine. That genie you and Gun Monkey mentioned is your hero and your creation, not mine. 

Pay attention, stay on track to who is saying what instead of you going off half-cocked with knee-jerk reactions forming false conclusions and throwing all your red herrings into the mix.

Every time you post some kind of response to me you make up really weird imaginary fantasy stories and false assumptions about me and then you point your fingers and make accusation against me about me trying to impose this, that or the other on other people because you can't comprehend or tolerate my opinions or predictions. Sorry you can't tolerate my opinions nor understand my predictions but I'm not going to change them and say otherwise for your emotional security.

How are your made up false fantasies about me any different from my predictions about the real world and about the genies that you love and that I hate? How can I grant you any credibility or take anything you say seriously when all you want to do is read between lines so you can make up imaginary stories about me to make you feel better about your own view of your world?

I'm not the type of person to put others on ignore, and most of the time I simply skim over then ignore your posts instead of responding, but I have to tell you that your own flights of fancy about me are warped, unrealistic, impugning and undignified, so don't expect me to answer your ill thought out questions and answers.

.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

JeffreyD said:


> Scrap steel and power will always be available. Thats all thats really needed. Anyone can make other weapons too. Knives kill people. My friend was killed in a Walmart by an insane man with a baseball bat because Dave didn't have any money to give to him. Murder is still murder regardless of the weapon used. Going to ban trees too?
> So, please enlightening us on whats going to happen to these items used everyday by everyone?
> Even an asteroid impact won't remove our billions of tons of scrap metal. How many cars and trucks have been scraped and just sit in fields around the world.
> Your fantasy of an unarmed, polite society is a fictional dream. The genie you think is your hero, is out if the bottle forever. Don't like guns, fine, don't like them, but don't impose your feelings on others, you won't like the outcome.


The reality is firearms are a whole lot more effective at killing people in a one on one scenario and the comparison /risk for a mass casualty event isn't even close. Access to them increases the odds you'll die in a violent attack against you. 

Sure you can die from being stabbed, or hit with a blunt object. Not even saying I am supporting full bans on anything, but this is just so disingenuous.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> I can smelt iron ore and make my own steel 😂(I’ve done it several times). I’ve made my own firearms from scratch…
> The only way to stop me and others like me is to kill us… and that’s exactly why we’ll never give up our guns.


Yes, I know you can do those things and I've seen some of your work. But you and your skill sets are a dying breed so what about after you and others like you are gone, and all the resources are monopolized by TPTB and no longer available to the public? People won't be making their own guns.

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon, "pay attention, stay on track to who is saying what instead of you going off half-cocked with knee-jerk reactions forming false conclusions and throwing all your red herrings into the mix.

Every time you post some kind of response to me you make up really weird imaginary fantasy stories and false assumptions about me and then you point your fingers and make accusation against me about me trying to impose this, that or the other on other people because you can't comprehend or tolerate my opinions or predictions. Sorry you can't tolerate my opinions nor understand my predictions but I'm not going to change them and say otherwise for your emotional security.

How are your made up false fantasies about me any different from my predictions about the real world and about the genies that you love and that I hate? How can I grant you any credibility or take anything you say seriously when all you want to do is read between lines so you can make up imaginary stories about me to make you feel better about your own view of your world?

I'm not the type of person to put others on ignore, and most of the time I simply skim over then ignore your posts instead of responding, but I have to tell you that your own flights of fancy about me are warped, unrealistic, impugning and undignified, so don't expect me to answer your ill thought out questions and answers."

Right back at you! Nothing i said was false or imaginary, that's all you. Your the one who brings up assinine statements then runs away from discussing what your point really is. So id be happy if you put me on IGNO.

Assinine:

as·i·nine
/ˈasəˌnīn/
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwjVkaW91ID4AhW_oI4IHb4SC9EQ3eEDegQIEBAK

_adjective_


extremely stupid or foolish.
"JeffreyD ignored her asinine remark"


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> The reality is firearms are a whole lot more effective at killing people in a one on one scenario and the comparison /risk for a mass casualty event isn't even close. Access to them increases the odds you'll die in a violent attack against you.
> 
> Sure you can die from being stabbed, or hit with a blunt object. Not even saying I am supporting full bans on anything, but this is just so disingenuous.


Pointing out the obvious failure points in the given scenario. Not disingenuous at all, please explain why?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Yes, I know you can do those things and I've seen some of your work. But you and your skill sets are a dying breed so what about after you and others like you are gone, and all the resources are monopolized by TPTB and no longer available to the public? People won't be making their own guns.
> 
> .


Sure they will. Your outlandish scenarios are quiet amusing. The earth has plenty of useable material so there would be no need for scrap materiel to be used, it's just easier. Smelting and formulations are well known and have been around for a couple of thousand years. When would this fantasy of your occur? 
My son teaches CNC machining and there's an overwhelming number of students wanting to learn all they can. Being an owner of a manufacturing facility that makes items for the DOD using latest state of the art technology i have a clue. I just don't see any government having the resources to implement your ideals, certainly not ours. In other words, it would never happen, not ever. But good luck trying. People are making their own guns right now, and as technology advances, so will the art of machining and printing. That's the real world right there! So, let's have some more of those personal attack your so very fond of!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> The reality is firearms are a whole lot more effective at killing people in a one on one scenario and the comparison /risk for a mass casualty event isn't even close. Access to them increases the odds you'll die in a violent attack against you.
> 
> Sure you can die from being stabbed, or hit with a blunt object. Not even saying I am supporting full bans on anything, but this is just so disingenuous.


I've seen bombs made from fertilizer and fuel oil do far worse than guns could ever do.(McVey) That, is a fact. When are those going to be banned? The technology behind them is very very simple and the ingredients are easily obtainable to boot. I brought up the baseball bat scenario to point out that even if every gun on this planet were made to go poof, there will always be away.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

JeffreyD said:


> Pointing out the obvious failure points in the given scenario. Not disingenuous at all, please explain why?


Comparing home made weapons to mass produced weapons? Disingenuous. Implying that we should do nothing because the small possibility exists that someone is going to smith their own weapons? It's such a miniscule risk. You've got plenty of machinists all over Canada, EU, AUS and we're not seeing a spree of home made AR-15s being used in mass shootings.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Sure you can die from being stabbed, or hit with a blunt object. Not even saying I am supporting full bans on anything, but this is just so disingenuous.


The balance of society is not static and the ongoing decline in the levels of civility are not due to inanimate objects. But the idea of the "gun" as the problem has been debunked long ago.
Or you can be run over with 60 other people by an SUV.
Or a bomb can be set off, or the doors locked and poison gas set thru the air ducts, or a fire set.
A degenerated psychopath is not someone you want to become more imaginative.
It is somewhat disingenuous to think that the removal of a tool like semi automatic rifles will simply cause evil and demented minds to wither back into normalcy. 

As long as the fixation is on curing the addict by removing his drug of choice, they will continue on their path.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Disingenuous. Implying that we should do nothing because the small possibility exists that someone is going to smith their own weapons?


Is believing that removing all firearms from society the only solution you can think of?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Comparing home made weapons to mass produced weapons? Disingenuous. Implying that we should do nothing because the small possibility exists that someone is going to smith their own weapons? It's such a miniscule risk. You've got plenty of machinists all over Canada, EU, AUS and we're not seeing a spree of home made AR-15s being used in mass shootings.


Where did i imply that we should do nothing? Do you do that a lot? Home made weapons are just as lethal and maybe even more precise than mass produced weapons. And thousands of folks are printing and machining their own guns and parts....every day. We may not be seeing mass shootings by home made AR15's, but there have been a number of home made weapons used to kill and mame folks.Remember, home made weapons are made using the exact same machinery that large scale manufactures use. I have those same machines...Hass, Doosan, Mori Seiki, Fedal, etc. We do EDM and injection molding too. My point is that guns and their parts are not very hard to make or even print.

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/


_adjective_


not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
"he was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical"


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Paumon said:


> I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the gun control laws and regulations of Canada, U.K., most of the European countries, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But I would be happier if a means could be enacted in the future that would make all firearms everywhere to be 100% accounted for at all times, and for a means that would make it impossible for illegal or contraband firearms to be smuggled across borders.
> 
> .


No smuggling of guns. Nice idea. Has never ever been enforceable and I think not going to happen. Just not in human nature to happen.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Paumon said:


> I don't know, because I don't make guns ..... but I think fiction can become reality.
> 
> A time might come when all firearms manufacturers will be highly regulated with regard to the types and numbers of firearms they're allowed to manufacture and who they are allowed to sell them to. Specific types of tracking computer chips would be required to be incorporated as vital parts into the very structure and actual working mechanisms of the firearms which, without the exact original and irreplaceable chips, would be rendered inoperable and could not be activated.
> 
> ...


Anything made by man can be modified.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

JeffreyD said:


> Scrap steel and power will always be available. Thats all thats really needed. Anyone can make other weapons too. Knives kill people. My friend was killed in a Walmart by an insane man with a baseball bat because Dave didn't have any money to give to him. Murder is still murder regardless of the weapon used. Going to ban trees too?
> So, please enlightening us on whats going to happen to these items used everyday by everyone?
> Even an asteroid impact won't remove our billions of tons of scrap metal. How many cars and trucks have been scraped and just sit in fields around the world.
> Your fantasy of an unarmed, polite society is a fictional dream. The genie you think is your hero, is out if the bottle forever. Don't like guns, fine, don't like them, but don't impose your feelings on others, you won't like the outcome.


Asteroid strike would likely just add to the metal available


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Paumon said:


> Yes, I know you can do those things and I've seen some of your work. But you and your skill sets are a dying breed so what about after you and others like you are gone, and all the resources are monopolized by TPTB and no longer available to the public? People won't be making their own guns.
> 
> .


How are you going to remove access to fire and metal ? Raw minerals and chemicals ? That’s all that is needed.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Comparing home made weapons to mass produced weapons? Disingenuous. Implying that we should do nothing because the small possibility exists that someone is going to smith their own weapons? It's such a miniscule risk. You've got plenty of machinists all over Canada, EU, AUS and we're not seeing a spree of home made AR-15s being used in mass shootings.


