Gun control is coming

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
bam0813 said:
What has Oregons new law done to remove the ones already possessed the day before? Nada. What force field do you think exists that words on paper will stop criminal intent? Nada. Should we send them all to Ukraine or maybe just our muskets. Either way im sure they’ll send them back when its our turn.
Click to expand...
you have to work incrementally...IF they came in and seized a bunch of weapons, that would cause exactly the chaos that no one wants.
you slowly make it harder to do shady shit. you slowly increase the requirements for ownership, you get rid of "constitutional carry".
next you start to regulate ammo. no more +P rounds. no more armor piercing rounds. no more reloading supplies...
then you stop all person to person sales, stop all gun shows with private individuals selling guns to private individuals with no background checks.
after another ten years, you have what you want, without ever making the water so hot at once that the frogs jump out...
 
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Uh suuuure.
View attachment 5242106





A state marriage is not a right, if it requires permission, it's a revokable privilege, sort of like a slave travel pass gave permission.

Gays seeking state permission to be treated as poorly as people that aren't gay regarding marriage is a case, of, "please beat me equally sir".
Click to expand...
or perhaps it's so that gay people can be in the hospital rooms of their partners without another family member, since their marriages weren't recognized, and didn't make them family?
exactly what rights are being abrogated with a marriage license? the reason for a marriage license is so that they can cut down on cases of bigamy.
they specifically ask you if you've been married AND divorced before, and when.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Name a state that doesn't use guns to threaten otherwise peaceful people if those people remain peaceful but somehow violate something the state doesn't like.

I don't believe you can.

Therefore the State is making it possible for psychopaths to threaten people, because the state and psychopaths are both willing and able to kill people that are peaceful. The state should not be the arbiter of who can do what as long as it share traits with psychopaths. That would be crazy.

One could infer that people who adhere to the state as an arbiter are either psychopaths themselves or are duped by the embedded psychopathic means and they are ignorant. I suppose some could be both.
Click to expand...
this shit again? the police and armed services aren't in place to suppress anyone..the only time they threaten anyone (well, the good ones) are when they're breaking a law and threatening other people.
again, REALITY is down this path, fucked up juvenile fantasy is down that path...apparently that's where we part ways
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Oh alright Roger ! @Roger A. Shrubber

Sometimes the answers can be revealed by discarding the things which are not the answers.

Either rights exist or they don't.

If they don't exist, a state comprised of people can neither deny you rights or give you rights, since they don't exist.
Click to expand...
that's it, you could have stopped right there...you got it right for the first time in your life, and you're not even aware of it.
they're a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT . PEOPLE INVENT THEM, PEOPLE GRANT THEM, AND PEOPLE CAN TAKE THEM AWAY WHEN THEY STOP PERFORMING AS INTENDED...
they do not exist in nature, there is no tree of rights, no rights mine, people invent them in their heads, suggest them to other people, and if they get traction, then they're implemented. when they lose traction, they're replaced with the next thing...that's historical fact...look up any scholarly articles about the evolution of human rights. they have not always been the same, aren't even the same across the whole world right now.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Roger A. Shrubber said:
that is probably the fucking dumbest thing i've ever heard you say, and i've heard you say some dumb shit.
rights are made up by people to be able to exist together without chaos and open warfare in the streets.
rights change as the society that thought them up change. people grant people rights, and when those rights stop functioning the way they were intended to, people start to want to change them, until enough do...then you lose an old right and gain a new one.
that's the way it's been since people started traveling together for mutual protection...it will be the way people are till we evolve into something unrecognizable to us now.
and stuff your condescension up your ass with the sharp edges out..."you're just not ready yet..." when you have a clue, i'll be ready...still waiting...
Click to expand...
I find the doctrine of natural rights amusing in the same way as I do an efficacious emetic.
 
bam0813

bam0813

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
you have to work incrementally...IF they came in and seized a bunch of weapons, that would cause exactly the chaos that no one wants.
you slowly make it harder to do shady shit. you slowly increase the requirements for ownership, you get rid of "constitutional carry".
next you start to regulate ammo. no more +P rounds. no more armor piercing rounds. no more reloading supplies...
then you stop all person to person sales, stop all gun shows with private individuals selling guns to private individuals with no background checks.
after another ten years, you have what you want, without ever making the water so hot at once that the frogs jump out...
Click to expand...
I appreciate your honesty. Armor piercing rounds is tricky as the majority of common hunting calibers can defeat the majority of soft armor. You did mean soft armor I assume. Probably take .375 or bigger to defeat civilian plate armor but again im glad your honest about wanting everything but muskets gone oh wait no reloading supplies …. got it. What do you think should be included in bg checks ? Criminal records? Ok sure. Medical records? All or just mental health records if any? What a neighbor thinks of me? Wether its an opinion or feeling? Maybe what an employer who you walked out on thinks?Maybe something you’ve said in the past? Acted on or not? What are the virtuous standards/qualifications to own a single shot.22 that i cant find or afford bullets for in your proposed paradise. What are the disqualifiers? Mental illness? Violence? Spoken or actual? Seems to me everyone could be found to be unqualified for something. Why do it slow over time? Why keep alienating and stripping half the country of what they own until people lose their shit and commit horrible acts? How long will it take? How many people in the meantime? Why don’t they just do it big and get it over once and for all? Dems got the ball right?
 
bam0813

bam0813

Well-Known Member
Wheres do all these qualifiers end. In my state you can be an up and outstanding citizen your entire life. Zero history mental or criminal, have one lapse in judgment and blow .09 on a .08 bac limit. No accident no injury personal or property and your guns and license are gone. Ridiculous imo but …..i know more than one
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
bam0813 said:
I appreciate your honesty. Armor piercing rounds is tricky as the majority of common hunting calibers can defeat the majority of soft armor. You did mean soft armor I assume. Probably take .375 or bigger to defeat civilian plate armor but again im glad your honest about wanting everything but muskets gone oh wait no reloading supplies …. got it. What do you think should be included in bg checks ? Criminal records? Ok sure. Medical records? All or just mental health records if any? What a neighbor thinks of me? Wether its an opinion or feeling? Maybe what an employer who you walked out on thinks?Maybe something you’ve said in the past? Acted on or not? What are the virtuous standards/qualifications to own a single shot.22 that i cant find or afford bullets for in your proposed paradise. What are the disqualifiers? Mental illness? Violence? Spoken or actual? Seems to me everyone could be found to be unqualified for something. Why do it slow over time? Why keep alienating and stripping half the country of what they own until people lose their shit and commit horrible acts? How long will it take? How many people in the meantime? Why don’t they just do it big and get it over once and for all? Dems got the ball right?
Click to expand...
Starts off reasonable, descends into madness. You're right, they should just take all the guns away from everyone now, and might as well take knives as well... make that any sharp object... actually anything that could be used to cause physical harm to another person.

Maybe I should take the other side, why shouldn't I be able to posses a nuclear weapon?
You do realize that being unreasonable in discussion is likely to fuck your ability to have input when changes happen?
 
bam0813

bam0813

Well-Known Member
Point out the madness part . Madness is thinking you can get them. It will take door to door confiscation . You are somehow made safe knowing the gov knows about what your neighbor next door has but don’t realize the rest of the street has more and they are unknown to gov?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
bam0813 said:
I appreciate your honesty. Armor piercing rounds is tricky as the majority of common hunting calibers can defeat the majority of soft armor. You did mean soft armor I assume. Probably take .375 or bigger to defeat civilian plate armor but again im glad your honest about wanting everything but muskets gone oh wait no reloading supplies …. got it. What do you think should be included in bg checks ? Criminal records? Ok sure. Medical records? All or just mental health records if any? What a neighbor thinks of me? Wether its an opinion or feeling? Maybe what an employer who you walked out on thinks?Maybe something you’ve said in the past? Acted on or not? What are the virtuous standards/qualifications to own a single shot.22 that i cant find or afford bullets for in your proposed paradise. What are the disqualifiers? Mental illness? Violence? Spoken or actual? Seems to me everyone could be found to be unqualified for something. Why do it slow over time? Why keep alienating and stripping half the country of what they own until people lose their shit and commit horrible acts? How long will it take? How many people in the meantime? Why don’t they just do it big and get it over once and for all? Dems got the ball right?
Click to expand...
some years ago there were specialty polymer-coated handgun rounds designed to defeat Kevlar. They were sensationalized as Cop Killer Bullets. I don’t think big-game rifle bullets are in category.

If you need something to defeat body armor, a review of life choices may be indicated.
 
bam0813

bam0813

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
some years ago there were specialty polymer-coated handgun rounds designed to defeat Kevlar. They were sensationalized as Cop Killer Bullets. I don’t think big-game rifle bullets are in category.

If you need something to defeat body armor, a review of life choices may be indicated.
Click to expand...
I remember those. For what it’s worth a knife defeats kevlar. I dont need anything to defeat anything. The point was this talk of armor piercing rounds is silly. Green tip nato is what I assume he meant. They suck and aren’t needed to defeat soft armor and don’t penetrate hard armor. You don’t think big game carts. are in a catergory? Um ya
 
bam0813

bam0813

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
to be blunt, you laid out one heck of a slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...
Slippery slope falacy?
Roger A. Shrubber said:
you have to work incrementally...IF they came in and seized a bunch of weapons, that would cause exactly the chaos that no one wants.
you slowly make it harder to do shady shit. you slowly increase the requirements for ownership, you get rid of "constitutional carry".
next you start to regulate ammo. no more +P rounds. no more armor piercing rounds. no more reloading supplies...
then you stop all person to person sales, stop all gun shows with private individuals selling guns to private individuals with no background checks.
after another ten years, you have what you want, without ever making the water so hot at once that the frogs jump out...
Click to expand...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
bam0813 said:
Because the minutia is rifles w or without detachable mags. Its right there in front of you
Click to expand...
Why is it that conservatives don't check what they say before demonstrating their ignorance when posting online?

It was said loud and clear during the election that large magazines already owned are grandfathered in.


What happens to the large capacity magazines that I already own? For 180 days after the implemenatation of Measure 114, owners of magazines that exceed a 10-round capacity are authorized to sell their non-conforming magazines to gun dealers. After the magazine limitation goes into effect, an affirmative defense allows gun owners to keep magazines over 10 rounds in their home, they can keep them on the premises of a gun dealer for service or repair, they can use them at a shooting range, they can use them during lawful sporting activities such as hunting, and they can use them when properly transporting them to any of these activities.

That said, I agree that the measure's ban on sale and transfer of guns with high capacity magazines is probably the most controversial part measure 114. It does, however allow people to use the ones they already owned before the law is implemented.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
Why is it that conservatives don't check what they say before demonstrating their ignorance when posting online?

It was said loud and clear during the election that large magazines already owned are grandfathered in.


What happens to the large capacity magazines that I already own? For 180 days after the implemenatation of Measure 114, owners of magazines that exceed a 10-round capacity are authorized to sell their non-conforming magazines to gun dealers. After the magazine limitation goes into effect, an affirmative defense allows gun owners to keep magazines over 10 rounds in their home, they can keep them on the premises of a gun dealer for service or repair, they can use them at a shooting range, they can use them during lawful sporting activities such as hunting, and they can use them when properly transporting them to any of these activities.

That said, I agree that the measure's ban on sale and transfer of guns with high capacity magazines is probably the most controversial part measure 114. It does, however allow people to use the ones they already owned before the law is implemented.
Click to expand...
California did away with the grandfather clause.

“HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES” ARE NOW ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA — California Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog — December 23, 2021

It took five years, but Prop 63 is now the law. In 2016, the California voters passed Prop 63, which outlawed most “large capacity magazines,” as — December 23, 2021
www.californiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com www.californiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
What's important is whether consent is involved and whether an otherwise peaceful individual had the opportunity to provide consent or was denied it. Things which deny consent to an otherwise peaceful person are things which are wrong. I can prove that to most people in person based on their reactions. If I try to place an unwilling persons hand on a hot stove, most people could easily identify me as the aggressor and the person about to be burned as the victim. I would be violating their rights. Consent matters when considering whether a right was violated or not.

A marriage is between people who have consented to the terms, not people that aren't involved in the marriage itself. If a black person and white person wanted to marry not too many years go, the state would use guns to prevent that.

I'm not sure I'm willing to allow the State to be the thing which will decide what is a right and what isn't or who can have guns or not They don't have a good track record. ;)
Click to expand...
You can't provide consent then be denied..who's the denier? Consent is only something you can give.

That was just the first line of your word salad, Rob..I think you're slipping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top