Gun control is coming

[DIY-HP-LED]

Sir, you do realize you are aligning with dictators. slave masters and legalized but highly immoral Supreme Court decisions right?

View attachment 5239534

Only in your warped mind Rob...

 

[Rob Roy]

I would imagine the NRA spends an awful lot on keeping an index of amenable judges up to date.

Sometimes I think the racist NRA has aspects of controlled opposition, sort of like NORML.

 

[Rob Roy]

Only in your warped mind Rob...

That's a rather poor counter point to my argument. I understand you might feel bad and are possibly experiencing some cognitive dissonance, so I'll forgive you for making a snarky off point comment.

Please explain or show evidence that "gun control" won't do as I've stated, take away guns from the general populace and consolidate guns in the hands of the enforcers of the people who rule over others.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

That's a rather poor counter point to my argument. I understand you might feel bad and are possibly experiencing some cognitive dissonance, so I'll forgive you for making a snarky off point comment.

Please explain or show evidence that "gun control" won't do as I've stated, take away guns from the general populace and consolidate guns in the hands of the enforcers of the people who rule over others.

It's real simple Rob, I use facts, statistics and science and you use your paranoid fantasies supported by dubious folk philosophy in memes. There are plenty of other countries that ban and control firearms that are just as free as America, more so, which recently almost fell into authoritarian dictatorship, at least there's a report about it today in congress. The firearms death and injury statistics compared to these other countries is notable to say the least. There are plenty of social models to compare America to these days and it scores low on many international indexes of freedom, three Scandinavian countries are tied for first and Canada is second as most free, we control guns Rob. So much for memes and paranoid simpleminded maxims that enchant the foolish and ignorant.

 

[canndo]

If I infer correctly that you are an advocate for "gun control" administered by people who will use guns offensively, I suggest you are engaging in intellectual sloth and have not considered the embedded contradictions in your point of view.

The gun culture that needs alteration ISN'T the individual peaceful people who own guns for defensive purposes.

The cultural shift should be the realization that a gun is only as good or as bad as the person / people using it. Many people already get that, I suggest those people aren't the ones that are the problem.

Not to be ribald or lewd, but the penis analogy is apropos. A penis is "apolitical", just as a gun is. Both can be used for positive things or for negative things.

A gun when used to DEFEND against assault, theft or a tyrannical imposition of which there are many instances, is used for maintaning the good, the riteous and the equilibrium of peace. That equilibrium is broken by those individuals and groups of individuals using systems of control based in coercion who use guns for offensive purposes.

Much the same as a penis can be either a thing to celebrate love, aid in consensual pleasure and help create life etc. it can be used as a thing to destroy consent and violate individual rights. The thing that identifies what is occurring is, the thing gun grabbers and rapists both ignore, individual consent. When discarding consent, a penis, like a gun is an instrument of violence.

In summary, if you are the kind of person that uses a gun for defensive purposes only, you're less likely to use a gun or your penis for offensive purposes.

Moral of the story...Don't be a dick and support using guns offensively to take away guns from people who want them for defensive purposes to maintain the peace.

Penises don't kill people and gun analogies fail...ALL of them.

We're firearms not worshiped by those "non offensive users" this conversation would be silly in the extreme. But as I have posted previously, the "gun as talisman" phenomenon is firmly in place.


"Defensive" only gun owners have either fostered or ignored a culture where "offensive" use of firearms is hinted at, dreamed of, fantasized about and reveled in.

The absolutism I mention in the last post is example of this. "Do anything to touch our utter right to keep, bear, lose, sell, buy and stand our ground with and we are comming for you".

"Gee, folks, we think maybe a few less cartridges in those 50 round magazines might be better for society...."

"NO. It's an infringement on OUR right"

"Um...these devices that turn semiautomatic into rapid fire weapons alp the better to kill dozens at once..might be best if we ban at least them...I mean, they aren't even guns"

"NO..its OUR RIGHT as WE read that constitution and you people have no say".