When the need or demand is there, then the supply will be provided.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Paumon said:


> A time might come when all firearms manufacturers will be highly regulated with regard to the types and numbers of firearms they're allowed to manufacture and who they are allowed to sell them to.


In what Science Fiction movie, would free citizens of any country allow their government to impose such laws? Trying to enforce such laws would result in more deaths than all mass shooting to date.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Well, that is an untrue post. Most of my family is what you call the left and they own guns and support gun controls. In fact, they are what are called gun enthusiasts. In Canada as matter of fact. They are also current members of the Canadian military.


Canadian gun laws are very restrictive


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Paumon said:


> but they can't if they no longer have easy access to all the essential resources and tools needed to manufacture such things.
> 
> .


So you plan on closing every machine shop, Harbor Freight, home depot, 3d printer manufacturer ect, ect, ect. because they have equipment that could be used to make a firearm?

You must live in Fairytale land


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> The reality is firearms are a whole lot more effective at killing people in a one on one scenario and the comparison /risk for a mass casualty event isn't even close. Access to them increases the odds you'll die in a violent attack against you.
> 
> Sure you can die from being stabbed, or hit with a blunt object. Not even saying I am supporting full bans on anything, but this is just so disingenuous.


Tell that to Timothy McVeigh (168 killed), Sayfullo Saipov (8 KIlled), Satoshi Uematsu (19killed) ect ect.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

How would public figures, politicians and those with the means to do so, protect themselves in a gun free world?
It is a rhetorical question.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

One of our clients is a gun collectors Assn. A member from Australia had to disburse his collection or have it destroyed when their gun laws tightened up. 

The genie is out of the bottle on so called gun control. If the laws were passed at the same time as invention of guns, it could have worked. Now, all you would do is take them from the law abiding and the criminals will continue to acquire them illegally.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

link30240 said:


> *So you plan on* closing every machine shop, Harbor Freight, home depot, 3d printer manufacturer ect, ect, ect. because they have equipment that could be used to make a firearm?
> 
> You must live in Fairytale land


Okay, you are a really funny guy but I think you should get a grip on reality.

No, I live in a real place called Lotus Land. You should be grown up enough to know there's no such thing as a Fairytale land. 

But I see that you also have been fantasizing while reading the blank spaces between lines and imagining ridiculous things that were never said by me or anyone else but you. 

I don't have any plans to do anything. What made you think that I have any power to put your plans you suggested into effect? And why would I care to? But thanks for the ideas.

.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Gun control, is a wet dream for people who want to control society. Unarmed peasants are easier to control, than armed citizens. They won't mind sending men with guns to take our guns, they know what is best. These are the same people who tell us that men can have babies, and that you can change your gender with a few nips and tucks.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

link30240 said:


> So you plan on closing every machine shop, Harbor Freight, home depot, 3d printer manufacturer ect, ect, ect. because they have equipment that could be used to make a firearm?
> 
> You must live in Fairytale land





Paumon said:


> Okay, you are a really funny guy but I think you should get a grip on reality.
> 
> No, I live in a real place called Lotus Land. You should be grown up enough to know there's no such thing as a Fairytale land.
> 
> ...


Man I really wish there was more of a point to this than self gratification. You're talking to literal gun fetishists, not people who view them as the tools they are. Basically their MO is "Well your solution isn't absolutely perfect so there is no point! And then try to make AUS/CA/UK sound like some urban nightmare filled with daily stabbings on every corner. When the reality is quite the opposite.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> And then try to make AUS/CA/UK sound like some urban nightmare filled with daily stabbings on every corner. When the reality is quite the opposite.


I don’t feel our current regulations have solved much of the problem nor are they intended to.

Gang members still seem well armed and pretty efficient killers and very recently killed a single mother of 5 children for no other reason than being on the wrong street at the wrong time. More gun control wouldn’t have ensured gangs take firearm safety courses or registered their guns.

The Nova Scotia mass shootings are currently being reviewed and from the beginning, it was well known that the weapons used were illegally owned but it didn’t stop him either.

People like yourself also seem to affix labels to lawful gun owners, who oddly enough, aren’t out killing other humans. I have no illusions about mine, they are intended to keep my livestock safe and put food on my table. Why should anyone restrict that right further and how does further restrictions for me protect the public?

I don’t believe everyone needs a firearm but rather than continually tightening restrictions for respectable gun owners, why not enforce the laws in place?

It seems after each one of these mass shootings there was ample calls to police from concerned citizens that where either not investigated or not followed through.

Why doesn’t that concern people?


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

The left refuses to acknowledge the FACT that there is a direct correlation to these mass shootings as well as violence and crime in general to their normalizing of extreme liberalism ideas and glorifying mental illness (for example transgender's and anti police, no cash bail, shorten prison terms, gun free zone, free use of drugs, over medication of the population, ect ect.) 

Gun policies have only gotten more strict over time while the leftist agenda has increased in direct correlation to these tragedies.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paumon said:


> I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the gun control laws and regulations of Canada, U.K., most of the European countries, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But I would be happier if a means could be enacted in the future that would make all firearms everywhere to be 100% accounted for at all times, and for a means that would make it impossible for illegal or contraband firearms to be smuggled across borders.
> 
> .


A country would have to have secure borders, but where's the votes in that?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paumon said:


> You guys are talking about NOW, when the resources for making those things are still available. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about the future when the resources you all take for granted now are not going to be available to any old Tom-Dick-'n'-Harry who wants to do whatever and whenever he pleases.
> 
> Genies can be put back into bottles.
> 
> .


Good thing you are safe there in Canada under government protection.
Just like Mama's lap


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> How would public figures, politicians and those with the means to do so, protect themselves in a gun free world?
> It is a rhetorical question.


They'd still be guarded by guns, rules are just for us peasants. I mean who cares if we get killed robbed or raped, right?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Good thing you are safe there in Canada under government protection.
> Just like Mama's lap


Cornhusker, I say this in all seriousness that you don't know a quarter of it just how eternally grateful and happy I am to have been born here and living in my country. I love my Queen like my very own mama, I like our military and police forces, I like my provincial and federal governments no matter which of a choice of many party leaders gets elected to do a few terms in parliament and I do feel very safe with all of the protections and benefits that my nation and my government affords me. 

I have good shelter, food, clothing, energy, transportation, universal health care, I'm satisfied with my national pension and other perks and benefits, I have freedom of movement and speech plus I have the needed resources, tools (that's including firearms and other weapons) education, training and skills to protect myself if nobody else can do it for me. All compliments of my country and its citizens and each other. I pretty much have the best of everything I need, more than I've asked for and I can do what I want to do. I am content, not malcontent. And that is All the God's Gospel Truth, cross my heart and hope to die if I lie.

.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I love my Queen





Paumon said:


> like my very own mama


This a perfect example of what an American is not


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Maybe each person in the US, whether they own a gun or not, past the age of 9 should attend x hours of Mule and Monkey guys teaching gun operation and range practice. That would be good gun control and a common sense gun law.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paumon said:


> Cornhusker, I say this in all seriousness that you don't know a quarter of it just how eternally grateful and happy I am to have been born here and living in my country. I love my Queen like my very own mama, I like our military and police forces, I like my provincial and federal governments no matter which of a choice of many party leaders gets elected to do a few terms in parliament and I do feel very safe with all of the protections and benefits that my nation and my government affords me.
> 
> I have good shelter, food, clothing, energy, transportation, universal health care, I'm satisfied with my national pension and other perks and benefits, I have freedom of movement and speech plus I have the needed resources, tools (that's including firearms and other weapons) education, training and skills to protect myself if nobody else can do it for me. All compliments of my country and its citizens and each other. I pretty much have the best of everything I need, more than I've asked for and I can do what I want to do. I am content, not malcontent. And that is All the God's Gospel Truth, cross my heart and hope to die if I lie.
> 
> .


I'm happy to hear you are living the good life.
I think Americans and Canadians views of liberty are just few degrees apart.
I've never been to Canada, but aside from what I've seen of your PM and some of your restrictive gun laws, I think I'd like it there just fine.
Not sure how it works there, but we are supposed to own the government. Federal lands don't belong to the government, they belong to the people.
we've had it drummed into us that tyranny is never far away and we have to be on our guard.
The second Amendment guarantees we would have a fighting chance if the government in its infinite capacity for corruption ever tries to take that liberty away.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> This a perfect example of what an American is not


HD, it's a perfect example of what the people of several countries/cultures are, but I don't think anyone else except Americans care about what other cultures are or are not by comparison with Americans.

.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> ...... Not sure how it works there, but we are supposed to own the government. Federal lands don't belong to the government, they belong to the people.......


It's a wee bit different here. Here, Canada itself is "The Crown", we chose a hereditary monarch to represent The Crown and we elect our governments to govern The Crown. So to speak.


> Crown Land
> 
> 
> Crown land is the term used to describe land owned by the federal or provincial governments. Authority for control of these public lands rests with the Crown, h...
> ...


.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

HDRider said:


> Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.
> 
> I wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.
> 
> ...


Rather silly question.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

KC Rock said:


> Rather silly question.


I guess you have a reading comprehension problem, because he didn't ask a question. He made several well thought out and articulated points.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

link30240 said:


> I guess you have a reading comprehension problem, because he didn't ask a question. He made several well thought out and articulated points.


HDRider said:

Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.

That is a question.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

painterswife said:


> HDRider said:
> 
> Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.
> 
> That is a question.


I guess you have a reading comprehension problem too. For a hint though A question typically has this symbol after it "?" and asks for a reply or answer. Telling one to think and define a subject for their own good is not a question! Geese didnt either of you stay in school long enough to take a English class or 2? Thats a question!

I thought you Liberals fancied yourselves as "educated"


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

link30240 said:


> I thought you Liberals fancied yourselves as "educated"


While I won't get into any debate about whether or not a question was asked, I will say the comment about what you may think constitutes a liberal or an educated person is a non sequitur that isn't relevant to the topic. Problems with reading comprehension is a universal trait that can afflict anyone regardless of their education and societal status.

.


----------



## link30240 (Aug 22, 2021)

Paumon said:


> Reading comprehension, or lack of it, is a universal trait that can afflict anyone regardless of their education and societal status.


