Page 37 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2735363738394787 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 1510

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #541
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,357
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Rodgers View Post
    That's his whole schtick though. He did basically the same thing when he went on the View to talk about Charlie Sheen awhile back. I'm guessing he just figures that he just going on shows and saying what he wants is better than sitting there and letting Piers Morgan take up all but 2 minutes or something. I definitely brought it up because of the entertainment factor, not because he went on Piers and had a proper debate or anything. You guys are looking at it completely wrong. Think of the type person that can stomach watching an hour of Piers Morgan every night. Probably really stuffy people. So what's the best way to get through to them? Shock and awe baby. And now he's got a viral video that is going to go nuts views wise and have a much bigger impact than CNN could ever bring.
    He easily could have dominated that discussion without yelling. DOminate but keep it together.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  2. #542
    Senior Member Duck Rodgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Provo
    Posts
    4,978
    Rep Power
    35
    Rep Level
    5882
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    He easily could have dominated that discussion without yelling. DOminate but keep it together.
    Possibly. It is kind of normal for the first couple minutes then he kicks into high gear, and it looks like he is trying to get kicked off to me after that. Then he could've came out and said Piers Morgan tried to silence my viewpoint. But since Piers let him keep talking, he gladly obliged. There is no doubt he is part sensationalist/salesman.

    Ron Paul is the nice guy version of Alex Jones. You can compare and contrast how the two different approaches benefit/detract by looking at those two.

  3. #543
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,357
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Rodgers View Post
    Possibly. It is kind of normal for the first couple minutes then he kicks into high gear, and it looks like he is trying to get kicked off to me after that. Then he could've came out and said Piers Morgan tried to silence my viewpoint. But since Piers let him keep talking, he gladly obliged. There is no doubt he is part sensationalist/salesman.

    Ron Paul is the nice guy version of Alex Jones.
    I didn't think about the youtube hits on that video. Good point.

    I'd like to see a mix of Jones and Paul. Be willing to take it to the next level when needed.

    What do you think of the "Civil War if you try to take our guns" angle Duck, Babe, One Brow, Gyp, Candrew...
    #BelieveInLindsey

  4. #544
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    0
    Thing about the civil war angle...we don't need to go there. My guess is and has been that very little will be accomplished in regard to gun control. Every day that goes by people get that much less enthusiastic about passing gun control legislation and the pro-2nd Amendment crowd isn't getting any less energized about protecting gun rights. The moment of opportunity fro gun control is quickly fading. We (pro-gun rights folks) can really just sit back and not give in to any silly new regulations and eventually this will go away.

  5. #545
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,357
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    Thing about the civil war angle...we don't need to go there. My guess is and has been that very little will be accomplished in regard to gun control. Every day that goes by people get that much less enthusiastic about passing gun control legislation and the pro-2nd Amendment crowd isn't getting any less energized about protecting gun rights. The moment of opportunity fro gun control is quickly fading. We (pro-gun rights folks) can really just sit back and not give in to any silly new regulations and eventually this will go away.
    I honestly think there are certain things that will get enough support to pass. I am pro gun, I own 2, and will not support removing weapons from homes.

    However I could get on board with attaching mental health records to background checks if done right. I also could get on board with a limit/control on the size of clips. That second one I think would mostly be to make people feel better as it does not really change anything as you yourself have argued GF.

    I agree that the whole "This means Civil War" crowd is jumping the gun. They have not even heard what the proposals are yet. Not only that but I cannot see police going into homes in their local towns and removing weapons. There are plenty of towns here in southern Utah where the police force would refuse to do so.

    Edit: Reason I bring it up is that I have heard it quite a few times in very public places lately. It seems much louder than usual.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  6.  

     

  7. #546
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    0
    Well confiscation would certainly lead to confrontations. There are just too many people with thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns that they love almost as much as their own families. I can tell you that if I was told the guns I own were now banned and I had to give them up I wouldn't. Not willingly, anyway. If the cops knocked on the door with a list of the guns the believed I owned and said hand 'em over or we're coming in I'd go ahead and hand them over. But short something like that I just wouldn't turn them in and claim that I had sold them all. I have actually sold more of my guns than I currently own, mostly through KSL so I don't have any information on who I sold them to. With the exception of my AR-15, which I made a receipt for and took down the guys CCL#. Anyway, if there was a ban that was retroactive I expect they'd just ask for voluntary forfeiture and might even have enough sense to offer some degree of compensation. Then they'd just confiscate them as they came across them and charge whoever owned them with an assault weapons crime on top of anything else they might be charging them with.

    The Ammo magazine cap bugs me a lot. It's not an anti-crime measure, it's a reduce the effectiveness of firearms measure. Very few crimes hinge on access to large capacity magazines. VERY VERY few. In the cases where someone does use them it might at the most make the difference between them killing 10 people or 11. without the higher capacity magazine they could still go on a rampage and kill several people, and they can change magazines or weapons and continue their rampage. Larger magazines aren't what makes killing sprees a problem. It's just not. It's a red herring that anti-gun folks have latched onto and it's a fight they think they might be able to win so they're making a full court press on it. So that's an issue I personally don't support at all.

    A more effective and robust background check I'm all for. However, I have one big concern. I've said all along that the I believe the right to own firearms is tired directly to our right as individuals to defend our own lives. That's based on my larger belief that each individual owns their own existence, for better or worse. These ideas for me are separate and superior to any concern for public welfare. So, an individual who has not violated the law or made direct threats to others should not have their freedom to defend them self denied. I worry that this push could cause a whole bunch of people who have a marginally greater statistical chance of being a mass shooter to have their right to firearms denied. That is unacceptable to me as I think the standard needs to be pretty high before we deny people that right. So I have concerns.

    Like I say, the anti-gun folks need to strike while the iron is hot and find something at least some gun rights supporters agree with, otherwise nothing is going to get passed. I'm all for gun supporters dragging thier feet until the support dies down and it's impractical once again to even broach the subject.

  8. #547
    Senior Member Duck Rodgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Provo
    Posts
    4,978
    Rep Power
    35
    Rep Level
    5882
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    I didn't think about the youtube hits on that video. Good point.

    I'd like to see a mix of Jones and Paul. Be willing to take it to the next level when needed.

    What do you think of the "Civil War if you try to take our guns" angle Duck, Babe, One Brow, Gyp, Candrew...
    Civil war just implies something way too big to happen over guns rights to me. Economic events could cause one though. 1000 little Wacos seems like something more accurate that would happen if full on gun confiscation started tomorrow or something. In a place like Syria all you have to do to get a civil war going is stir the nest of a few main cities; that's not the way it would work here.

  9. #548
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,357
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Rodgers View Post
    Civil war just implies something way too big to happen over guns rights to me. Economic events could cause one though. 1000 little Wacos seems like something more accurate that would happen if full on gun confiscation started tomorrow or something. In a place like Syria all you have to do to get a civil war going is stir the nest of a few main cities; that's not the way it would work here.
    I think it is a real possibility. Here is my scenario.

    Gun laws get passed that make owning an "assault rifle" or handgun illegal. Cops are dispatched to round up the guns in their area based on registrations. The cops in places like Parowan UT refuse to confiscate the guns. Then the federal government has a problem. They can either make their law worthless or send in the military. That gives them the problem of do they send in local units or units from other states.

    So now you have the 222 Utah Guard Unit (from osuthern Utah) going into Parowan to confiscate guns. Well some people in that unit are from Parowan! So you are right back to square one. Let's say that some in that unit want to do it anyways. Will the whole unit go along, will the whole unit go "rogue" or will they split? Let's say they split. Well now you have militarily equipped people on both sides.

    Let's say that they use army units and send them to places that they have no association with. Such as sending the 222 to the small towns in Michigan. Do they still do it or do they refuse. I still see enough people associating those small towns with their own to either split the unit or have it go rogue.

    Once they go rogue do they raid their base/armory for arms? The 222 has a wide range of military vehicle. Such humvees with .50s to smaller tanks to military helicopters. That suddenly changes everything.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  10. #549
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    I think it is a real possibility. Here is my scenario.

    Gun laws get passed that make owning an "assault rifle" or handgun illegal. Cops are dispatched to round up the guns in their area based on registrations. The cops in places like Parowan UT refuse to confiscate the guns. Then the federal government has a problem. They can either make their law worthless or send in the military. That gives them the problem of do they send in local units or units from other states.

    So now you have the 222 Utah Guard Unit (from osuthern Utah) going into Parowan to confiscate guns. Well some people in that unit are from Parowan! So you are right back to square one. Let's say that some in that unit want to do it anyways. Will the whole unit go along, will the whole unit go "rogue" or will they split? Let's say they split. Well now you have militarily equipped people on both sides.

    Let's say that they use army units and send them to places that they have no association with. Such as sending the 222 to the small towns in Michigan. Do they still do it or do they refuse. I still see enough people associating those small towns with their own to either split the unit or have it go rogue.

    Once they go rogue do they raid their base/armory for arms? The 222 has a wide range of military vehicle. Such humvees with .50s to smaller tanks to military helicopters. That suddenly changes everything.
    This is why I don't think there is ever going to be a door-to-door confiscation. Besides that, there is no such thing as gun registration in most of the U.S. Not officially. The records from the background checks that are performed when you purchase a firearm are supposed to be destroyed at a certain point. CA, IL maybe NY and DC have handgun registration (someone please correct me if it's a lot more than this) but most places don't have any registration. It's a point the NRA has taken a pretty hard line on and won for the most part. So there is no master list of the guns you're purchased...again, not officially at least.

    Door to door confiscation is so over the top even from the most extreme steps that are currently being suggested. That's just not where we're headed. Even if "assault weapons" were banned and there was no grandfather clause I assume there would be a voluntary forfeiture period and I'd hope at least some form of compensation. After the voluntary forfeiture period expires it'd be a felony to be found in possession of anything classified as an assault weapon. That way they just slowly pull the rest out of circulation as they stumble across them. Of course, if you're pretty much a peaceful, law-abiding citizen you could probably keep a stash under your floor-boards and no one would be the wiser. But you wouldn't dare go out to the west desert and actually get proficient with your semi-auto rifles. It'd be your own private symbol of defiance and not much more, since in reality all we're talking about are semi-auto rifles that accept detachable large capacity magazines. Many hunting rifles are semi-auto rifles that have internal magazines. I doubt they are going to go there as these rifles have wooden stocks and don't look nearly as threatening, although they almost always use much higher powered ammo than an AR-15. It's the EBR effect. Get rid of the scary black rifles and all will be well in the world.

  11. #550
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    2225
    Anybody catch the gun rant on CNN last night?


  12. #551
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    2225

  13. #552
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    0
    ^check page 36.

  14. #553
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    2225
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    ^check page 36.
    lol, my bad.

  15. #554
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,431
    Rep Power
    37
    Rep Level
    6033

  16. #555
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a ghetto near you. . . .
    Posts
    5,240
    Rep Power
    48
    Rep Level
    10029
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    I didn't think about the youtube hits on that video. Good point.

    I'd like to see a mix of Jones and Paul. Be willing to take it to the next level when needed.

    What do you think of the "Civil War if you try to take our guns" angle Duck, Babe, One Brow, Gyp, Candrew...
    "Civil War" isn't the right term here.

    First of all, I've got a book called "Treason in America" authored by one of Lyndon LaRouche's world management cadets that explored the activities of British agents, and others in obvious ways sporting British views and aims, in promoting the causes of Abolitionists in the North as well as Secessionists in the South in the run up to our 1861-1865 "civil war".

    That war was a classic Machiavellian maneuver intended to balkanize the Union and allow British international cartels to again control the colonies. . . . Abraham Lincoln was the choice of the New York bankers under the mesmerization of sophisticated English aristocrats in various high and holy social circles. . . . and they expected that his election would precipitate the secession of Southern States. . .. but he turned out to be a huge disappointment in that he refused to anybody else's man. He had his own star to guide him, and he believed in human freedom at least in the freedom of the United States from England.

    But the British were willing to bide their time, and after the war their financial tycoons moved into the United States like the carpetbaggers moved into the South, and took effective control through their financial dealings which has persisted to this day.

    The ideals of the American Revolution have indeed suffered in the extreme under the influence of neo-colonialist sophisitry.

    If we have to fight for our liberty, as we in fact must, the age of the gun is over. We will have to get smarter than the British, that's all it will take. And maybe impeach Obama whose chief intellectual deficit is his love of power and his willingness to subordinate all of his ideological hinge points to pleasing his puppet-masters.

    I know some folks who expect to fight for their constitutional government. Like Alex Jones, they all suffer from a lack of actual understanding, and wouldn't know who to shoot at if the shooting starts.

    I grew up studying LDS doctrine and prophecy, and understood that there would be a time of great civil strife, and even the Bible prophesies people in the last days being in unprecedented horrific times of trouble. I was disappointed many years ago when I knew the leaders of the LDS church, and knew their proclivities for playing a part in the last great evil government man would create. I hardly expect the likes of Romney, Huntsman, Hatch, or Reid to be in the fight to save the US Constitution.

    But if anyone wants to sit out of the shooting and mayhem, it is time to find some place to gather and choose peace and refuse to be a part of the killing. So here's a hint. Don't think Chicago or any gun-free zone is going to be a place of peace.

    "The New World Order" will make earlier horrors of unrestrained government in the hands of evil ambitious and paranoid men look pretty tame. But there is no place on earth where there is sufficient cognizance of the either the problem or the solution, and so it is time to vote with your feet. Come to Utah.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •