Dayton Shooter

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    You are still talking about the compromise part.
    Even Dan Crenshaw is talking about having conversations about red flag.
    Video in link
    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/08/12/rep-dan-crenshaw-has-more-thoughts-about-red-flag-laws/

    I like the guy, but he sounds like a politician using double speak.

    We can't even get a pencil barrel to be legal when it functions no differently than a heavy barrel. When is that going to go to vote by the people so we have a chance for it to be repealed? We are talking about the weight of the barrel.

    ^^^ that was my statement.

    My question is this:
    What are 3 bad gun laws that were voted on and repealed?

    Dan Crenshaw is going to do what Dan Crenshaws' constituents want him to do.

    In Maryland any gun rights referendum will lose badly at the ballot box.

    wake me when you've persuaded roughly 1.2 million Marylanders.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,775
    Baltimore County
    1...Dan Crenshaw is going to do what Dan Crenshaws' constituents want him to do.

    2...In Maryland any gun rights referendum will lose badly at the ballot box.

    3..wake me when you've persuaded roughly 1.2 million Marylanders.

    I added numbers to your post***.

    So far you and I have been arguing 2 different points.
    Mine was saying that you can't compromise (I had the cross arms argument)
    When two wolf and a sheep argue about what is for dinner, you can't blame the sheep when he GTFO and let the wolf figure it out on their own.
    **point being that sometimes when you play the game you loose, so it's better not to play.

    Yours seemed to be leaning toward getting voters involved and politicians.



    1...Dan Crenshaw is going to do what Dan Crenshaws' constituents want him to do.
    I used Dan as the example because it shows that if Dan would go that route, anyone less Gun friendly definitely would. I'd say a large % of politicians are less gun friendly than he is.

    2...In Maryland any gun rights referendum will lose badly at the ballot box.
    That was my point. So because of that point, you almost have to go with the Cross arms and don't play the game.

    3..wake me when you've persuaded roughly 1.2 million Marylanders.
    Are you saying that we can't win at the ballot box?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    2...In Maryland any gun rights referendum will lose badly at the ballot box.
    That was my point. So because of that point, you almost have to go with the Cross arms and don't play the game.

    3..wake me when you've persuaded roughly 1.2 million Marylanders.
    Are you saying that we can't win at the ballot box?

    I am saying get out and persuade people. That's how you win at the ballot box.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    It worked to end Alcohol prohibition.

    Because a huge majority of the people in the country wanted that change.

    Alas, a big majority of the people in the country (think they) want an end to the second amendment, or at least and end to scary looking guns and weapons of war and the giant gun show loophole that all criminals use to buy machine guns with silencers and tank-piercing exploding bullets over the internet.

    Holding our breath until we turn blue will guarantee the blue team wins at every turn. The only way to buy some time for the (improbable, as long as angry-sounding tacticool guys are the only messaging people see) cultural change needed to make this less urgent is: winning in the courts, with constitution-minded judges.

    THAT is the compromise. Patience, while those judges are slowly presented with opportunities to work in the name of the Bill of Rights. Don't stop trying one-on-one communication to sway the occasional person who might actually listen. But the ONLY thing that matters, now, is keeping Trump in office while he finishes the only mission that matters in this entire area: another SCOTUS seat or three, and more rational judges all across the federal judicial landscape.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    "Big majorities" do not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Its a very vocal minority. The left goes around claiming that 90% of people want UBC, but these ballot initiatives struggle to even get 55%.

    Polls are misleading and the results always depend how the question is framed. Plus, these days, nobody responds to polls so the polls themselves are 90% modeling ********. I can get any answer I want from a sample of 1000 people.


    The vast majority of people are "indifferent" they see laws like gun control (minimum wage, etc) as applying to someone else, so they dont care one way or another.
     

    hooligan82

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 2, 2011
    1,359
    Baltimore county
    This is interesting. So the number of injured people that the press has given includes a lot of people that were NOT shot. So if you scraped your knee running away, you were "injured by the gunman".