I completely agree with that. But normal people (ie non-liberal) dont usually throw their education and self perceived superiority in everyone's face as liberals do. So when the opportunity to expose their stupidity arises I find it hard to resist.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

link30240 said:


> I guess you have a reading comprehension problem too. For a hint though A question typically has this symbol after it "?" and asks for a reply or answer. Telling one to think and define a subject for their own good is not a question! Geese didnt either of you stay in school long enough to take a English class or 2? Thats a question!
> 
> I thought you Liberals fancied yourselves as "educated"


I was taught about direct and indirect questions. I wonder if you weren't.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I was taught about direct and indirect questions. I wonder if you weren't.


No you weren't and you prove it here all the time. You'll probably try to repy with "it's a personal attack", but it not. It's pointing out your hypocrisy and do as I say, not as I do attitude.


----------



## Eutychus2 (Jul 22, 2021)

HDRider said:


> Can you define what gun control they support?


Same thing I wanted to ask. What do you think is a person's motivation to ignore the subject and obfuscate the issues?


----------



## KHoward (Jan 4, 2018)

HDRider said:


> Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.
> 
> I wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.
> 
> ...


Politics aside, the question is whether we as a society are okay with the amount of gun related deaths in the US. If we are not, then what is the solution?

I also suspect there is a correlation between gun ownership and school shootings. Again - how do we stop these events?
School shootings by country: School Shootings by Country 2022
Gun ownership per capita: Gun Ownership by Country 2022


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I was watching a Bollywood movie last night. It was set when Britain had India under their thumb. The mantra was that India would be free when every Indian had a gun.


----------



## KHoward (Jan 4, 2018)

farmerDale said:


> Gun control is a leftists dream. They know nothing about guns, but claim to. They think inanimate objects are bad. Gun control is the art of pandering to those afraid of guns, and pretending to do something. And the leftists get sucked in, time and time again. It’s really quite predictable.


Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I support that the people should have the right to keep, and bear arms. However, I believe this is specific to a citizen militia (and hunting) and not meant to be carrying at all times - like going to Walmart.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Simply put to me gun control means letting the government disarm the people so that the people can not defend themselves against the government.
1 crazy dude does not mean 100 sane people need their guns taken away.
I mean the ranchers on the border for instance, are facing criminals way better armed than even the BP. Would you deny them defense because of what some yutz does in say Oregon?
That is what governmental gun control means to me.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Why do some people have such a hard time with the idea that schools should have better procedures and security setups that are actually used. ALL OF THE TIME. Fences, metal detectors, on duty protection, etc. Who cares what it looks like or the few bucks involve. Works well elsewhere in the world. Appearances and money over lives. Wow. 

Current laws that would likely solve most of the schools shooting issues are not enforced. Yet for some reason some people think that some more laws will fix everything. Instead of enforcing the laws that are already in existence it seems that they are wanting to rely on citizens that will follow the new laws. No idea why they think the crazy people will follow the new laws or allow some new laws to stop their agendas. Seems pretty lazy to me. They should be making a fuss to ensure the current laws being enforced. Guess it is easier to set back and complain.


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.
> 
> I wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.
> 
> ...


Because of abortion, we know the left does not really care about the lives of children. They have no desire to actually solve the problem by addressing the root causes. They simply treasure the fundraising opportunity this gives them in an election year.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

KHoward said:


> Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I support that the people should have the right to keep, and bear arms. However, I believe this is specific to a citizen militia (and hunting) and not meant to be carrying at all times - like going to Walmart.


The is zero connection between the 2nd Amendment and hunting. We do not need the 2nd Amendment to kill a rabbit or a deer. 
The bill of rights does not allow us to do anything, rather it prevents the government from taking our preexisting rights, which were God given before our country was born.
Regarding Walmart, should they choose a no guns policy, I am sure there are plenty of folks who will no longer shop there. Seeing the type of people that frequent Walmart, I would point to their stores as a strong reason to carry any time one is on their property.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why do some people have such a hard time with the idea that schools should have better procedures and security setups that are actually used. ALL OF THE TIME. Fences, metal detectors, on duty protection, etc. Who cares what it looks like or the few bucks involve. Works well elsewhere in the world. Appearances and money over lives. Wow.


Which is easier to do in order to prevent someone from breaking into your home and shooting you?
Installing stronger locks, a security system and maybe a dog?
Or going door to door and demanding each neighbor in your burb hand over their firearms to you?


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

And, there is that the Australian government agents showed their colors during the plandemic, as did agents of several other nations. They, now, know they may be able to get away with setting examples via a few murders, or many.



HDRider said:


> _ wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.
> . . . .
> 
> Gun control to me is nothing but another divisive political maneuver.
> _


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Eutychus2 said:


> Same thing I wanted to ask. What do you think is a person's motivation to ignore the subject and obfuscate the issues?


We have had several members here use tv shows from the 1970s to make their points about gun control.
Police Story and One Adam 12 seem to hold more reality in their minds than current crime statistics and that pesky common sense thing.
When you see posts noting "AK Somethings" and referring to fictitious gun maker's ads boasting their guns kill more people, rather than accepting reality it is commonly due to-
1.They are ignorant of the subject.
2.They are willfully ignorant of the subject.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

But it should be noted the tenth amendment addresses the fact our state constitutions cover the infinite other protections, only a few of which are enumerated. For example, it is indisputable we have a liberty right to feed, cloth and shelter ourselves and families, which may require us to hunt and fish. Especially when food is otherwise unavailable, making regulation of such things in the category of absurd.



