17 replies to this topic

[UncleVinnys]

First off, I don't want to take guns away.
I know most owners are responsible and careful.

 

I do want stricter regulation, as in "well regulated militia" - - a concept conveniently ignored by the NRA

 

The big spoiler in all this is that fanatical faction of the gun owners who are fear-based

and feel the NEED to have a gun in order to make up some kind of perceived inadequacy in their own character.
These folks have hijacked the NRA into supporting the misogynist Trump and have fostered the false idea

that "Revenoors gonna take my guns away!"

 

The fear-based gun owners think, even HOPE, that some kind of political dispute
will justify killing their neighbors. They THINK it would be defending democracy, somehow,

In truth, especially here in Folsom, they just want an excuse to shoot their neighbors,

many of whom work in law enforcement.
Rather it is symptomatic of a fear based, us-against-them world view where "enemies"

deserve to die and "friends" if they have any should hunker down in their own bunker,

with competition to see who can store up the most ammunition.

 

The fear-based gun owner has no idea of the rich rewards to be enjoyed by actually

engaging and supporting their neighbors. NORMAL folks and responsible gun
owners participate in a fellowship of intelligent discourse, where disagreements

are hammered out in a respectful and inclusive manner.

 

 

[Chris]

Vinny, typical, uneducated, uniformed, progressive dribble....  "A well regulated Militia" is the people, the citizens, not the army.  The Militia was in place,  organized and (regulated) by city, county, and state officials (local) to fend off the Army, any Army that transgressed against the citizenry.  In our case, at the time, it meant the British Army. The second amendment was also written to keep at bay any transgressing or out of control centralized government that may exist in the future.  And "well regulated" meant well trained, practiced, drilled in formation, and put to order by means of rank, qualified and experienced leadership (officers).  Back in these days male citizens, mostly in the country or on the frontier but also in big cities, were actually required, at their own expense, to personally own and have a long arm of certain caliber and ball and powder of a certain amount, at all times, in their domicile.  This was usually at least 40 rounds.  These arms were to be firearms "in common use at the time".  That means modern, capable, and equal to what any army might field at the time.  Then, it was the Musket, today it is the AR-15.  Do yourself a favor, educate yourself about our history at the time. Read a lot of books about Jefferson, John Adams, Washington, and the American Revolution in general (I can recommend a good twenty or so to you that I have read) and you will be able to understand the 2nd Amendment and why it is in place.  I also do recommend that you read the Heller decision.  I have read it.  That is an education in itself and a good place to start.  For your convenience a link to Heller is attached below.  Print it out, take good notes, read the footnotes, and you will learn.  In your case you may particularly like the dissent opinions which in my opinion were very, very weak.  Chris

 

https://www.supremec...7pdf/07-290.pdf

[camay2327]

Chris, thanks. I have downloaded the article and will read it later.

[2 Aces]

Hillary has already stated that she'd consider gun confiscation. Just let that sink in for a moment. That fact alone should disqualify her from Presidential consideration.

 

Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots who will still vote for her.

 

 

[Chris]

Vinny, nothing from you...?   Hopefully you are studying, doing your homework, educating yourself on this issue which you obviously are very ignorant of.  It will take some time to learn of our early American history, the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment. Seems that your liberal, progressive, handgun control, George Soros, talking points are not very deep when confronted with actual facts and historical precedence.   Did you know the NRA came into being just a bit after the civil war....?  They were there to stop democrats in the South from disarming former black union soldiers returning to their homes after the civil war.   Yes, racist white democrats killing Republican black, ex union soldiers and taking their guns.  Another piece of history you need to study up on......    

 

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

 

And another great book I read this last year, The Negro and the Gun.   It's on Amazon, a great read.  You won't be told these facts, these stories, or about the lives saved (black lives) because they were able to defend themselves by the MSM.   And they were not "allowed" guns, they disobeyed the unjust gun laws against them and lived their lives as they saw fit.  They were able to defend themselves, their families, their homes, their towns, their leaders and preachers.  Did you know Martin Luther King was defended by the "Deacons"...?   Look them up, all black men, not allowed to have guns, but they did and ignored the unjust, anti gun laws against them, and they protected MLK until April 1968.......    He would have been killed years earlier.   Chris

 

https://www.amazon.c...k/dp/B00E2RWQHM

[UncleVinnys]

Yeah, I read it. (Boring!)

 

And by the way, don't give me that "Here, read this and get back to me" bit.

I could say, "here Read the Bible and tell me why . . . ."

 

That article refers to the legal rulings on the 2nd Amendment.
I am addressing the psychologically pathetic self image of a person who feels so vulnerable and powerless

that they have to rely on hardware to augment their sense of safety.

There's no faith in God there, no love for your fellow man, no sense of brotherhood, let alone camaraderie.