"We really think in very populated areas that there should be reasonable restrictions on concealed carry..you know bars and subways in New york?"

"NO..we give an inch and you will take more, it doesn't matter how many lives may be saved...its only OUR RIGHT that is important".


See, that is, in my opinion, a pretty offensive use of weapons.

 

[Fogdog]

Penises don't kill people and gun analogies fail...ALL of them.

We're firearms not worshiped by those "non offensive users" this conversation would be silly in the extreme. But as I have posted previously, the "gun as talisman" phenomenon is firmly in place.


"Defensive" only gun owners have either fostered or ignored a culture where "offensive" use of firearms is hinted at, dreamed of, fantasized about and reveled in.

The absolutism I mention in the last post is example of this. "Do anything to touch our utter right to keep, bear, lose, sell, buy and stand our ground with and we are comming for you".

"Gee, folks, we think maybe a few less cartridges in those 50 round magazines might be better for society...."

"NO. It's an infringement on OUR right"

"Um...these devices that turn semiautomatic into rapid fire weapons alp the better to kill dozens at once..might be best if we ban at least them...I mean, they aren't even guns"

"NO..its OUR RIGHT as WE read that constitution and you people have no say".

"We really think in very populated areas that there should be reasonable restrictions on concealed carry..you know bars and subways in New york?"

"NO..we give an inch and you will take more, it doesn't matter how many lives may be saved...its only OUR RIGHT that is important".


See, that is, in my opinion, a pretty offensive use of weapons.

The gun law initiative that majority of Oregon's voters chose to vote for does not infringe on anybody's right to own or carry gun. It simply requires the gun owner to attend a class in gun safety including safe gun storage every 5 yrs, demonstrate proficiency in using a gun, requires that guns be stored safely, beefs up our currently inadequate background checking system and bans the use of magazines that hold more than 10(?) rounds and restricts the sale of some guns. Other states that have these measures in place demonstrated that fewer people die due to accidents, suicides and homicides by gun. It has nothing in it that will "take muh gun" unless there is already a law on the books the denies that right. It's understandable that unlawful gun owners would oppose this measure. Eff them.

I have the right to vote and am proud to say I voted for Measure 114 last fall. To vote against it was to vote for more death by suicide, more abused women, more dead kids, more murders, and more mass shootings. The take yer gunz argument against that law is absurd.

You probably already know by now that the point Rob Roy is trying to make is wrong and foolish. I don't know what that defender of the rights of pedophiles said but the only reason to read his posts would be to laugh at him. But I find him to be vile, so I don't do that.

 

[Rob Roy]

Penises don't kill people and gun analogies fail...ALL of them.

We're firearms not worshiped by those "non offensive users" this conversation would be silly in the extreme. But as I have posted previously, the "gun as talisman" phenomenon is firmly in place.


"Defensive" only gun owners have either fostered or ignored a culture where "offensive" use of firearms is hinted at, dreamed of, fantasized about and reveled in.

The absolutism I mention in the last post is example of this. "Do anything to touch our utter right to keep, bear, lose, sell, buy and stand our ground with and we are comming for you".

"Gee, folks, we think maybe a few less cartridges in those 50 round magazines might be better for society...."

"NO. It's an infringement on OUR right"

"Um...these devices that turn semiautomatic into rapid fire weapons alp the better to kill dozens at once..might be best if we ban at least them...I mean, they aren't even guns"

"NO..its OUR RIGHT as WE read that constitution and you people have no say".

"We really think in very populated areas that there should be reasonable restrictions on concealed carry..you know bars and subways in New york?"

"NO..we give an inch and you will take more, it doesn't matter how many lives may be saved...its only OUR RIGHT that is important".


See, that is, in my opinion, a pretty offensive use of weapons.

Okaaay, you're rambling about a penis doesn't usually kill. I never said it did.

The analogy I made was a penis and a gun can both be used for good or bad things. It's the person wielding either that determines that. People can use either a penis or a gun to violate consent / "use offensive force" .
We both probably recognize people that do that are behaving poorly and should be held accountable.

However, despite your likely agreement with what I stated above about accountability, you are a person who apparently is okay with at least some things which violate consent. That's the part you haven't addressed and likely won't. Most people avoid their blatant contradictions. I understand your preferences are people obey your wishes, but that doesn't mean you have a right to use offensive force on them if they aren't attacking you does it?

As far as other parts of your post, I'm not sure they are relevant. Talking about the features of either a gun or a penis is not the same thing as talking about consent violations being done with either is it ?

Rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. Things which other people give you in those situations are revokable privileges and not rights. The bill of rights isn't what gives a right, it's simply a list of some of the things, but not all, that government is supposed to leave alone and government will allegedly protect for everyone against others from abusing.

If you want to restrict a gun in YOUR bar, YOUR restaurant, you should do that. Some people will go there, some will decide not to. Problem solved. You shouldn't need anybody's permission if you own that place right?

Let's begin again. I'll give you a chance to prove my premise wrong.

My premise is "gun control" being foisted on people who want guns for defensive purposes is
going to require some people to use offensive force (that's the bad kind of force) to affecuate it.

If you want to vote that men with guns will restrict what otherwise peaceful people do, people who aren't trying to restrict what you do, you would be involved in sanctifying "using offensive force". That is pretty self evident, isn't it ?

If it isn't could you answer with specificity why it isn't ? I look forward to your on point response.

 

[Rob Roy]

It's real simple Rob, I use facts, statistics and science and you use your paranoid fantasies supported by dubious folk philosophy in memes. There are plenty of other countries that ban and control firearms that are just as free as America, more so, which recently almost fell into authoritarian dictatorship, at least there's a report about it today in congress. The firearms death and injury statistics compared to these other countries is notable to say the least. There are plenty of social models to compare America to these days and it scores low on many international indexes of freedom, three Scandinavian countries are tied for first and Canada is second as most free, we control guns Rob. So much for memes and paranoid simpleminded maxims that enchant the foolish and ignorant.

Speaking of fantasies.

It's interesting how you use "freedom" and government control in the same sentence.

 

[canndo]

Okaaay, you're rambling about a penis doesn't usually kill. I never said it did.

The analogy I made was a penis and a gun can both be used for good or bad things. It's the person wielding either that determines that. People can use either a penis or a gun to violate consent / "use offensive force" .
We both probably recognize people that do that are behaving poorly and should be held accountable.

However, despite your likely agreement with what I stated above about accountability, you are a person who apparently is okay with at least some things which violate consent. That's the part you haven't addressed and likely won't. Most people avoid their blatant contradictions. I understand your preferences are people obey your wishes, but that doesn't mean you have a right to use offensive force on them if they aren't attacking you does it?

As far as other parts of your post, I'm not sure they are relevant. Talking about the features of either a gun or a penis is not the same thing as talking about consent violations being done with either is it ?

Rights don't come from the Constitution or from government. Things which other people give you in those situations are revokable privileges and not rights. The bill of rights isn't what gives a right, it's simply a list of some of the things, but not all, that government is supposed to leave alone and government will allegedly protect for everyone against others from abusing.

If you want to restrict a gun in YOUR bar, YOUR restaurant, you should do that. Some people will go there, some will decide not to. Problem solved. You shouldn't need anybody's permission if you own that place right?

Let's begin again. I'll give you a chance to prove my premise wrong.

My premise is "gun control" being foisted on people who want guns for defensive purposes is
going to require some people to use offensive force (that's the bad kind of force) to affecuate it.

If you want to vote that men with guns will restrict what otherwise peaceful people do, people who aren't trying to restrict what you do, you would be involved in sanctifying "using offensive force". That is pretty self evident, isn't it ?

If it isn't could you answer with specificity why it isn't ? I look forward to your on point response.

Your first error it the notion that rights are not afforded by others, that "rights don't come from the constitution or government". Rights are effective things and not ethereal constructs. If I have the right to peaceably assemble in the United states, fly to mainland China and wind up spending five years in a re-education camp for that very same thing then I never had that right independent of the authority of my government.

So we can start with that. Further, I attempted to deal with your portrayal of a bunch of poor set upon, peaceful, well meaning gun owners who "just want to be left alone" in my last post. When you address my posts directly I will hasten to do the same with yours. I assure you, I have no problem with my checkered morality and ethics.

 

[Rob Roy]

As I said, gun analogies don't work and cast the user of them in a rather stupid light.

So far I've learned a penis doesn't kill and gun analogies don't work. Your wisdom has an intense buzz and great bag appeal!

Help stupid old me out and tell me why my premise is wrong (post #327) so I won't be blinded by my stupid light?

 

[Rob Roy]

never had that right independent of the authority of my government.

So you're not only aligning with racists on gun control, now you're saying if the government says it's not a right it isn't a right?

I wonder how those poor slaves who were held in legal captivity feel about your claim? "Sorry buddy, you don't have the right to run away and I own you, because the government says so".

A slave ALWAYS has the right to defend himself, own himself and run away and / or kill anyone trying to re-enslave them.

YOU always had and will always have the right to grow, consume and roll around naked in marijuana if you want to.
The fact some thugs using guns and legislative offensive force tried to steal that right from you, doesn't mean you don't have that right. It's like if you owned something and I took it from you, you are prevented from using the thing, but it's still your thing.

I didn't think you would attempt to address my premise. Not surprised.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Gun control AND marijuana prohibition both have origins in racism. Thanks for reminding me of that Roger.

About how effective were laws which prevented peaceful people from using marijuana ? Do you think laws which prohibit guns from being owned by peaceful people will magicly solve that "problem" the way pot laws DIDN'T?

Cowards? Thanks for reminding me about that too. Armed cops didn't bother trying to stop a person using a gun from murdering children in UVALDE. Too bad that brave mom who ignored the armed cowards wasn't armed herself. She could have taken out the bad guy herself I bet.

I invite you to answer the question I asked @canndo in my post above #327. It deals with my premise. I'm sure your answer will be both informative and on point.

Gun control AND marijuana prohibition both have origins in racism. Thanks for reminding me of that Roger.

About how effective were laws which prevented peaceful people from using marijuana ? Do you think laws which prohibit guns from being owned by peaceful people will magicly solve that "problem" the way pot laws DIDN'T?

Cowards? Thanks for reminding me about that too. Armed cops didn't bother trying to stop a person using a gun from murdering children in UVALDE. Too bad that brave mom who ignored the armed cowards wasn't armed herself. She could have taken out the bad guy herself I bet.

I invite you to answer the question I asked @canndo in my post above #327. It deals with my premise. I'm sure your answer will be both informative and on point.

nice misdirection...when you run into a wall, make a 90° turn.
there never has been, currently are not, and never will be any divinely granted rights. right are completely and totally conceived and granted through legal and societal constructs. once enough of society wants those rights to change, they will. they always have. people feel like they have the right to vote, but they feel no responsibility to enlighten themselves on the candidates and the issues. they have a right to own guns, but feel no responsibility to educate themselves in how to handle and store them safely, and no responsibility to buy and use safety locks.
they feel the right to drive, but don't take the responsibility to learn the basic rules of the road, like who has the right of way at intersections, or how to use the turn signals that come standard on every vehicle....
rights are just bullshit that we "grant" to each other to make life bearable, and society more stable.

 

[Rob Roy]

nice misdirection...when you run into a wall, make a 90° turn.
there never has been, current are not, and never will be any divinely granted rights. right are completely and totally conceived and granted through legal and societal constructs. once enough of society wants those rights to change, they will. they always have. people feel like they have the right to vote, but they feel no responsibility to enlighten themselves on the candidates and the issues. they have a right to own guns, but feel no responsibility to educate themselves in how to handle and store them safely, and no responsibility to buy and use safety locks.
they feel the right to drive, but don't take the responsibility to learn the basic rules of the road, like who has the right of way at intersections, or how to use the turn signals that come standard on every vehicle....
rights are just bullshit that we "grant" to each other to make life bearable, and society more stable.

So, if nobody has any rights to begin with and people predate governments, how could a government composed of people be delegated rights from people who can't have rights until government grants them?

 

[cannabineer]

nice misdirection...when you run into a wall, make a 90° turn.
there never has been, current are not, and never will be any divinely granted rights. right are completely and totally conceived and granted through legal and societal constructs. once enough of society wants those rights to change, they will. they always have. people feel like they have the right to vote, but they feel no responsibility to enlighten themselves on the candidates and the issues. they have a right to own guns, but feel no responsibility to educate themselves in how to handle and store them safely, and no responsibility to buy and use safety locks.
they feel the right to drive, but don't take the responsibility to learn the basic rules of the road, like who has the right of way at intersections, or how to use the turn signals that come standard on every vehicle....
rights are just bullshit that we "grant" to each other to make life bearable, and society more stable.

prepare for diatribe about “natural rights” and other unicorns.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Judge strips Alex Jones of bankruptcy protections for $1.5 billion Sandy Hook debt

Houston Judge Christopher M. López reportedly ended a stay preventing Sandy Hook families from collecting a $1.5 billion judgment against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.In a ruling on Monday, López granted an order to lift a stay that was automatically put in place when Jones filed for Chapter...

www.rawstory.com

 

[BudmanTX]

Judge strips Alex Jones of bankruptcy protections for $1.5 billion Sandy Hook debt

Houston Judge Christopher M. López reportedly ended a stay preventing Sandy Hook families from collecting a $1.5 billion judgment against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.In a ruling on Monday, López granted an order to lift a stay that was automatically put in place when Jones filed for Chapter...

www.rawstory.com

Oops, keep that face Alex, your gonna need it....

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1604916564280705029

 

[Komak]

The gun law initiative that majority of Oregon's voters chose to vote for does not infringe on anybody's right to own or carry gun. It simply requires the gun owner to attend a class in gun safety including safe gun storage every 5 yrs, demonstrate proficiency in using a gun, requires that guns be stored safely, beefs up our currently inadequate background checking system and bans the use of magazines that hold more than 10(?) rounds and restricts the sale of some guns. Other states that have these measures in place demonstrated that fewer people die due to accidents, suicides and homicides by gun. It has nothing in it that will "take muh gun" unless there is already a law on the books the denies that right. It's understandable that unlawful gun owners would oppose this measure. Eff them.

I have the right to vote and am proud to say I voted for Measure 114 last fall. To vote against it was to vote for more death by suicide, more abused women, more dead kids, more murders, and more mass shootings. The take yer gunz argument against that law is absurd.

You probably already know by now that the point Rob Roy is trying to make is wrong and foolish. I don't know what that defender of the rights of pedophiles said but the only reason to read his posts would be to laugh at him. But I find him to be vile, so I don't do that.

No system is perfect, but imo Oregon's decision is on the better side. Completely uncontrolled gun possession can be extremely destructive.

 

[OldMedUser]

No system is perfect, but imo Oregon's decision is on the better side. Completely uncontrolled gun possession can be extremely destructive.

The way it is here in Canada is a PITA but better than nothing like most states have. This latest attack on guns by the Liberals is overboard tho and banning a lot of guns that are used by hunters and the First Nations community.

My last permit expired over 20 years ago so I can still own my guns but can't take them anywhere or even buy ammo for them and I'm running low on .22, 16 gauge, and my .303 rounds are all at least 30 years old.

Gonna cost me a couple yards to take the course and file the paperwork if I want my PAC, Possession and Acquisition Certificate. The last one I had was a POC, Possession Only Certificate with which I could buy ammo but not guns. Another $20 for a 5 year transport permit which I found out the hard way I needed and had my .303 seized while up near our cabin. Cop was decent and only fined me $100 instead of $200 so I paid the fine at the motor vehicles then picked up my rifle a couple weeks later when I went back up to the cabin.

When he spotted me I was 200 yards off the road at the edge of a lake fishing with the rifle laying against a log on the rocks. He whistled and waved me up so I left the rod there and walked back as my wallet was in the car with my fishing license. My kids were with me and the little pricks were playing with the box of shells in the back seat and left them up under the back window so the cop asked if I had a gun. I said yeah and it was out with my rod so I gave him my permit and fishing license but he asked for the travel permit. I told him the cops back home had said all I needed was the POC and was good to go. Nope he says and off we fuck to get the rifle. He stopped about 3 ft from the gun and I walked over and picked it up. Held it pointed straight up and popped the clip out then ran the bolt to drop out the one in the tube. Walked over and handed him the rifle and popped the other 3 rounds out of the clip. He said I could keep those.

When I stopped at the station in Lillooet to pick up the rifle he was there and got me the gun. I casually mentioned he was lucky I wasn't some deranged crackhead or something or he might have got snuffed when I picked up the rifle. He laughed and said yeah just as you picked it up it suddenly dawned on me that was a boo-boo and almost went for his gun but saw that I was being cool so didn't.

He should have asked me to point to where the gun was and picked it up himself. I bet no US cop would have screwed up like that but we're Canadian eh!

Last time the Liberals messed with the gun laws they blew 2 billion on a Long Gun Registry so even a .22 single shot had to be registered then after the Conservatives got in they repealed and destroyed all the data bases, (or so they said), which is the only good thing they did in their 9 year run. I still hate Harper!

 

[Komak]

When he spotted me I was 200 yards off the road at the edge of a lake fishing with the rifle laying against a log on the rocks. He whistled and waved me up so I left the rod there and walked back as my wallet was in the car with my fishing license. My kids were with me and the little pricks were playing with the box of shells in the back seat and left them up under the back window so the cop asked if I had a gun. I said yeah and it was out with my rod so I gave him my permit and fishing license but he asked for the travel permit. I told him the cops back home had said all I needed was the POC and was good to go. Nope he says and off we fuck to get the rifle. He stopped about 3 ft from the gun and I walked over and picked it up. Held it pointed straight up and popped the clip out then ran the bolt to drop out the one in the tube. Walked over and handed him the rifle and popped the other 3 rounds out of the clip. He said I could keep those.

When I stopped at the station in Lillooet to pick up the rifle he was there and got me the gun. I casually mentioned he was lucky I wasn't some deranged crackhead or something or he might have got snuffed when I picked up the rifle. He laughed and said yeah just as you picked it up it suddenly dawned on me that was a boo-boo and almost went for his gun but saw that I was being cool so didn't.

He should have asked me to point to where the gun was and picked it up himself. I bet no US cop would have screwed up like that but we're Canadian eh!


The way it is here in Canada is a PITA but better than nothing like most states have. This latest attack on guns by the Liberals is overboard tho and banning a lot of guns that are used by hunters and the First Nations community.

My last permit expired over 20 years ago so I can still own my guns but can't take them anywhere or even buy ammo for them and I'm running low on .22, 16 gauge, and my .303 rounds are all at least 30 years old.
Haven't seen 303 being used in years, mostly people either go 30-30, 308 or 223 ammo(https://gritrsports.com/shooting/ammunition/rifle-ammo/223-ammo/ at least I have this store somewhat nearby so it's easy to pick up a few boxes and shoot on the weekend). Can't imagine having firearms but not being able to buy ammo for 'em.

The only word I have for this story is Bizzare Yeah, no US cop would've done that I bet, they are overcautious as hell when it comes to guns.