What Have We Become?

[todbiker]

Same here

I actually signed up to whitehouse.gov to sign this one when it was last posted but ill agree with your sentiment

 

[Ab_Normal]

OK. I agree with all that you say about how things should be, so let's make it really simple:

How do you propose that we are going to accomplish those things? Don't give me "shoulda, woulda, coulda" about what went on in the '30s or '60s. Tell me how you propose to change things, right now, to be the way we'd all like them to be.

Ignore the unconstitutional 'laws' since they are in direct contradiction to the law of the land?

 

[baconsandwich]

11,921 checking in, FWIW

 

[Machodoc]

Ignore the unconstitutional 'laws' since they are in direct contradiction to the law of the land?

Isn't that another way of saying, "draw the line"? And isn't the ultimate extension of that form of reasoning to have an armed face-off with LEOs? The antis would love nothing better!

 

[toddtrain]

already signed a while ago

 

[peoples1234]

I signed it. I imagine that we got ourselves a long road ahead in light of recent events.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Isn't that another way of saying, "draw the line"? And isn't the ultimate extension of that form of reasoning to have an armed face-off with LEOs? The antis would love nothing better!

I don't think so. I think it would be more like the anti's being the kid who says "I'm going to hold my breath until I get what I want" - you focus your attention elsewhere. I see no reason to have an armed face off with the police over this matter. They, along with many other government employees, have taken an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution (or something along those lines). So if they live up to the oath they took then the only ones who will want to have an armed face off with citizens who exercise their rights are the ones in violation of the Constitution. What happens then will be determined by those involved with that particular situation.

YMMV

 

[eruby]

Signed.

Another list I'm on.

 

[peoples1234]

Signed.

Another list I'm on.

It would be interesting to see how many lists any of us are on at any given time, if any.

I am just a normal guy that would never pop up on the radar, but I still wonder just the same.

 

[tsmith1499]

I guess any of us that signed up to testify against SB281 are definitely on one list. Us radicals!!

 

[peoples1234]

I guess any of us that signed up to testify against SB281 are definitely on one list. Us radicals!!

Ha, I forgotten about that list. Well there goes that...

 

[Machodoc]

I don't think so. I think it would be more like the anti's being the kid who says "I'm going to hold my breath until I get what I want" - you focus your attention elsewhere. I see no reason to have an armed face off with the police over this matter. They, along with many other government employees, have taken an oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution (or something along those lines). So if they live up to the oath they took then the only ones who will want to have an armed face off with citizens who exercise their rights are the ones in violation of the Constitution. What happens then will be determined by those involved with that particular situation.

YMMV

But the fact remains that we are still a democracy where the votes of the majority are, at least in theory, the basis of how things get done. Like it or not, staunch gun advocates are a minority, as are the staunch anti-gun types. The greatest majority of American voters are apathetic when it comes to guns, or they don't feel like they are involved, unless some disaster happens that frightens them.

We need to educate and win over that majority, and any sort of stand-off or confrontation is going to have the exact opposite effect of what we need now. We need to focus on:

• Educating the public about what 2A really means
• Take a neighbor shooting--show them what an interesting sport it is.
• Let the public know how our school children can be protected the same way that lawmakers are: not by signs, but by trained armed security.
• Demonstrate (not just say) how eroding the ability for legal gun owners to own and carry doesn't impact illegal gun owners. It just makes the unarmed more inviting targets for violent crime.
• TRAIN GUNOWNERS. Develop a certification system that would convince the average non-gun-owner that people who are trained are not a bunch of yahoos running around with dangerous weapons. Realistically, very few local police departments have particularly rigorous firearms training programs (some have excellent trainers and programs). Develop a training and certification program that can honestly be called the equivalent of what the local police go through.
• Make the average citizen aware that firearms training for civilians long has been, and continues to be, a foundation block for national preparedness in times of war.
• Lobby locally to reverse the trend of police forces changing from the role of "protect and serve" to "accuse and convict at any cost". The police should be impartial public servants. The police should not become a de facto domestic army.
• Vote out the entrenched politicians, regardless of political party. Vote in, regardless of party, Constitutionalists who believe that the balance of power should be restored by a congress that has guts and integrity, rather than being ceded to a President who is determined to make unilateral decisions that should be made by congress.

