Biden vs Gun Owners

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe they should, but for now, I point your attention to my repeated reference to the bill of rights and civil rights - and hunting isn't on that list.

I would have typed out a long winded diatribe about state rights, hostorical context & why you are so very wrong, but I had to find a AAA battery that dog was trying to eat.

So I'm all out of words now.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would have typed out a long winded diatribe about state rights, hostorical context & why you are so very wrong, but I had to find a AAA battery that dog was trying to eat.

So I'm all out of words now.

Like ImBillT and MTGomer mentioned - our passion and commitment to freedom face many many barriers in modern America.

 

[Addicting]

Lots of good points here, but let's name all the successful citizen-led civil wars fought on the soil of a top 10 economy having a top 10 military in the last 150 years? I can only come up with Russia and China - not great success stories for liberty lovers.

Difference is that the folks that would try to enforce the “law” if it came to that have only the need to follow a lawful order. A large percentage of the US Military and Leo’s wouldn’t enforce something that was personally deemed unlawful against the 2nd amendment.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@VikingsGuy whenever I read this threads I'm always conflicted... What does the 2A actually afford, what would actually fix problems, and what can actually be achieved.

I think everyone would be better off with a pragmatic federal law, I think "states rights", leads to our disjointed laws which don't solve the issues and infringe on rights, but I don't see anything changing.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Difference is that the folks that would try to enforce the “law” if it came to that have only the need to follow a lawful order. A large percentage of the US Military and Leo’s wouldn’t enforce something that was personally deemed unlawful against the 2nd amendment.

Lots of history suggests both will do as ordered in most cases and are unlikely to form their own personal legal positions as a basis for ignoring a direct order. Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc are just small examples.

And that is a good thing. I can't imagine democracy surviving if the military got to ignore SCOTUS - we would be just another banana dictatorship. Can you imagine the mess if the national guard had refused to honor Eisenhower's orders over school desegregation? Some in the south thought that would happen. Thankfully they were wrong.

[edit: adding a great and powerful quote of the day - from Eisenhower's orders, "Our mission is to enforce the orders of the federal courts with respect to the attendance at the public schools of Little Rock of all those who are properly enrolled, and to maintain law and order while doing so ... Our individual feelings towards those court orders should have no influence on our execution of the mission."]

We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Washington showed he was a man of law when he broke the "freedom-loving" whisky rebellion, Lincoln when he put down the traitors of the confederacy and Eisenhower when he stood against the ghosts of the confederacy.

And now more recently, a significant part of our nation appears to have learned a very odd spin on our history. As a conservative and a 2A backer, it concerns me that people in the rural midwest - the people I grew up with - where I easily found common ground with just 20 years ago - have taken such a hard turn. I wonder if this is how traditional but moderate muslims felt when Wahhabism began to take hold of the muslim world 50 years ago? I hope we stop well short of that, but if we fail, we won't be the first culture to spin itself a self-directed disaster by following overblown fears of the modern world.

 

[SAJ-99]

I hope cool heads prevail, nobody has time for a full blown civil war, but maybe you should read up on what 2 guys and uhaul pulled of in OKC, how Chris Donner locked down LA, or two brothers in Boston shut down a city. It is fairly easy to overwhelm the system. No one is untouchable.

So terrorism is the answer...ok. This thread won't last long.

 

[Addicting]

Lots of history suggests both will do as ordered in most cases and are unlikely to form their own personal legal positions as a basis for ignoring a direct order. Katrina, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc are just small examples.

And that is a good thing. I can't imagine democracy surviving if the military got to ignore SCOTUS - we would be just another banana dictatorship. Can you imagine the mess if the national guard had refused to honor Eisenhower's orders over school desegregation? Some in the south thought that would happen. Thankfully they were wrong.

[edit: adding a great and powerful quote of the day - from Eisenhower's orders, "Our mission is to enforce the orders of the federal courts with respect to the attendance at the public schools of Little Rock of all those who are properly enrolled, and to maintain law and order while doing so ... Our individual feelings towards those court orders should have no influence on our execution of the mission."]

We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Washington showed he was a man of law when he broke the "freedom-loving" whisky rebellion, Lincoln when he put down the traitors of the confederacy and Eisenhower when he stood against the ghosts of the confederacy.

And now more recently, a significant part of our nation appears to have learned a very odd spin on our history. As a conservative and a 2A backer, it concerns me that people in the rural midwest - the people I grew up with - where I easily found common ground with just 20 years ago - have taken such a hard turn. I wonder if this is how traditional but moderate muslims felt when Wahhabism began to take hold of the muslim world 50 years ago? I hope we stop well short of that, but if we fail, we won't be the first culture to spin itself a self-directed disaster by following overblown fears of the modern world.