    What is the definition of mass shooting? If one person is shot and whatever the number of people necessary to meet the criteria for a mass shooting are injured in some way other than gunshot wounds is that a mass shooting? I realize it doesn’t apply in this situation, but I can certainly see that being quietly used to inflate their statistics.
     

    Moon

    M-O-O-N, that spells...
    Jan 4, 2013
    2,367
    In Orbit
    Because a huge majority of the people in the country wanted that change.

    Alas, a big majority of the people in the country (think they) want an end to the second amendment, or at least and end to scary looking guns and weapons of war and the giant gun show loophole that all criminals use to buy machine guns with silencers and tank-piercing exploding bullets over the internet.

    Holding our breath until we turn blue will guarantee the blue team wins at every turn. The only way to buy some time for the (improbable, as long as angry-sounding tacticool guys are the only messaging people see) cultural change needed to make this less urgent is: winning in the courts, with constitution-minded judges.

    THAT is the compromise. Patience, while those judges are slowly presented with opportunities to work in the name of the Bill of Rights. Don't stop trying one-on-one communication to sway the occasional person who might actually listen. But the ONLY thing that matters, now, is keeping Trump in office while he finishes the only mission that matters in this entire area: another SCOTUS seat or three, and more rational judges all across the federal judicial landscape.

    I answered the question asked.

    The prohibition vs 2A also does not equate in plenty of other ways, I'm sure.

    However, the patience approach is not going to accomplish anything except the continued loss of 2A "rights." Electing gun grabbers like Hogan and hoping the national tide turns to save the 2A "rights" of Marylanders was never going to work.

    SCOTUS is already lost, because Roberts goes with whichever side is taking away rights, and the Frat Boy will be no better. SCOTUS is not a conservative majority as it is now, and even if Trump gets another chance at nominating a justice, he's been no better than 50-50 to this point.

    And at the lower levels, who is to say how good his nominations truly are, if he hasn't been all that great with his high profile nominations, or with pretty much all of his nominations in any other government positions.
     

    Moon

    M-O-O-N, that spells...
    Jan 4, 2013
    2,367
    In Orbit
    Dan Crenshaw is going to do what Dan Crenshaws' constituents want him to do.

    In Maryland any gun rights referendum will lose badly at the ballot box.

    wake me when you've persuaded roughly 1.2 million Marylanders.

    Crenshaw is John McCain 2.0.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    However, the patience approach is not going to accomplish anything except the continued loss of 2A "rights." Electing gun grabbers like Hogan and hoping the national tide turns to save the 2A "rights" of Marylanders was never going to work.

    What, specifically, in the real world in Maryland, are you suggesting will switch the disposition and voting habits of over a million people in the state? Details! Tell me what you're suggesting would be more effective in Maryland than litigation.

    SCOTUS is already lost, because Roberts goes with whichever side is taking away rights, and the Frat Boy will be no better. SCOTUS is not a conservative majority as it is now, and even if Trump gets another chance at nominating a justice, he's been no better than 50-50 to this point.

    Again, what - specifically - are you recommending here in the real world that would result in better fortunes on the court? Are you proposing an unelectable candidate who cannot win and thus will never name a single person to that court? Very uncompromising, and also utterly meaningless. Are you suggesting allowing one of the current crop of Dems to win so that we'll get hardcore lefty nominees, so that after a couple or three decades of that, we'll see a powerful upsurge of constitutionalism more to your liking? Do you really think that's a viable plan? Get specific.

    And at the lower levels, who is to say how good his nominations truly are

    Are you really comparing that to the alternative, which would absolutely be a complete disaster?
     

    Moon

    M-O-O-N, that spells...
    Jan 4, 2013
    2,367
    In Orbit
    What, specifically, in the real world in Maryland, are you suggesting will switch the disposition and voting habits of over a million people in the state? Details! Tell me what you're suggesting would be more effective in Maryland than litigation.
    I don't have to suggest an alternative to your useless plan for your plan to be useless.



