NRA IMO How I see recent events

rjburk:

Clearly, guns are not the killers - people are. It is just that, like fully automatic submachine guns, bumpfire rifles give killers way too much power to do their killing quickly and in large numbers. Yes, it is unfair for all us non-killers to give up our prized possessions. That is where regulating them, instead of banning them entirely, would make more sense.

And trust me, I am not the enemy of the 2A. I cherish it more than anyone else I know. But, I also agree that it does not provide for our having any/all kinds of weapons. I certainly don’t want any civilians having nuclear bombs - bad enough that governments have them. There really does need to be some broad limits, but saying civilians can’t have AR15’s for example (in my opinion), would be too restrictive.

I must disagree with you! Bumpfires killed no-one! Ar15 killed no-one! Some wacked out asshole is what killed people! My weapons are comfortably resting in my safe without a chance of harming anyone or anything! If anything, we need to roll back many laws in existence! As I see it, 1 of the purposes of the 2nd amendment is to allow us to possess arms to protect ourselves against an out of control, tyrannical government.(amongst other threats) our government and law enforcement agencies are already light years ahead of what we are currently allowed to own making it near impossible to be able to keep the government in check. Which I believe has been governments plan for a long time! Civilians need more weapons, heavier weapons to insure our freedoms against our communist, out of control government! I will not give up any more & I am ready to dig my heels in. Enough is enough of giving in to more useless do- nothing laws! The nra & their attempt to “comprimise” with the bump stocks is a fucking insult & one of several reasons they will not see another dime from me till they get their heads out of their asses!

1 Like

Robert:

You hit a very important point - wny punish law abiding citizens? That I agree is tough to argue with.

Maybe just stop making bumpfire accessories and let those that have them, keep them.

Regarding the Vegas shooter - you expect his actions to all make sense? Then, killing all those people is supposed to make sense, too?

If any of us was going to the range, or hunting, we could well plan what we wanted (or needed) to take with us. And to our fellow gun owners, those items would make sense. But, for someone crazy enough to do what he did, you surely can’t expect all his actions to make sense.

And no, I do not wish to restrict your liberties, and not anyone else’s here on Full30.

LonewolfMcQuade:

I agree with your sentiment that the real killer was the person pulling the trigger. Guns are just tools.

I also agree that the vast majority of gun owners could be trusted with bumpfire rifles, and AR15’s, too.

So, the majority of legislative changes should come in the form of how to deal with the crazies, not what people are allowed to possess.

Here’s my concern, though: Have you been watching how the government(s) are dealing with the crazies? That is what scares me the most! If they truly were always that crazy, maybe not so bad. But, no, they are going so far as to allow the guns to be taken away from anyone that has a complaint against them, or even in some cases, the police just have some concerns (even before any arrests are made)!

So, to my point that the 2A is about gun ownership not being infringed, instead of saying you can have any gun you want, I would much rather the government focus on guns such as bumpfire rifles, than how they can justify taking away our guns whenever they felt like it.

Personally, I wish gun training courses were required in both high school and college. I also wish that guns were owned by even more people, and that more people owned more guns. So, like I said, I am very pro gun ownership. I just think that is okay to have some small limitations on what those guns are capable of doing.

1 Like

If you give an inch, uncle sam will take a mile! Our government isnt interested in dealing with the crazies, they are interested in COMPLETE confiscation! They wish to go the same roure as their communist European counterparts! Government wants full control over the people. In order to achieve that, they have to use whatever excuse handy to take away guns.

3 Likes

1st they’ll want bump stocks, then semi auto, then bolt action & hand guns, then shotguns! Maybe you’ll be allowed to keep a bow & arrow, maybe! Where does the compromise stop? When do you fight back???

2 Likes

in that I type with only my right thumb on my phone I’ll keep this short. (Also so people not skip over it.).
The second amendment is written quite plainly and it’s meaning quite clear to the people in the language of the time. One needn’t have been a lawyer or scholar to understand it’s clear intent.
But language over time changes and original meaning can be misconstrued. A brief example is the ten “let” in tennis. (When the serve hits the net yet falls into the service box.). We think today of let to mean allow. In the ancient game of tennis it means “hinder.” The exact opposite of modern meaning.

I have read over the years in hard back books (another relic of the past) a great many dissertations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

But a good online synopsis can be found here. Not quite as scholarly but gets it in a nutshell fairly accurately. Please give this a read with an open mind. Further read the Federalist Papers and transcripts of the debate at the time.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-‘arms’-‘well-regulated’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

2 Likes

LonewolfMcQuade:

I agree there are too many government officials that are interested in full or near-full confiscation of guns. I don’t think that all government officials are, though.

We do need to be vigilant in protecting our 2A rights. Sometimes, giving an inch does allow uncle sam to take a mile, sometimes it does not. That is where NRA, you, me, and every other pro-gun person or group, needs to fight for what we believe is right.

mquinn55:

great article! thanks!

so, bumpfire rifles would be included in their arms they can keep and bear. ok, still, like the submachine guns, they are particularly dangerous and (I believe) should be treated the same as submachine guns.

LonewolfMcQuade:

That is easy to answer. You have your views, I have mine. You fight for your views, I fight for mine. If enough people agree with you, your views will win.

I don’t like bumpfire rifles being treated different to submachine guns, you may have a different view. We will both fight for what we believe in. And for anything past bumpfire rifles, I believe we would probably be fighting on the same side.

Jtr:

Check out mquinn55’s link. Really spells it out what the 2A is all about.

It comes pretty close to what you are saying, just limits it to arms we can carry. It makes a lot of sense.

John, oddly that sole point of keeping and bearing by a single person is the only point that I and the arguments I’ve read over the years disagree with. The rest pretty well gets it right, hence my linking to it.
The major points were to the meaning of militia, regulated and arms. That regardless of a now large federal military to protect us from foreign aggression we to this day ought to have a well regulated milita ( armed and trained populace) whose rights to own weaponry sufficient to the task of protecting ourselves from a government run amok ( think Waco ) without infringement of any faction of government.

3 Likes

mquinn55:

Well, I am fine with the small arms requirement. Have you priced out a canon lately? Wow! They are very expensive! And, for most of us, where would you fire it? So, practically speaking, the small arms requirement is not really an issue. Though, I hope the “what you can carry” requirement does not apply to how much ammo we can/should be able to keep. People I know (myself included), like to have thousands of rounds in stock. That would be very difficult to carry any distance. So, next time there is an ammo shortage, my friends and I won’t be the ones suffering.

Robert:

Ok. Well, I am no psychologist, so don’t know and can’t reasonably speculate.

Personally, I do have issue with his bringing AR15’s when they really aren’t that effective at the supposed 550 yard distance he was firing. Yes, he also brought some guns chambered in .308, which would still be quite effective at that distance, but why the AR15’s? And, according to reports, he actually used some of his AR15’s to shoot at people. That alone would qualify him as crazy in my book (purposely using AR15’s to try to take out human sized targets 550 yards away).

I can only guess that the guns he brought were the best he had for his intended purpose(s) at the hotel, and perhaps for getaway, too. Still, I can’t imagine why so many. He had to know he could not carry them all with him upon attempting to escape.

The guns I saw in the news would certainly help promote the anti-gunners’ agenda - most unfortunate for us pro-gunners. Maybe his way of hurting the gun community?

If he was wanting to sell guns, you think that might come out in the news? That would be an interesting twist.

1 Like

The Great Men who wrote the 2nd Amendment understood what a Tyrannical Government could do as they witnessed it and defeated it
They were smart enough to know NOT to define Arms in the 2nd. For those who continue to read the 2nd as anything other than how it is simply stated, do not have a clue what it means. We will always have those who think they are smarter who will tell us differently, those people are the enemy
those are the people the 2nd was wrote for.

5 Likes

Thank you for the kind comments, Robert.

I do like to consider myself a thinker, but like anyone, I can miss key points or aspects to a situation or event. However, I generally review such things multiple times before making my final decision about what I think happened, and why. This means I am generally open to debate and discussion, especially when presented with new facts or points of view.

1 Like

rjburk:

What I have heard about the men involved in developing and writing the 2nd amendment is that they felt it was so obvious that gun rights are so natural and obvious, that they felt they should not even have to include it in the Constitution. It was their fear that not including it that problems could come about, so they included it just to make sure no one doubted people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms.

Sad that nowadays that so obvious so many years ago is doubted by some (ie - the anti gunners). And, the passage of time has had no impact on the need for that right to be respected.

2 Likes

and yet you are ok with Infringements/Restrictions ? you can’t have it both ways


2 Likes

Ya know, now that you mention it, the fact that we are a republic and not a pure democracy is lost on a lot of our youth. One of my own daughters in fact. Not sure how that happened. She even claims now to be a socialist. Makes family get together Interesting.
I think most of us here get that but we make a mistake if we assume the anti-gunners know, acknowledge or even understand that fact.
Might be a new topic idea but then again to easily morphs into the broader politics discussion we mostly think is best avoided in this forum.

1 Like

Bullshit! Nothing about the story reporting or anything else about las vegas has been reported to we the people has been reported correctly
Bump stock with bipod?that dont work!not bump stock! And im hearing different calibers auto weapons reports of other shootings in other places?false flag event with an agenda(gun controll)
But its obviously working!:fearful:

2 Likes