Biggest part your over shooting is that if there was a national gun confiscation that 70-80% of the people your going to give a direct order to enforce, are owners of them. That legally purchased them. They are not going to give them up.

Your examples have nothing to do with a constitutionally protected right that Joe public holds dear. I normally agree with you, however your off base on your response.

I would encourage you to go down to the recruiting center, do your time, then revisit your opinion.

 

[SAJ-99]

@VikingsGuy whenever I read this threads I'm always conflicted... What does the 2A actually afford, what would actually fix problems, and what can actually be achieved.

I think everyone would be better off with a pragmatic federal law, I think "states rights", leads to our disjointed laws which don't solve the issues and infringe on rights, but I don't see anything changing.

I'm not even sure this is about the core of 2A anymore. We went off those rails decades ago. Gun control act of 68 tried to manage interstate stuff and the Brady Bill in the 90's all tried to be a reasonable (if flawed) compromise. The 1986 Firearm owners act essentially killed the ability to trace a gun through a database. This was written by gun manufacturers and sold to NRA membership as a way to prevent the government from "coming for your guns". What it really did was prevent the ability to trace a gun found at a crime scene or confiscated to see where it was purchased (dealers are a big part of the problem in city gun problems). The only way to do it now is to plow through piles of paperwork. All gun regulations are a mess. That is why problems don't get solved. What is clear is that while we like to say gun ownership is a "right", we have historically regulated it as a "privilege". If it wasn't the fear of the "Gubment cum'in for our guns" (which is reinforced by the NRA ad nauseam) we might have been able to address some of the mental health issues that drive most of the problem.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Biggest part your over shooting is that if there was a national gun confiscation that 70-80% of the people your going to give a direct order to enforce, are owners of them. That legally purchased them. They are not going to give them up.

Your examples have nothing to do with a constitutionally protected right that Joe public holds dear. I normally agree with you, however your off base on your response.

I would encourage you to go down to the recruiting center, do your time, then revisit your opinion.

First of all, no chance in my lifetime that national confiscation is a thing that survives Congress and SCOTUS.

Second, if it does come, the clever politicians are smart enough to exempt LEOs and Mil as "essential providers" who need the training and backup guns. You would be surprised at how quickly people drop principle when they know they get to personally win - look at all the pols and celebs that get to have armed guards in no-carry states. (see the never-ending tag, outfitter and NR debates on this forum)

Third, not sure which examples you are referring to, but if it is the whisky rebellion, the confederacy, and school desegregation I have no doubt passions of those three ran every bit as hot or more so than 2A. The whisky rebellion dealt with taxation by a distant government a decade after the Revolutionary war (plus booze). The confederacy was about the entire fabric of southern society and its economy, and de-segregation was about a person's kids. If you are talking about Katrina, waco, and ruby ridge, each presented issues of enforcement of gun laws/edicts so not sure why they aren't relevant. Obviously they were small discreet moments, but I mentioned that in my comment.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would encourage you to go down to the recruiting center, do your time, then revisit your opinion.

First of all the army doesn't want an old guy.

Second, my service wouldn't cause me to forget history or my principles and would likely only heighten my concern about extremism in a culture.

Third, my uncle with 2 bronze stars and a lifelong marine who died with vietcong lead in his leg years later refused to join the NRA and considered them a bunch of greedy self-serving fools. He also considered Lee a traitor that should have been hung and personally offered to go to Arakansas and kick the ass of any guardsman who disrespected Ike.

This leads me to believe that military service doesn't actually require one to agree with you.

 

[Addicting]

First of all the army doesn't want an old guy.

Second, my service wouldn't cause me to forget history or my principles and would likely only heighten my concern about extremism in a culture.

Third, my uncle with 2 bronze stars and a lifelong marine who died with vietcong lead in his leg years later refused to join the NRA and considered them a bunch of greedy self-serving fools. He also considered Lee a traitor that should have been hung and personally offered to go to Arakansas and kick the ass of any guardsman who disrespected Ike.

This leads me to believe that military service doesn't actually require one to agree with you.

Your Uncle’s service has nothing to do with the fact that you haven’t and are not in touch with what actually is talked about at chow. I’ve been there done that. History is history and not the present. A lot has changed in this Information Age where everyone has access to voice their gripe. The growing division we saw over the last 5-6 years should be enough to show you that any gun ban, buy back, confiscation will be unenforceable.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Your Uncle’s service has nothing to do with the fact that you haven’t and are not in touch with what actually is talked about at chow. I’ve been there done that. History is history and not the present. A lot has changed in this Information Age where everyone has access to voice their gripe. The growing division we saw over the last 5-6 years should be enough to show you that any gun ban, buy back, confiscation will be unenforceable.

Most importantly, thank you for your service. You have my deepest respect.

My buddy who served with special forces out of Djibouti for 3 years and is retiring out this winter shares my views - so it is probably a mixed bag. So, are there ex-military who are in the cold dead hands camp? I am sure there are. But I would guess there are many more that have seen what armed conflict does to a society and just want to raise their kids and keep life simple.

We agree that things have definitely gotten worse. In my book, the only way to preempt the death spiral is to push back on the unnecessarily combative and self-fulfilling absolutism that is rampant on both sides. I would like to think the parallel for our times is the Guilded Age, but if you are right it is the pre-civil war rhetoric. Let’s hope that isn’t the case.

 

[Glockster]

So terrorism is the answer...ok. This thread won't last long.

Settle down Francis. Not advocating for any violence. Just making a point how easy it is totally overwhelm a city, even a large one can be dumped on its butt by one motivated person.
Here’s another curve ball for you, try not to strain your noodle. I would bet King George thought ole Washington and Jefferson were terrorist’s as well.

 

[Addicting]

Most importantly, thank you for your service. You have my deepest respect.

My buddy who served with special forces out of Djibouti for 3 years and is retiring out this winter shares my views - so it is probably a mixed bag. So, are there ex-military who are in the cold dead hands camp? I am sure there are. But I would guess there are many more that have seen what armed conflict does to a society and just want to raise their kids and keep life simple.

We agree that things have definitely gotten worse. In my book, the only way to preempt the death spiral is to push back on the unnecessarily combative and self-fulfilling absolutism that is rampant on both sides. I would like to think the parallel for our times is the Guilded Age, but if you are right it is the pre-civil war rhetoric. Let’s hope that isn’t the case.

So I don’t think it’s civil war rhetoric or absolutism. I probably should of not deleted what I typed in my first post. It might of explained my point of view better.

Anyway,
Ask your buddy if he (with a exemption that you eluded to before) would come to your house to enforce some type of federal weapons law. That now applies to you but not to him even though you were both at the range last weekend shooting together.

There is no way enough of the Military or Leo’s would say yes to make a difference. The ones that would follow it would be at half strength at best given our current political conditions.

The military and Leo systems would be in dismay with all the legal issues that more than 1/2 the force’s newly found conscientious objectors. I use 1/2 on the low side. With other crimes not slowing down any it would effectively shut down any plan. My point is that there is no way Biden’s administration is going to be successful at any meaningful gun control IAW his campaign rhetoric.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would bet King George thought ole Washington and Jefferson were terrorist’s as well.

Accurate.

 

[EKYHunter]

Settle down Francis. Not advocating for any violence. Just making a point how easy it is totally overwhelm a city, even a large one can be dumped on its butt by one motivated person.
Here’s another curve ball for you, try not to strain your noodle. I would bet King George thought ole Washington and Jefferson were terrorist’s as well.

Wonder what the founders would be labeled as today? I’m guessing it wouldn’t be “patriot.”

 

[Deleted member 28227]

My point is that there is no way Biden’s administration is going to be successful at any meaningful gun control IAW his campaign rhetoric.

My argument is he realizes this and accepts it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Settle down Francis. Not advocating for any violence. Just making a point how easy it is totally overwhelm a city, even a large one can be dumped on its butt by one motivated person.
Here’s another curve ball for you, try not to strain your noodle. I would bet King George thought ole Washington and Jefferson were terrorist’s as well.

Yup. The winners get to write history.

 

[SAJ-99]

Settle down Francis. Not advocating for any violence. Just making a point how easy it is totally overwhelm a city, even a large one can be dumped on its butt by one motivated person.
Here’s another curve ball for you, try not to strain your noodle. I would bet King George thought ole Washington and Jefferson were terrorist’s as well.

Not upset at all. Just pointing out you are using examples of terrorism against Americans to defend the 2nd amendment won't get you much support from people in the middle.
Don't dispute the second claim, but neither Washington nor Jefferson ever parked a cart full of explosives outside the King's building and killed a bunch of innocent people.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wonder what the founders would be labeled as today? I’m guessing it wouldn’t be “patriot.”

They would likely call them progressives. Most were the wealthiest and most educated and powerful men of their era so I would guess they would look like Buffet, Bezos, Koch brothers and Bloomberg. They used a call for a radical new view of liberty and governance that reshaped history. They did not spend their time lamenting the good old days and trying to block the progress that was arising from the enlightenment. They were not at all the conservatives of their day. I find it ironic that the Americans that celebrate the founding fathers the most forget that they were the wild haired progressives of their era.