    Again, what - specifically - are you recommending here in the real world that would result in better fortunes on the court? Are you proposing an unelectable candidate who cannot win and thus will never name a single person to that court? Very uncompromising, and also utterly meaningless. Are you suggesting allowing one of the current crop of Dems to win so that we'll get hardcore lefty nominees, so that after a couple or three decades of that, we'll see a powerful upsurge of constitutionalism more to your liking? Do you really think that's a viable plan? Get specific.
    I don't need to suggest a better way, which you will disregard anyway, when you are set on your course. I'm just stating for the record that the current method of protecting rights by giving them up will not result in saving any rights. The proof will overwhelm you each year, when you get tired of the "well this session was bad, but it could have been worse" nonsense gets old for you.



    Are you really comparing that to the alternative, which would absolutely be a complete disaster?
    No, I'm saying that Trump's track record of appointing good judges is not based on much. Hoping that Trump's judges are going to reverse that destructive path that the USA is on is stupid.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    I don't have to suggest an alternative to your useless plan for your plan to be useless.

    Acting to support the only candidate who won't be going to great lengths to hurl the Supreme Court into being a third progressive legislative body isn't a useless plan. It's the only plan.

    Your unwillingness to even mention how you'd realistically improve our circumstances, with any actual results whatsoever, means you're just trolling.

    That's fine. There are lots of trolls here. Just don't pretend you have a single non-fantasy better idea about anything on this topic, at all. Implying that you do, but that you just don't have to share them because that's just how righteously angry you are, is silly.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I don't need to suggest a better way, which you will disregard anyway, when you are set on your course. I'm just stating for the record that the current method of protecting rights by giving them up will not result in saving any rights. The proof will overwhelm you each year, when you get tired of the "well this session was bad, but it could have been worse" nonsense gets old for you.

    When a train is coming down the tracks, its simply not enough to complain that you are against jumping to the left. You have to say what you are for and propose an alternate, else you will get hit by the train - No action means getting hit by the train. Bad plan trumps no plan every time - and absent an alternative, people will choose bad plan.

    So: yes you do have to come up with an alternative.
     

    CAS_Shooter

    Active Member
    Jan 24, 2012
    510
    You let them make the rules you already lost the game.

    Who is the "you" that is "letting them"? The answer then is, don't let them. How do you do that? Because, it sounds like if your are not not letting them, then you are letting them.

    How does one not let them?
     

    CAS_Shooter

    Active Member
    Jan 24, 2012
    510
    The founding fathers we so rightfully refer to in terms of their wisdom and insight, explicitly noted that SCOTUS has full judicial power to hear, interpret, enforce, or nullify laws, particularly as those laws relate to the constitution. The founding fathers left SCOTUS as the interpreter. In the Heller decision, Scalia's majority opinion included a 2A interpretation that acknowledged certain limitations were not infringements. We can feel however we want about it or stand firm on our own interpretation of the words and intent, but a pro individual right 2A SCOTUS majority offered the only interpretation that really matters. Their interpretation is the interpretation, until it is not.
     

    Moon

    M-O-O-N, that spells...
    Jan 4, 2013
    2,367
    In Orbit
    Acting to support the only candidate who won't be going to great lengths to hurl the Supreme Court into being a third progressive legislative body isn't a useless plan. It's the only plan.

    Your unwillingness to even mention how you'd realistically improve our circumstances, with any actual results whatsoever, means you're just trolling.

    That's fine. There are lots of trolls here. Just don't pretend you have a single non-fantasy better idea about anything on this topic, at all. Implying that you do, but that you just don't have to share them because that's just how righteously angry you are, is silly.

    When a train is coming down the tracks, its simply not enough to complain that you are against jumping to the left. You have to say what you are for and propose an alternate, else you will get hit by the train - No action means getting hit by the train. Bad plan trumps no plan every time - and absent an alternative, people will choose bad plan.