GTX63 said:


> The is zero connection between the 2nd Amendment and hunting. We do not need the 2nd Amendment to kill a rabbit or a deer.
> The bill of rights does not allow us to do anything, rather it prevents the government from taking our preexisting rights, which were God given before our country was born.
> Regarding Walmart, should they choose a no guns policy, I am sure there are plenty of folks who will no longer shop there. Seeing the type of people that frequent Walmart, I would point to their stores as a strong reason to carry any time one is on their property.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

However, if you belong to a group supporting certain things, you can, reasonably, be presumed to ratify their stance and acts, unless you make clear your objection(s). In fact, that is a common concept in law: A failure to object, when someone can, can be equated to ratification of an act. 




painterswife said:


> When you always reduce statements to a group instead of individuals you taint them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> However, if you belong to a group supporting certain things, you can, reasonably, be presumed to ratify their stance and acts, unless you make clear your objection(s). In fact, that is a common concept in law: A failure to object, when someone can, can be equated to ratification of an act.


I am an individual. I don't belong to a group.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Good for you.



painterswife said:


> I am an individual. I don't belong to a group.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The ploy is alive


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531685369439080448


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I understand why gun grabbers use the question of a person owning a nuke, or a rocket launcher, etc.

I wish a 2nd amendment person could share an answer with me.

I also understand what, "shall not be infringed" means. That said, the right to own arms is infringed, and they will become more infringeder 

We need an elevator (short, quick and easy) answer to the question of where the lines in, and why the line should be allowed to be drawn between what can, and what arms cannot be individually owned.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531308991489490944


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I will say that I don't believe a private citizen should be allowed to own nukes. Nukes don't have to be detonated for them to contaminate your entire neighborhood.

I don't believe the average person should be allowed to have anything with nitroglycerin, except those little heart pills. 

There are a lot of things most people should not own because the risk of harming others is just too great. Storing some items safely requires specialized equipment and even when stored properly some items have been known to go BOOM! But then I believe most drivers currently on the road should never have been given a driver's license. I believe a lot of people (one of my neighbors included) should not be allowed to buy gasoline.

Cannon of certain sizes are legal to own in Ohio. I _want_ a cannon, I am legally allowed to own a cannon, I know where I can get a cannon. I just don't have a use for a cannon.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I understand why gun grabbers use the question of a person owning a nuke, or a rocket launcher, etc.


On a thumbnail, too many people and poor moral structure.
10 people per square mile and you may never meet all of them.
1000 people per square mile and things are getting busy.
10,000 people per square miles and now the levels of tension are spiking.
1 person out of the original 10 was a nut.
100 people of the 1000 are nuts.
1,000 people of 10,000 in that square mile are nuts.
There we are.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

HDRider said:


> I understand why gun grabbers use the question of a person owning a nuke, or a rocket launcher, etc.
> 
> I wish a 2nd amendment person could share an answer with me.
> 
> ...


It simply can’t be a HT discussion until someone goes to the ultimate extreme.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Man I really wish there was more of a point to this than self gratification. You're talking to literal gun fetishists, not people who view them as the tools they are. Basically their MO is "Well your solution isn't absolutely perfect so there is no point! And then try to make AUS/CA/UK sound like some urban nightmare filled with daily stabbings on every corner. When the reality is quite the opposite.


🙄


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

KHoward said:


> Politics aside, the question is whether we as a society are okay with the amount of gun related deaths in the US. If we are not, then what is the solution?
> 
> I also suspect there is a correlation between gun ownership and school shootings. Again - how do we stop these events?
> School shootings by country: School Shootings by Country 2022
> Gun ownership per capita: Gun Ownership by Country 2022


Correlation doesn’t equal causation.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

KHoward said:


> Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I support that the people should have the right to keep, and bear arms. However, I believe this is specific to a citizen militia (and hunting) and not meant to be carrying at all times - like going to Walmart.


Your belief is incorrect…


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Well Ole Brandon says that the large caliber 9mm will blow your lung out of your body, but, a .22 will lodge in your lung and we can take it out. He also said that when the 2nd amendment was written you couldn't buy a cannon. It would seem that, in his rantings, he would get something right by accident, but, no.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## Pir8fan (8 mo ago)

HDRider said:


> Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.
> 
> I wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.
> 
> ...


The left cares nothing about guns. They simply care about control. We're easier to control if we are unarmed.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

KHoward said:


> Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I support that the people should have the right to keep, and bear arms. However, I believe this is specific to a citizen militia (and hunting) and not meant to be carrying at all times - like going to Walmart.


I’d like nothing more than to see guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them but do you feel that controlling access to firearms will keep them out of the hands of the bad guys?

I don’t believe it will and if the young man in Texas had sufficient financial means to purchase what he did, he would have found the resources to purchase it illegally.

I would invite you to review the Nova Scotia shootings. The shooter managed to kill a number of people with illegally owned firearms and he had been reported for them numerous times.

More laws won’t help if nobody enforces them


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

_"More laws won’t help if nobody enforces them."_

If the laws and rights are there for the benefit of the people then perhaps it's time for the people to enforce their laws and rights for themselves instead of expecting somebody else to do it for them. I mean, really, isn't enforcement what the 2nd amendment and the right of the people to bear arms is all about anyway?

.


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

Working in retail I must be cautious about what I say to whom. A customer today mentioned the Texas shooting, and in the same breath asked why anyone needs an assault rifle. I politely (I hope) answered that a person needs whatever they feel is necessary to defend themselves, and under the constitution that decision is left to the individual. My customer acknowledged the need for self defense, then quickly changed the subject. I let it end there too.

The problem is that certain individuals and groups feel it is their duty and right to tell me what I need or don't need. If I'm not breaking any laws, or infringing on anyone else's rights, then it's none of their concern. If these individuals create laws making it illegal for me to own those items I deem necessary to protect myself, my family, and my property, then they are making me a criminal, and that's on them.

Gun Control should be restricted to keeping arms from individuals who shouldn't own them based on personal history. My personal history includes 40 plus years of gun ownership, multiple safety and training courses, multiple background checks, and not a single criminal act or gun related incident. I feel I have the right to own whatever I deem necessary, be it assault, cannon, law rocket, etc.

The debate should be about how we define *WHO* is a risk, not what tool they choose to use. This is a people problem.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Paumon said:


> _"More laws won’t help if nobody enforces them."_
> 
> If the laws and rights are there for the benefit of the people then perhaps it's time for the people to enforce their laws and rights for themselves instead of expecting somebody else to do it for them. I mean, really, isn't enforcement what the 2nd amendment and the right of the people to bear arms is all about anyway?
> 
> .


I’m Canadian so the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply and when I wrote that I was thinking incidents in my own community.

There are numerous complaints to RCMP about a man shooting within town limits and it’s well known and often reported that the firearms aren’t registered. In my opinion, he’s made too many threats to ignore him. He breaks the law nightly for years with nobody even showing up for a basic investigation.

There were countless calls of concern about the Nova Scotia shooter having unregistered firearms and I will credit police with knocking on his door but I feel that there should have been an investigation or a return visit, after his girlfriend said he was sleeping.

Neighbours report the same 5 drug houses, all known to be illegally armed and all with criminal records yet police don’t seem to be knocking on their door either.

My sister in law passed away a few weeks ago and the RCMP were here to pick up her .22 before she was buried.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

A man in Columbus was recently shot and killed after surprising a person who had broken into his wife's car. Residents say they have been calling police about the break-ins and gun threats for weeks but the police didn't take any action.

The Parkland shooter was the subject of several calls to police in the weeks prior to his shooting spree. If the police involved had investigated beforehand, he might have been kept from buying guns.

I don't know if anything could have been done to prevent the Las Vegas shooter. He didn't fit any profile for becoming a murderer.


----------



## K&Kturtleranch (Jan 12, 2022)

NEPA said:


> Working in retail I must be cautious about what I say to whom. A customer today mentioned the Texas shooting, and in the same breath asked why anyone needs an assault rifle. I politely (I hope) answered that a person needs whatever they feel is necessary to defend themselves, and under the constitution that decision is left to the individual. My customer acknowledged the need for self defense, then quickly changed the subject. I let it end there too.
> 
> The problem is that certain individuals and groups feel it is their duty and right to tell me what I need or don't need. If I'm not breaking any laws, or infringing on anyone else's rights, then it's none of their concern. If these individuals create laws making it illegal for me to own those items I deem necessary to protect myself, my family, and my property, then they are making me a criminal, and that's on them.
> 
> ...


Very well said .You and I have walked a vast portion of the same path. After 21 years in the military and being the fourth of my family to serve....I love the Constitutional rights the way they are and will be keeping all my firearms. I like the way Anti-gun enthusiasts say "we are going to take them" when I really want to ask is what part of WE do they mean? Will that person be coming down my driveway to get mine or be sitting monitoring a screen/tv somewhere safe while others attempt to carry out the task. I've committed no crimes and my firearms are of no danger to anyone short of being needed for defense of my family.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531308991489490944


That woman is just so stupid.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I’m Canadian so the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply and when I wrote that I was thinking incidents in my own community.
> 
> There are numerous complaints to RCMP about a man shooting within town limits and it’s well known and often reported that the firearms aren’t registered. In my opinion, he’s made too many threats to ignore him. He breaks the law nightly for years with nobody even showing up for a basic investigation.
> 
> ...


That's a good reason not to have gun registration.
My guns will go to my children, then on to grandchildren.
I have guns that are heirlooms, many over 100 years old.
I have guns my dad made stocks for, guns with family history attached.
The radical left will not be taking those.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KHoward said:


> Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I support that the people should have the right to keep, and bear arms. However, I believe this is specific to a citizen militia (and hunting) and not meant to be carrying at all times - like going to Walmart.


2nd Ammendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's break this down a bit...

"A well regulated": at the time of the creation of this ammendment, the term "well regulated" was used to advance the fact that _all_ men, above the age of 16 y.o. were considered part of the Militia. They were in fact required to bring their own firearms in well maintained condition. They were also required to provide their own powder, round balls (a.k.a. ammunition), other accoutrements and even food.

"Militia": as stated above, every male over the age of 16 was required to be in the Militia... often the age was dropped to 1 y.o. or even 12. Exceptions were made for those too old or infirm to completely their duties. The Militia was, quite literally, the citizens.

As to when arms were carried... pretty much all the time. They didn't have Walmarts but they mot certainly carried them on trips into town and such.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Paumon said:


> _"More laws won’t help if nobody enforces them."_
> 
> If the laws and rights are there for the benefit of the people then perhaps it's time for the people to enforce their laws and rights for themselves instead of expecting somebody else to do it for them. I mean, really, isn't enforcement what the 2nd amendment and the right of the people to bear arms is all about anyway?


I suggest you look up the difference between vigilantism and self defense... it may clarify things a bit.


----------



## goodatit (May 1, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Put aside your feeling on our 2nd amendment. Take a minute and define what "gun control" means to you.
> 
> I wish we had some folks from New Zealand, Britain, or Australia to describe gun control in their country. That said, America is unique. I don't think what worked there would work here.
> 
> ...


recoil management.


----------



## VBF (Apr 15, 2017)

Gun control is keeping your finger off the trigger.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Paumon said:


> _"More laws won’t help if nobody enforces them."_
> 
> If the laws and rights are there for the benefit of the people then perhaps it's time for the people to enforce their laws and rights for themselves instead of expecting somebody else to do it for them. I mean, really, isn't enforcement what the 2nd amendment and the right of the people to bear arms is all about anyway?
> 
> .


No, its about preventing improper enforcement and it is about protection of ones loved ones when needed.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

If ‘Gun Control’ Doesn’t Disarm the Government, It Is Authoritarian Propaganda


The best uncensored news, information, and analysis.




www.blacklistednews.com





_"...when you allow a monopoly of power in the hands of a concentrated class of sociopathic political elites, what you get is dictatorship, and possibly genocide."_


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> That's a good reason not to have gun registration.
> My guns will go to my children, then on to grandchildren.
> I have guns that are heirlooms, many over 100 years old.
> I have guns my dad made stocks for, guns with family history attached.
> The radical left will not be taking those.


There are a lot of heirlooms that were never registered when the long gun registry was mandatroy and they were quietly passed on.

A lot of gun owners in my area registered what they figured they could afford to lose if things got complicated and in some cases, that meant they went out and bought something to satisfy the long gun registry before it was scrapped and still remains in the RCMP database.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> No, its about preventing improper enforcement and it is about protection of ones loved ones when needed.


What's the difference from what I said?

.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Paumon said:


> What's the difference from what I said?
> 
> .


It’s as @homesteadforty alluded to; the difference between self-defense and vigilantism.

When someone shoots a home invader, they are not enforcing the law against breaking and entering and doling out the punishment for that crime. The home invader, even caught in the act, deserves due process with the presumption of innocence. The self-defense aspect, which justifies the shooting of such invader, is of more immediate consequence. The home owner’s application of deadly force is a response to the current threat, not the sentence for the crime being committed.

Should the home owner stop the threat presented by the home invader, and the invader survive, they should still be tried, fairly, and presumed innocent until proven guilty. If by some stretch of due process, they’re found not guilty, that does not indict the homeowner who shot them in self-defense.

That nuance is something that often gets lost in these debates, and I’m not sure it is accidental. Case in point; that fella who got the back of his skull ventilated by a cop in Michigan recently. I’ve seen several people on the news indignantly declare that he received the death penalty for not wearing his seat belt. He’s deader than Justin Trudeau’s dignity, but he never received the death penalty. He was never sentenced. He was never tried, and would make for quite the smelly courtroom if he were ever to be tried. He died in the discourse of a deadly struggle after stealing a cop’s weapon. If he had survived getting his brain turned around in his skull, he’d still need to pay the fine for driving without a seatbelt… but only after his due process.

The 2nd amendment is not our vehicle to enforce the law. If we witness a murder, and the murderer renders himself no longer a threat before we can draw our weapon, we have no right to shoot him. Doing so would make us the bad guy, denying him his due process. Likewise, the 2nd amendment is not the vehicle by which we would try and judge tyranny.

In both cases, the right recognized by the 2nd amendment is the vehicle by which we’re empowered to keep ourselves from becoming a victim while we’re waiting on the system of justice to sort it out.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

KHoward said:


> right to keep, and bear arms.


To own, and carry arms. To church, to mow the lawn, or to Walmart.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> 2.They are willfully ignorant of the subject.


And proud of it.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Paumon said:


> What's the difference from what I said?
> 
> .


Perhaps I misunderstood your statement, but just in case. 

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the people enforcing anything normally. 

It’s it to prevent government from enforcing any rule that infringes on gun ownership. 

It is to make sure we have do not have a government that tries to enforce something that we did not vote for, and that it runs things the way we wish, indicated by our votes.

It also gives the people the ability to protect themselves, if needed, from a variety of threats that have (usually) not been properly handled by our government. 

Various places around the world do not have these options and choices. More than a few falsely think they do, but do not actually have the ability to if really needed. Votes are only valid if the people in power respect and are willing to be subject to the votes.


----------