There's not any sense of a loving, benevolent Creator. Only a discourse on fear.

These folks think a ton of ammunition and a threat of violence will somehow make them safe.

Real men come out of their foxholes, stand with their brothers in the sunshine and declare their values with pride.

 

BTW: I'll be traveling for a few days. Try not to shoot anyone while I'm gone.

 

[Chris]

 

BTW: I'll be traveling for a few days. Try not to shoot anyone while I'm gone.

 

 

What....?   Are the Grateful Dead on tour somewhere again....?   Don't try the blue acid I hear it's not a good trip.......   

[2 Aces]

BTW: I'll be traveling for a few days. Try not to shoot anyone while I'm gone.

 

 

Don't worry. I would only shoot/kill someone if they posed a serious threat. I'd have no problem doing that.

 

 

[The Average Joe]

Tried to stay away until after the election, and I will stay away from the nonsensical shouting at each other over who is the worse candidate. However, I had to respond to this;

 

"the gun owners who are fear-based and feel the NEED to have a gun in order to make up some kind of perceived inadequacy in their own character."

 

I don't have a gun to make up for deficiencies in MY character, I own a gun to make up for huge deficiencies in the character of others.  You won't find me committing acts of violence, strong armed robbery, carjacking, etc.  Should someone of low moral fiber decide they want to make me a victim, I will hopefully have the means to "dissuade" them.  People are always pacifists, until they get hit in the face. I prefer to bypass that painful lesson.

[Chris]

Tried to stay away until after the election, and I will stay away from the nonsensical shouting at each other over who is the worse candidate. However, I had to respond to this;

 

"the gun owners who are fear-based and feel the NEED to have a gun in order to make up some kind of perceived inadequacy in their own character."

 

I don't have a gun to make up for deficiencies in MY character, I own a gun to make up for huge deficiencies in the character of others.  You won't find me committing acts of violence, strong armed robbery, carjacking, etc.  Should someone of low moral fiber decide they want to make me a victim, I will hopefully have the means to "dissuade" them.  People are always pacifists, until they get hit in the face. I prefer to bypass that painful lesson.

Well said Joe...    And obviously Uncle Vinny has not read a bit of real, actual history......    And knows nothing about firearms.....   Very sad on his part.  Today, I went out to the range with friends from work.   We shot from 50 meters to 500 meters......    We had a guest from the Philippines, and another from the UK.  They were besides themselves with fun and eager to learn.  I explained to them that the M1 Garand, the M-1903 that I let them shoot...   Those weapons were there, fought in Corregidor, their Grandfathers, their Fathers, the Phillipene Guards, had these weapons in hand and now they have shot them, know them, know how they work, know how hard it is to actually hit something at 200 to 500 meters.  The Japanese well learned and thought every Filipino and American soldier had an automatic weapon in the three months it took them to take Corregidor.........  Chris

[Chris]

[UncleVinnys]

Well said Joe...    And obviously Uncle Vinny has not read a bit of real, actual history......    And knows nothing about firearms..... 

 

Ha, ha! Guess that two years as a firearms instructor for the federal government doesn't count in your book!
(Vinny has the last laugh on that score.)

 

But you're right - the history and laws of the gun ownership controversy is not my concern.

I'm referring to the psychological dependency that SOME folks have, feeling so powerless and insecure

to the extent that they NEED a firearm to make up the inadequacies of their own self confidence.
I am also referring to the subgroup that maintains an abiding hatred and distrust towards their government,

so much so that they are looking for, hoping for, any excuse to go out and kill their fellow citizens

for the sake of their own paranoia, and then blame it on "government corruption" or some other such

nonsense. Those responsible gun owners on this forum, I am sure, know the type of people I am

referring to, as you often run into them at the gun range. It's a sense of outrage and fear perpetuated

by the NRA simply to collect more membership dues.

[Chris]

Firearms instructor.....?   Photographic proof please.   You don't seem to know anything about weapons and not much of actual history either.  Now maybe you know a lot about Grays, the eight steps, and karma and all but guns, I think not so much...?   Chris 

[ghost35me]

Chris - don't bother. OP is trying to politicize and regulate a natural right.  Who is he to judge who can and can not have the right to self defense? It's a ridiculous discussion and not worth any one's time to discuss.

[UncleVinnys]

Firearms instructor.....?   Photographic proof please.   You don't seem to know anything about weapons and not much of actual history either.  Now maybe you know a lot about Grays, the eight steps, and karma and all but guns, I think not so much...?   Chris 

 

 

You're right Chris. That was way back in the 70's. I worked for the US Customs service and we had a range out near Ellis Island, run by the Coast Guard. It was mostly just .38 service revolvers and a few .45s, so it's been a while. I think at this point I've forgotten things you haven't even learned yet, ha, ha!

 

Missed !