Serious Dialogue. Why are you against.....

MDFF2008 · Feb 1, 2018

For me, I think that the 2nd amendment is a little bit different from the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I don't consider it less important, or an ugly step-child, but I also can't ignore some real implications of it. Speech is powerful, but other things have to happen for speech to become lethal. For every famous person in history who's rhetoric placed them in a position to do violence, how many others spewed calls for violence and no one listened? Or they didn't have the right personality? Now take that same deranged lunatic that no one listens to, let's say he hates Jews. He can go buy a gun and visit a synagogue and do immense damage. That's just the real difference between the 2A and the other rights.

So when I think about 2A, I have to think about that. Now there are excellent countermeasures. Concealed carry and armed security can go along way towards deterring people from committing crimes, but I just don't think that is the end and we just walk away and say "oh well, we better just get used to mass shootings."

In terms of training, I think that we should call out the anti-2A people on it. If they want to talk about a well-regulated militia, then ok, training is required and provided free of charge. It's provided in locations that are convenient and easy for citizens to attend, it's provided at times citizens can attend, it's provided frequently and when sign-ups fill up, more classes are scheduled. That's the only way I'll accept training.

Biggfoot44 · Feb 1, 2018

I see where jtaldow is going, and there is a logic to it * in general * . But in the imortal words of MDS legand Mopar92 , let's play Substitute the Noun .

Plenty of states would be glad to address the unique problems at the state level by racial segregation. Think Maryland for most of 20th Century .

Plenty of state and local jurisdictions would be eager to keep a tight lid on troublesome religions . I would certainly reduce airplane accidents , beheadings , and firebombings to keep Muslims , Jews, and Holy Rollers under control m

And if we let any old body write or contribute to newspapers, social media , or blogs , it would just let the nutjobs out of control, and spread fake news .

And this could go on , and on , but the point is showing the difference between Fundamental Rights , and plain 'ol random policy disagreements .

Biggfoot44 · Feb 1, 2018

In 20th Century usage " well regulated " implies a buncha rules and controls .

In 18th Century usage "well regulated" meant competent, effective at intended purpose .

j_h_smith · Feb 1, 2018

gprimr1 said:
For me, I think that the 2nd amendment is a little bit different from the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I don't consider it less important, or an ugly step-child, but I also can't ignore some real implications of it. Speech is powerful, but other things have to happen for speech to become lethal. For every famous person in history who's rhetoric placed them in a position to do violence, how many others spewed calls for violence and no one listened? Or they didn't have the right personality? Now take that same deranged lunatic that no one listens to, let's say he hates Jews. He can go buy a gun and visit a synagogue and do immense damage. That's just the real difference between the 2A and the other rights.

So when I think about 2A, I have to think about that. Now there are excellent countermeasures. Concealed carry and armed security can go along way towards deterring people from committing crimes, but I just don't think that is the end and we just walk away and say "oh well, we better just get used to mass shootings."

In terms of training, I think that we should call out the anti-2A people on it. If they want to talk about a well-regulated militia, then ok, training is required and provided free of charge. It's provided in locations that are convenient and easy for citizens to attend, it's provided at times citizens can attend, it's provided frequently and when sign-ups fill up, more classes are scheduled. That's the only way I'll accept training.

This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was added to our Bill of Rights. You can't expect those in the synagogue to give up their right to self defense because they didn't or couldn't get the training to own a gun. Does that preclude those members from using deadly force with a weapon of their choice to protect themselves and others within the building?

The question is not what do we do to protect the deranged man from a weapon, but how does the population protect itself from that madman? There should be other laws that deny a sick person from owning weapons, not a condition of the 2nd Amendment.

Then you must remember that one of the most important reasons for having a 2nd Amendment is to stop the tyranny of a government. If that same government administrates this training, don't you see a problem that could arise? Could the government not mandate that anyone who wants to own a firearm, qualify with a 20mm rifle AND you must bring their own or they could mandate you supply the rounds needed to qualify for EACH caliber you want to own. What happens if that number of rounds to qualify is 100, or 1000, what about 5000?

Giving the government a way to conditionally restrict any amendment is a slippery slope I'm not interested in climbing.

Nope sorry.

j_h_smith · Feb 1, 2018

It absolutely amazes me that so many of us on this forum is willing to give up any part of their rights for what they perceive to be a bit of protection from their government. I say to the government, LEAVE ME ALONE. I don't need anyone telling me what right I have and what right is conditional upon me qualifying to have that right.

Everyone who thinks that the government should mandate training, I recommend you take all of your firearms and give them to any form of government you choose. Then ask them for the training you believe we all should have. Come back to me when you get that training and your firearms are returned to you.

The 2nd Amendment is not a license. You people are acting like it's something that should be mandated to the people. Tell me, how did that work for Poland in 1934?

jtaldow · Feb 1, 2018

Biggfoot44 said:
I see where jtaldow is going, and there is a logic to it * in general * . But in the imortal words of MDS legand Mopar92 , let's play Substitute the Noun .

Plenty of states would be glad to address the unique problems at the state level by racial segregation. Think Maryland for most of 20th Century .

Plenty of state and local jurisdictions would be eager to keep a tight lid on troublesome religions . I would certainly reduce airplane accidents , beheadings , and firebombings to keep Muslims , Jews, and Holy Rollers under control m

And if we let any old body write or contribute to newspapers, social media , or blogs , it would just let the nutjobs out of control, and spread fake news .

And this could go on , and on , but the point is showing the difference between Fundamental Rights , and plain 'ol random policy disagreements .

I'll address this as best as I can, though I'm not sure exactly what you meant given that your third sentence there seems interrupted, and I don't think the final two sentences necessarily apply to my post.

First of all, I don't agree that there are plenty of state and local jurisdictions that would be eager to enact racial or religious segregation laws. Second of all, to the extent that there are, my point still stands. Yes, I agree that wouldn't be a good thing and yes it would result in some people having their rights trampled, but in the event those things happen, it is easier to move (less costly, less difference in language, etc) from one state to another or one county to another than it is to move from one country to another. Keep in mind that history is full of national, centralized governments trampling the rights of their citizens- even in the USA (the fugitive slave laws and the internment of the Japanese-Americans in the '40s).

Blacksmith101 · Feb 1, 2018

Part of the answer to idiots with guns is to have universal basic gun safety and gun handling training included as part of the standard school curriculum. Starting with something like the Eddie Eagle program for younger children and more advanced, although still basic, training for higher grades. Of course the "educators" heads would explode. This would have nothing to do with owning firearms just safety in case you encounter a firearm; like "Stop, Drop, and Roll" when you catch on fire.

The secondary advantage of this is it would reduce the "Scary Gun" reaction of people who have never been exposed to firearms.

Eddie Eagle Program link:
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

Rus · Feb 1, 2018

+1. Have heard that perspective revealed by hundreds of students.

Rus · Feb 1, 2018

Nnztg8r said:
Manmade laws cannot prohibit absolute, natural, God given rights.

...but, many do. If you disregard God's place, you inevitably will.

Cheesehead · Feb 1, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
Part of the answer to idiots with guns is to have universal basic gun safety and gun handling training included as part of the standard school curriculum. Starting with something like the Eddie Eagle program for younger children and more advanced, although still basic, training for higher grades. Of course the "educators" heads would explode. This would have nothing to do with owning firearms just safety in case you encounter a firearm; like "Stop, Drop, and Roll" when you catch on fire.

The secondary advantage of this is it would reduce the "Scary Gun" reaction of people who have never been exposed to firearms.

^^^^This!^^^^

We have mandatory training in school on how to put a condom on a banana. How about some real gun safety?

Biggfoot44 · Feb 1, 2018

Ok , I was making the point that there are certain fundamental Rights that apply to all Citizens nationwide, that can not , and should not , be trampled by Federal , or State , or Local gov'ts .

Now if you are making the point that there are NO Rights At All , and the sole and proper response of citizens is to flee , that is position, and internally consistent.

foxtrapper · Feb 2, 2018

As far as the Democrat party goes, they seem to be jockeying for who can be more anti gun. I think Bloomberg money may be a big part of it- he is likely offering large donations to any Democrat running in strategic positions. These Democrats being led on the money leash probably know the truth, but they don't care, they are sociopaths craving power. People like Frosh on the other hand are a different animal. For whatever reason they just HATE lawful gun owners. It is totally irrational.

As for fence sitters and liberals: I met a guy last sunday night at dinner with parents and friends. He lives in Baltimore, worked in Bethesda. He was telling us a story about being in TX last year and how all these people were wearing pistols on their hips in a grocery store. I was like "oh yeah, open carry!". I told him to have that many people doing it must have been right when the law took effect. He said he was glad to get back to MD away from all that gun stuff. Then he admitted the open carry folks seemed to all be nice polite people. However he kept edging back into that anti gun thing. I told him a little about my own open carry adventures, PA, and DELOC's monthly meets. If I could have had him all to myself to talk to for whatever amount of time, I might have been able to really get him to see differently.

MDFF2008 · Feb 2, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
Part of the answer to idiots with guns is to have universal basic gun safety and gun handling training included as part of the standard school curriculum. Starting with something like the Eddie Eagle program for younger children and more advanced, although still basic, training for higher grades. Of course the "educators" heads would explode. This would have nothing to do with owning firearms just safety in case you encounter a firearm; like "Stop, Drop, and Roll" when you catch on fire.

The secondary advantage of this is it would reduce the "Scary Gun" reaction of people who have never been exposed to firearms.

Eddie Eagle Program link:
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

This is where you ultimately take "well-regulated militia" and watch as anti-2A people try to talk themselves out of the hole of trying to explain why they support a well-regulated militia but oppose the idea of gun safety education for everyone.

Boondock Saint · Feb 2, 2018

gprimr1 said:
For me, I think that the 2nd amendment is a little bit different from the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I don't consider it less important, or an ugly step-child, but I also can't ignore some real implications of it. Speech is powerful, but other things have to happen for speech to become lethal. For every famous person in history who's rhetoric placed them in a position to do violence, how many others spewed calls for violence and no one listened? Or they didn't have the right personality? Now take that same deranged lunatic that no one listens to, let's say he hates Jews. He can go buy a gun and visit a synagogue and do immense damage. That's just the real difference between the 2A and the other rights.

So when I think about 2A, I have to think about that. Now there are excellent countermeasures. Concealed carry and armed security can go along way towards deterring people from committing crimes, but I just don't think that is the end and we just walk away and say "oh well, we better just get used to mass shootings."

In terms of training, I think that we should call out the anti-2A people on it. If they want to talk about a well-regulated militia, then ok, training is required and provided free of charge. It's provided in locations that are convenient and easy for citizens to attend, it's provided at times citizens can attend, it's provided frequently and when sign-ups fill up, more classes are scheduled. That's the only way I'll accept training.

Radical ideas have long, long been more dangerous than arms. One radical spouting anti-Semitism can spur dozens (hundreds, thousands) of easily influenced idiots to dangerous action, using anything they like, including firearms, fertilizer, gasoline, motor vehicles, etc.

"Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns. ...you either trust the people, or you don't."

jtaldow · Feb 2, 2018

Biggfoot44 said:
Ok , I was making the point that there are certain fundamental Rights that apply to all Citizens nationwide, that can not , and should not , be trampled by Federal , or State , or Local gov'ts .

Now if you are making the point that there are NO Rights At All , and the sole and proper response of citizens is to flee , that is position, and internally consistent.

I agree, and I would even go as far as to say that these are human rights, not just American rights, and yes I wish that they were not routinely trampled upon by governments of any size or scope. The trouble is not everyone agrees with us as to what rights are, and I have no hope that we can convince this people to come to our side. Moreover, our friends on the left might believe that there are additional human rights (right to abortion, right to free healthcare, right to a pension, right to have a cake baked for you, right to a basic income, etc). This is where the principle of decentralization is helpful. Let them govern (and ruin) themselves in their own jurisdiction, and let's govern ourselves.

NatBoh · Feb 2, 2018

Stoveman said:
You speak with forked tongue.

MOST frat boys aren't yet 21 and it is already ILLEGAL for them to carry at frat parties or elsewhere.

The campus carry ban bill that was defeated last year had all those provisions in it.

You say that you are against campus carry but when given some examples it's a well not that part.

Wowzers, great argument.

If I live in a privately owned fraternity house-which I did in college-why should I lose my 2A rights?

rambling_one · Feb 3, 2018

Blacksmith101 said:
Part of the answer to idiots with guns is to have universal basic gun safety and gun handling training included as part of the standard school curriculum. Starting with something like the Eddie Eagle program for younger children and more advanced, although still basic, training for higher grades. Of course the "educators" heads would explode. This would have nothing to do with owning firearms just safety in case you encounter a firearm; like "Stop, Drop, and Roll" when you catch on fire.

The secondary advantage of this is it would reduce the "Scary Gun" reaction of people who have never been exposed to firearms.

Eddie Eagle Program link:
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

IIRC, some years back the Eddie Eagle Program was discussed and had surprising support until legislators realized it was an NRA program. That stopped all forward motion.

rambling_one · Feb 3, 2018

foxtrapper said:
As far as the Democrat party goes, they seem to be jockeying for who can be more anti gun. I think Bloomberg money may be a big part of it- he is likely offering large donations to any Democrat running in strategic positions. These Democrats being led on the money leash probably know the truth, but they don't care, they are sociopaths craving power. People like Frosh on the other hand are a different animal. For whatever reason they just HATE lawful gun owners. It is totally irrational.

As for fence sitters and liberals: I met a guy last sunday night at dinner with parents and friends. He lives in Baltimore, worked in Bethesda. He was telling us a story about being in TX last year and how all these people were wearing pistols on their hips in a grocery store. I was like "oh yeah, open carry!". I told him to have that many people doing it must have been right when the law took effect. He said he was glad to get back to MD away from all that gun stuff. Then he admitted the open carry folks seemed to all be nice polite people. However he kept edging back into that anti gun thing. I told him a little about my own open carry adventures, PA, and DELOC's monthly meets. If I could have had him all to myself to talk to for whatever amount of time, I might have been able to really get him to see differently.

You should have asked him if he ever visits PA. Most Marylanders do at one time or another. Then share with him the number of concealed carry permits there are. People need to know that such people aren’t the dangerous lot sheeple have been led to believe.

Boom Boom · Feb 3, 2018

Abacab said:
Having worked on a range and in a store for many years, I'm intellectually on the fence about training because some people are incredibly stupid with guns.

Many people are incredibly stupid behind the wheel and/or with alcohol. Both are statistically much more dangerous than guns, are not enumerated natural rights, and we do not mandate training for either.

whistlersmother · Feb 3, 2018

Boom Boom said:
Many people are incredibly stupid behind the wheel and/or with alcohol. Both are statistically much more dangerous than guns, are not enumerated natural rights, and we do not mandate training for either.

uh, driver's ed. is required in Maryland...

Which shows even with training, people do stupid things.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Serious Dialogue. Why are you against.....

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

www.mises.org

Grumpy Old Man

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

www.mises.org

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Hold my beer. Watch this.

Peace through strength

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics