What would we be willing to do?

[eruby]

We have no 1A rights on this board. By joining, we agreed to the terms and conditions. If we don't like it, we are free to pound sand.

(Don't make me send David Byrne to your house.)

 

[Tbone1234]

Nothing! The 2A is explicit. I WILL NOT concede any of my rights to the government!!

 

[Rack&Roll]

Haha okay you're right about that. I've seen footage.

To be fair, I DID post this in the national 2a issues forum. I understand that MD is kinda screwed up, and rational conversation won't win the day here.

This thread should be closed and the OP should be perma-banned.

So your solution is to give up?

WIMN is running the classic “Infringer Background Check” script on our forum.

The proof the buttery smooth prodding on his part that is present 5-6 pages into the thread.

He/she hears our historically based resistance to the further fake compromise BS and keeps pressing politely, and even needling, to keep the script going.

It is a device to drive a wedge into the heart of MDS, so letting them run the script for 7-8 pages on our forum is not helpful.

Better to just say the compromise bait-and-switch is tired old ******** and we homeys don’t play dat no mo.

DON’T LET THEM PLAY THE WEDGE GAME WITH US.

As for TexDefender, enough of your whining. You are running the ANTI script too, starting with your wedge thread announcing “Bump Stocks To Be Banned Nationwide” based on no facts.

We’ve heard your nagging and we reject it. Go join the MOMs and carry their signs. You’ll feel much better and you will be back with your tribe.

 

[Rack&Roll]

So much for 1st amendment rights then? Is this a club for only a few select individuals? I disagree.

Your continued whining gives you away.

You object to the principled stance of “NOT ONE INCH”?

Cry all you want. Start your own Backrub Club and stroke The Middle to your heart’s content. Seriously, if you believe in it, announce your own Hugs Not Shrugs Parade and see who falls in behind you.

But enough with your kumbaya bleeding heart.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to OP and say that he was echoing a point I made last week about the need to consume some of the oxygen in the room.

For the last 2 weeks (and obviously long before), the media has kept the discussion focused on guns and further infringements on law abiding citizens' rights.

If our response to that is limited to mounting a vigorous defense, while highly principled, I fear we will not prevail. The reasons for this are many and have been discussed ad nauseum.

We need to go on offense. That means turning the discussion in a different direction. For example, securing schools. Not a damn thing has been done to make my kids safer at school. Assuming the next 1,2,..n school shooters are out there with guns/ammo already purchased, what are we doing to protect his future targets? IMO, nothing.

I know it is not the purpose of this group, but in the spirit of the best defense is a good offense, how many of you would be willing to march in Annapolis to demand that schools be protected? Don't make it about gun rights. That's what the D's want.

 

[TexDefender]

Your continued whining gives you away.

You object to the principled stance of “NOT ONE INCH”?

Cry all you want. Start your own Backrub Club and stroke The Middle to your heart’s content. Seriously, if you believe in it, announce your own parade and see who falls in behind you.

But enough with your kumbaya bleeding heart.

Sorry, I don't object to your stance of "Not one Inch" that is just merely you point of view or perspective. What you call whining or crying is simply asking questions. I haven't seen anyone here trying to drive a wedge intentionally between anyone. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate, our nation was founded on it. It provides insight, to ours view points, so when the left pop a load question we can counter. It is way more conducive than insulting individuals. I'm not running the Anti Script, you may not like the title of that thread, but there are several others that could be considered inflammatory as well. I was merely point out what the news was reporting. My point being is that we as gun owners and users have to be prepared to bring logical counter arguments, ideas, and thoughts to counter the lefts practice of using emotions. We need to see if we can get those on the fence and in the middle to join our cause. That way the number of individuals under our tent grow. By doing so, we then can over turn these infringements.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Oh God, it’s like you are a SIRI bot.

(Yawn)

You keep who slobbering over The Middle, but you are here constantly crying and whining.

The Middle is OUT THERE. Why don’t you go there and stop nagging us if you believe in your gun control script so much?

Staying here whimpering and moaning means you’re not serious about being the Kumbaya King.

Do you get that?

 

[TexDefender]

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to OP and say that he was echoing a point I made last week about the need to consume some of the oxygen in the room.

For the last 2 weeks (and obviously long before), the media has kept the discussion focused on guns and further infringements on law abiding citizens' rights.

If our response to that is limited to mounting a vigorous defense, while highly principled, I fear we will not prevail. The reasons for this are many and have been discussed ad nauseum.

We need to go on offense. That means turning the discussion in a different direction. For example, securing schools. Not a damn thing has been done to make my kids safer at school. Assuming the next 1,2,..n school shooters are out there with guns/ammo already purchased, what are we doing to protect his future targets? IMO, nothing.

I know it is not the purpose of this group, but in the spirit of the best defense is a good offense, how many of you would be willing to march in Annapolis to demand that schools be protected? Don't make it about gun rights. That's what the D's want.

I have no problem with that. Many things have changed today. Ten to Twenty years ago it was unheard to have a group of armed individuals break into a home in broad daylight to rob and extort you. Today we have people that will steal your car at gun point. We have terrorist than have no problem in causing as much destruction on an innocent populace that gather in public places and "Gun Free" Zones. Hence, there is a need to allow individuals to legally purchase a firearm and be able to carry enough ammo to deal with the threat. I carried 45 rounds in performance of my duties. The average citizen should be able to due the same.

In a few of my posts, I proposed hardening schools. Because, it would be more effective than further infringement. We did it after the Oklahoma City bombings, we can do it for schools.

 

[Rack&Roll]

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to OP and say that he was echoing a point I made last week about the need to consume some of the oxygen in the room.

For the last 2 weeks (and obviously long before), the media has kept the discussion focused on guns and further infringements on law abiding citizens' rights.

If our response to that is limited to mounting a vigorous defense, while highly principled, I fear we will not prevail. The reasons for this are many and have been discussed ad nauseum.

We need to go on offense. That means turning the discussion in a different direction. For example, securing schools. Not a damn thing has been done to make my kids safer at school. Assuming the next 1,2,..n school shooters are out there with guns/ammo already purchased, what are we doing to protect his future targets? IMO, nothing.

I know it is not the purpose of this group, but in the spirit of the best defense is a good offense, how many of you would be willing to march in Annapolis to demand that schools be protected? Don't make it about gun rights. That's what the D's want.

Name the time and date of the March you are leading, so we know where to go and when.

Thanks for the “going on offense” nudge though...

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

In a few of my posts, I proposed hardening schools. Because, it would be more effective than further infringement. We did it after the Oklahoma City bombings, we can do it for schools.

In the conversations I've had IRL, I've refused to go down the gun path. If they're sincere in wanting to protect kids, their unilateral focus on guns is illogical. Why are we participating in this discussion ONLY by arguing about natural rights, 2A, civil rights, etc? This is falling on deaf ears.

It is much more effective IMO to shame these people for proposing/supporting nothing that will protect the kids who will be targeted by the next shooter. If we were being targeted by a sociopathic arsonist would our only response be a discussion about how to restrict fire? It's asinine.

Of course, some of us may question the sincerity of the D's expressed interest in keeping our kids safe. I get that. The D's/antis are either lying or stupid. Either way, the approach I described above works.

 

[Threeband]

I gave the benefit of the doubt to some of the others who suddenly showed up to troll.

This guy is the most flagrant and obvious mole yet.
Joined just before the election, made a few generic posts using our own stereotypes, then laid low.

Suddenly appears demanding we give detailed discussion of which compromises we would make so we can earn "respectable" points from the antis.

WILL NOT LET IT DROP. Keeps unctuously prodding for extended, detailed discussion. No mattter how many times people refuse to play his game, he keeps pushing for more.

He does not want a discussion. He is after something else.

Mole. Troll. Whack the damn thing.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

If guns are the problem, then have all legislators/politicians and uber wealthy folks give up their "protection" (meaning armed security of any sort) for two years...that's 24 consecutive months. Oh yeah, they also need to put their children in the closest public school immediately.

At that point, I will entertain dialog about safety, security and right and wrong of self defense in today's USA.

Until and unless that happens, they can kiss my Rosie red arse.

 

[rbird7282]

The argument seems to be to refuse any compromise until one of us is ground into the dirt.



Maybe that works for you, but I don't love the idea.

Tell you what, write a proposal and meet with your delegates (or better yet testify) and suggest the following:
You'll accept universal background checks in exchange for the following,
Repeal the GCA's of 1934, 1968, and 1986.
Anyone with an HQL can walkout with their handgun at the time of purchase, no more 7 day wait.
Shall issue CCW permits.
You let me know if the other side will even be willing to DISCUSS ANY MOVEMENT ON ANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS. When the say no, you have your answer. The other side doesn't compromise, NEITHER DO WE.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Biggfoot44]

The PP does also address protecting schools , and contrasts the level of security for schools to that of politicians and others.

Nothwithstanding the facts that the deaths of students are already a small fraction of historic levels . Just that in the past the ongoing deaths 1 or 2 at a time were largely ignored , while currently everything is massively publicized.

 

[Stagstalker]

Compromise is what brings us here full circle again. Patriots compromised starting many years ago. Compromising on the 2A is akin to the anti's excuse of taking all guns will stop violent crime. The compromising and infringing of the 2A is in fact breaking the highest laws of the land, yet there is no accountability for doing so, and it continues like clock work. Even when civil suits are won there is no punishment to the violators. Its not readily visible the extent, severity and punishment of such violations because its usually the government that does the violating. Violation of the highest laws of the land should bring severe punishment. The violation and infringement has become acceptable and common place. Accountability must come to make it stop, pleading and comprising will not make it stop. I see only two ways to bring accountability to violators, one being bloodshed chaos and civil war...I dont believe most want this. The other being civil, a court of law. One cannot expect a true constitutional court in current times considering most courts are ripe with said violators, you cant expect congress to pass a law holding government responsible. We need a legal court of law made up of constitutional patriots. The right to hold this legal court already exist per the constitution. Through this legal court accountability can be applied to violators, oath breakers, infringer's and those that attack the Constitution of the USA, whether they be brainwashed or troops conspiring to attack and destroy our Democracy.

 

[kcbrown]

I'm not saying the antis are doing anything correctly. I'm saying we should be.

To what end? You think this is something new? This kind of "compromise" process that you propose should be happening is something that has happened many times over the past 80 years. You want to know what the other side has given us in return for the numerous "compromises" we have made in the very same spirit you now claim we should endorse?

Nothing. Nada. Not a goddamned thing. That's what.

If we identify something that can be done, and done in a way that works for everyone, then we should make that case.

Not if all that happens is that we lose even more than we already have, we shouldn't.

We have given, and given, and given, and given. Over and over and over again. And gotten nothing but demands for even more.

ENOUGH!!!

Incidentally, few people, if anyone at all, have actually bothered to mention whether they think my suggestion has any merit. Kinda disappointing. I understand the whole context thing, but maybe take a minute to analyze it by itself.

That's because your suggestion has no merit. It has been tried, numerous times. It has failed every single time. Not because we went in with ill will, but because the other side did. Repeatedly.

No, it's time that we demanded that they "compromise" in exactly the same way they have repeatedly demanded that we "compromise". And if they don't like it then tough f***ing sh*t. If it's good enough for them to foist it upon us, it's good enough for us to foist it upon them. I've had it with these self-serving egotistical pretenders who claim to care for others so much that they're willing to destroy others' right to life. They don't give a crap about anything but their own utopian vision that ultimately must result in an outcome like what we see now in places like Venezuela. Why should we "compromise" with such disingenuous and ultimately malevolent people?

 

[MG in MD]

Re: bump stock ban and where it leads... scary stuff. Validates what has been said earlier about the dangers.

https://youtu.be/JYMRzLaRU_o

 

[j_h_smith]

Re: bump stock ban and where it leads... scary stuff. Validates what has been said earlier about the dangers.
[YT]JYMRzLaRU_o[/YT]

Embedded for ya.

 

[whistlersmother]

All of your posts imply this. But I'd like to ask you directly, just so I know where you stand:

If you knew, by some means, with 100% certainty, that an implementation like the one I suggested was not intended to be, nor would it specifically lead to, more forms of gun control, would you say that the idea of more frequent background checks has merit?

It's a hypothetical, but just go with it. Because I still have no idea whether you guys actually are okay with background checks in general.

I am against almost all background checks.

What's the purpose of them? To keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Got a news flash - criminals STILL get guns - background checks are just a nuisance for them.

If we can't trust some criminal with a gun, then why is he walking the streets with law-abiding people? He should be in jail until he can be trusted with a gun, knife, bow/arrow, gallon of gasoline, car, rock, feet and hands.

Very few of the mentally ill go on shooting rampages. In Florida and Newtown there were warnings - why weren't these heeded and the individuals committed?

In a half-assed effort to be kind to dangerous people, our so-called leaders let them out of prison, then expect them to be trustworthy. And we get Baltimore as a result.

Background checks do very very little. ANYONE can buy an 80% to finish into a completed firearm. ANYONE can buy a stolen gun or steal it themselves. ANYONE can buy any sort of dangerous weapon (knife, gasoline, vehicle, etc) - some are even just lying on the ground just waiting to be picked up... All without background checks. In fact, some of the effective materials that can be used as weapons are made from dirt.

Our leaders allow violent criminals on the street to serve their own agendas. We cease to be civilized because we try to harbor the uncivilized in our midsts.

So tell me what a background check is supposed to protect against.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Embedded for ya.

The guy with the beard and hat (talking) in the video is a little too dramatic for me to put much stock in him.