 

[Ab_Normal]

But the fact remains that we are still a democracy where the votes of the majority are, at least in theory, the basis of how things get done. Like it or not, staunch gun advocates are a minority, as are the staunch anti-gun types. The greatest majority of American voters are apathetic when it comes to guns, or they don't feel like they are involved, unless some disaster happens that frightens them.

We need to educate and win over that majority, and any sort of stand-off or confrontation is going to have the exact opposite effect of what we need now. We need to focus on:

• Educating the public about what 2A really means
• Take a neighbor shooting--show them what an interesting sport it is.
• Let the public know how our school children can be protected the same way that lawmakers are: not by signs, but by trained armed security.
• Demonstrate (not just say) how eroding the ability for legal gun owners to own and carry doesn't impact illegal gun owners. It just makes the unarmed more inviting targets for violent crime.
• TRAIN GUNOWNERS. Develop a certification system that would convince the average non-gun-owner that people who are trained are not a bunch of yahoos running around with dangerous weapons.
• Make the average citizen aware that firearms training for civilians long has been, and continues to be, a foundation block for national preparedness in times of war.
• Lobby locally to reverse the trend of police forces changing from the role of "protect and serve" to "accuse and convict at any cost". The police should be impartial public servants. The police should not become a defacto domestic army.
• Vote out the entrenched politicians, regardless of political party. Vote in, regardless of party, Constitutionalists who believe that the balance of power should be restored by a congress that has guts and integrity, rather than being ceded to a President who is determined to make unilateral decisions that should be made by congress.

Negative. We are a constitutional republic and the rights of those in the minority are to be protected just as vigorously as the rights of those in the majority. How do you think blacks for example went from being for the most part slaves to having the same rights as everyone else? Do you think blacks stopped being black while they fought for their rights? How do you think homosexuality went from being a crime to being a recognized part of society? Do you think homosexuals stopped being homosexuals while they fought for their rights? The list goes on. You may or may not agree or like these groups and that is your choice. Gun owners need to take a page out of some of these group's action plans.

Democracy is mob rule plain and simple. A republic is 'supposed' to defend the rights of everyone regardless of how small of a group they may be.

The simple fact is that gun control is less about guns than it is about control.

 

[Machodoc]

Negative. We are a constitutional republic the rights of those in the minority are to be protected just as vigorously as the rights of those in the majority. How do you think blacks for example went from being for the most part slaves to having the same rights as everyone else? Why do you think there are protected classes of minorities. Why are there minority set aside programs for most government contracts?

Democracy is mob rule plain and simple. A republic is 'supposed' to defend the rights of everyone regardless of how small of a group they may be.

The simple fact is that gun control is less about guns than it is about control.

I don't disagree. I'm simply dealing with what we have, rather than what we should have or want to have. Politicians view people as blocks of votes.

 

[Ab_Normal]

I don't disagree. I'm simply dealing with what we have, rather than what we should have or want to have. Politicians view people as blocks of votes.

Someone can only take advantage of you if you lay down and let them.

 

[peckman28]

[*]TRAIN GUNOWNERS. Develop a certification system that would convince the average non-gun-owner that people who are trained are not a bunch of yahoos running around with dangerous weapons. Realistically, very few local police departments have particularly rigorous firearms training programs (some have excellent trainers and programs). Develop a training and certification program that can honestly be called the equivalent of what the local police go through.
[*]Make the average citizen aware that firearms training for civilians long has been, and continues to be, a foundation block for national preparedness in times of war.

If you're talking about compulsory training to own a gun, then not just no but HELL NO. What is wrong with you. How about we make you go through training before you open your mouth, so that you can convince me that your exercise of your First Amendment rights won't just result in the spread of dangerously stupid ideas.

If you're talking about something voluntary then I hate to break it to you, but there is all kinds of training already available. The government doesn't need to be involved in that, nor should it.

 

[Machodoc]

If you're talking about compulsory training to own a gun, then not just no but HELL NO. What is wrong with you. How about we make you go through training before you open your mouth, so that you can convince me that your exercise of your First Amendment rights won't just result in the spread of dangerously stupid ideas.

If you're talking about something voluntary then I hate to break it to you, but there is all kinds of training already available. The government doesn't need to be involved in that, nor should it.

You are another guy just looking for a pissing contest. No, I wasn't talking about compulsory training. I said nothing at all about compulsory training.

Yes, I was talking about voluntary training. You are not breaking anything to me. I know there are lots of training programs out there, but there's nothing that's being promoted to the general public as a level of certification equivalent to what most police forces have. This is about education and public perception.

And no, I said nothing at all about government involvement. You are inventing all of this, because it's what you want to hear.

I sure hope that it doesn't turn out that the idiot who opened fire in the Navy Yard today was doing so because he decided it was his way of drawing a line.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who seem only capable of becoming rude and offensive whenever anyone doesn't agree with them 100%. My attempts at a discussion with you are over. Go ahead and take your parting shots.

 

[Ab_Normal]

You are another guy just looking for a pissing contest. No, I wasn't talking about compulsory training. I said nothing at all about compulsory training.

Yes, I was talking about voluntary training. You are not breaking anything to me. I know there are lots of training programs out there, but there's nothing that's being promoted to the general public as a level of certification equivalent to what most police forces have. This is about education and public perception.

And no, I said nothing at all about government involvement. You are inventing all of this, because it's what you want to hear.

I sure hope that it doesn't turn out that the idiot who opened fire in the Navy Yard today was doing so because he decided it was his way of drawing a line.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who seem only capable of becoming rude and offensive whenever anyone doesn't agree with them 100%. My attempts at a discussion with you are over. Go ahead and take your parting shots.

I hate to break it to you but the shooting qualifications for some police/government agencies would be a step backward for many shooting enthusiasts. I had helped with the shooting qualifications for some bailiffs many years ago. And remember many bailiffs are retired police officers. I had heard similar stories from the range officers about the police agencies that use the Hap Baker range. Although I wasn't there so I can't confirm it first hand.

My PSA is if you are in a courthouse and you hear gunfire GTFOASAP.

 

[Machodoc]

I hate to break it to you but the shooting qualifications for some police/government agencies would be a step backward for many shooting enthusiasts. I had helped with the shooting qualifications for some bailiffs many years ago. And remember many bailiffs are retired police officers. I had heard similar stories from the range officers about the police agencies that use the Hap Baker range. Although I wasn't there so I can't confirm it first hand.

My PSA is if you are in a courthouse and you hear gunfire GTFOASAP.

You aren't breaking any news to me. My posting says, "Realistically, very few local police departments have particularly rigorous firearms training programs (some have excellent trainers and programs)." My point was that such a certification wouldn't necessarily be a real ball-buster, but if Joe Citizen realized that many of the armed people in the community had police-level training, it would be one of the things that could be done to make him more comfortable with people carrying.

 

[Ab_Normal]

You aren't breaking any news to me. My posting says, "Realistically, very few local police departments have particularly rigorous firearms training programs (some have excellent trainers and programs)." My point was that such a certification wouldn't necessarily be a real ball-buster, but if Joe Citizen realized that many of the armed people in the community had police-level training, it would be one of the things that could be done to make him more comfortable with people carrying.

I read and re-read your post I quoted and I couldn't find that statement.

And please please please go brush up on what 'rights' mean. Do I need to have a degree in English to exercise free speech? Do I have to be a minister to have freedom of religion? Do I have to become a mute to exercise my right against self incrimination?