    So: yes you do have to come up with an alternative.

    OK, fine.
    Here is the plan:

    Lose all your guns in a boating accident before you are required to turn in everything at the nearest Bloomburg/MDA gun rehabilitation center. The smarter thing would be to sell them now while you can at least get a return.

    It beats trying to self-justify voting for gun-grabbers. It beats scrambling for the scraps that legislators leave you after each session. It is certainly more useful than getting all excited because South Dakota or some other state went "Constitutional Carry."


    It beats the contradiction that the 2A protects your right to keep and bear arms, while constantly fearing that the wrong judges are appointed, the wrong elected officials are put in office, or that public opinion goes against you being able to arm yourself. If you have to worry about that, the 2A might as well not be there anyway.

    It beats calling people trolls because they point out the obvious to you, too.

    If insisting that government officials respect your constitutional rights is unrealistic, then it's over anyway, so any suggestion I might have isn't worth your time to ignore.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    OK, fine.
    Here is the plan:

    Lose all your guns in a boating accident before you are required to turn in everything at the nearest Bloomburg/MDA gun rehabilitation center. The smarter thing would be to sell them now while you can at least get a return.

    It beats trying to self-justify voting for gun-grabbers. It beats scrambling for the scraps that legislators leave you after each session. It is certainly more useful than getting all excited because South Dakota or some other state went "Constitutional Carry."


    It beats the contradiction that the 2A protects your right to keep and bear arms, while constantly fearing that the wrong judges are appointed, the wrong elected officials are put in office, or that public opinion goes against you being able to arm yourself. If you have to worry about that, the 2A might as well not be there anyway.

    It beats calling people trolls because they point out the obvious to you, too.

    If insisting that government officials respect your constitutional rights is unrealistic, then it's over anyway, so any suggestion I might have isn't worth your time to ignore.

    So, essentially, you have nothing constructive to offer. You're complaining about other people pointing out reality and the limited options we have in the face of things (especially here in Maryland), and propose ... nonsense BS.

    The only thing you're saying that even approaches a plan is "insisting" on something. What does that mean? Specifically? How do you do the insisting? To whom to you insist? What do you do if the people you're insisting at are the large majority of people in your state who really don't care, and don't like you and your ideas about gun ownership? Come on, get detailed, here!

    But in case you're going to just reply with more vague snark and juvenile boating accident jokes, here's what "insisting" looks like in a state where you have absolutely zero change of getting in a legislature that sees things your way: litigation. And we're back to what I said earlier: seating judges that the liberals hate. Which is happening at a record pace, but will screech to a halt and go into full reverse if any of Trump's opponents win. So, I've given YOU some specifics, but you're just getting angry at people and speaking in vague platitudes. What is it - in real life, that can actually be acted upon - that you're saying we should do? You obviously don't think that taking matters to court and working to get friendly judges in place to hear those cases is workable, and that we should insist on something else. Do tell. Explain what you mean by that, in real-life, actionable terms.
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    Can you name a compromise where gun owners got rights back? I'm at a loss. (not joking either, I'm being totally serious). I'm willing to hear someone else out. I base my thoughts and statements on the idea that laws and compromises only take our gun rights. Let me know where I'm seeing it wrong.

    Credit Card Act
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    We blame the arsonist if people die fleeing a fire. This isn't any different.

    No we generally do not. There is a technical criminal and civil liability but generally the media do not include it in arson etc but does include incidental non gun injury when a gun is involved.

    I was in London when there was a mass knife attack and people hurt running away were not counted in the reporting.
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    No we generally do not. There is a technical criminal and civil liability but generally the media do not include it in arson etc but does include incidental non gun injury when a gun is involved.

    I was in London when there was a mass knife attack and people hurt running away were not counted in the reporting.

    The injured are only counted when it is beneficial to the counters to count them.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,069
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom