Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

California gun sales ban for people under 21

328 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hawken
5 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

That is so true. The U.S., because of its armed citizens, is virtually uninvadable by any conventional Army. 

According to Candace Owens, The NRA was a civil rights group that trained black americans to protect themselves from the KKK.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
6 minutes ago, Hawken said:

According to Candace Owens, The NRA was a civil rights group that trained black americans to protect themselves from the KKK.

Shhh... You're not supposed to talk about reality like this. Reality inflames Leftists and makes them go crazy and we just don't have enough Safe Spaces set up yet to handle them all! 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Hawken said:

According to Candace Owens, The NRA was a civil rights group that trained black americans to protect themselves from the KKK.

She should probably tell the NRA this so they can update their website https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

Quote

A Brief History of the NRA

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York State, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.

Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

She should probably tell the NRA this so they can update their website

As if New York and New Jersey were not Republican States at that time where black Americans were all Free and the South was Democratic controlled and full of KKK members!!!  Learn some History Dude. 

Edit: Those States were not only Republican, but Black Americans had been Free there in the Northern States for many decades before the Civil war. 

 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

As if New York and New Jersey were not Republican States at that time where black Americans were all Free and the South was Democratic controlled and full of KKK members!!!  Learn some History Dude. 

Thats cool and all......but perhaps you should learn some reading comprehension, dude.

I posted what the NRA themselves say,  on their own website , about their founding and they do not mention civil rights or the KKK at all.  It in fact specifically says :

Quote

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

 

Not that they were a civil rights group as claimed in the foxnews piece.

Hey maybe they were and just need to update their website?

Or perhaps this is just more culture war propaganda from the WH mouthpiece?

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
47 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Not that they were a civil rights group as claimed in the foxnews piece

How do you know their motives in 1871? Psychic I guess? 

FYI, many Black Americans fought in the Civil war and these were all Free Men in the States the NRA was formed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, lost_shaman said:

How do you know their motives in 1871? Psychic I guess? 

Because they wrote them down on their website I already provided a link but here ya go again : https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

No mystical powers needed just reading comprehension.

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

FYI, many Black Americans fought in the Civil war and these were all Free Men in the States the NRA was formed.

Thank you captain obvious. That in no way changes the fact that the NRA Themselves will tell you WHY they were founded and what THEY tell you isn't that they were founded as a civil rights group as claimed in the fox news piece.

Again in addition to quoting the relevant part I provided the NRA link so they can tell you directly why they were founded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

"promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,

So this can not be something that Black Americans would be involved in? According to your quasi-Racist views? 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

So this can not be something that Black Americans would be involved in? According to your quasi-Racist views? 

Man you are working HARD :lol:  .......nice try moving the goalposts

The claim made on Fox was that the NRA was founded as a civil rights organization to help arm blacks against the KKK. The NRA themselves dispute that claim through their own words.

How on earth do you get from that to the above post is genuinely lost on me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

oh thanks for reminding me, i have not sent a check to NRA in few months.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man you are working HARD :lol:  .......nice try moving the goalposts

The claim made on Fox was that the NRA was founded as a civil rights organization to help arm blacks against the KKK. The NRA themselves dispute that claim through their own words.

How on earth do you get from that to the above post is genuinely lost on me.

Because you are making mountains out of mole hills. Just because you can quote something that doesn't 'EXPLICITLY' say something doesn't make it untrue! Did the 2nd Amendment not apply to Black Americans in 1871? Of course it did!!! Were the Black Americans in New York and New Jersry not Free Men even before the Civil War? Of course they were!!! Was the KKK not on the rise in 1871? Of course it was! 

Do I give any weight to almost anything you post here? Of course I don't! 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
7 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Because you are making mountains out of mole hills.

Yeah some of us have this thing for the truth. Its weird its almost like we think society is better when its recognized.

8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Just because you can quote something that doesn't 'EXPLICITLY' say something doesn't make it untrue! Did the 2nd Amendment not apply to Black Americans in 1871? Of course it did!!! Were the Black Americans in New York and New Jersry not Free Men even before the Civil War? Of course they were!!! Was the KKK not on the rise in 1871? Of course it was! 

The claim was that the NRA was founded as a civil rights organization. The NRA claims something differently. They literally say they were founded to increase marksmanship.

Why are you trying so hard to twist that simple truth?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

The claim was that the NRA was founded as a civil rights organization. The NRA claims something differently. They literally say they were founded to increase marksmanship.

Why are you trying so hard to twist that simple truth?

Both of those things can be true at the same time. As I said you don't know unless you are psychic? Go burn another one Dude and ponder that! 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

. As I said you don't know unless you are psychic?

But I do because  the NRA specifically said why they were founded.

I have to say this tactic you're using is one which I see "conservatives" have allowed to rule their worldview and its really quite disturbing.  Anything is possible, assuming it somehow confirms whatever point it is youre trying to make, and should be considered despite things like actual facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
34 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

But I do because  the NRA specifically said why they were founded.

I have to say this tactic you're using is one which I see "conservatives" have allowed to rule their worldview and its really quite disturbing.  Anything is possible, assuming it somehow confirms whatever point it is youre trying to make, and should be considered despite things like actual facts.

If we go only by what was written then you could say Hitler didn't authorise the Mass Murder of the Jews. But we all know he did. This is the type of argument you are making, that their charter didn't 'explicitly' say something so it can't be true. Only what we see written on Paper can be the only thing that's true. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, lost_shaman said:

If we go only by what was written then you could say Hitler didn't authorise the Mass Murder of the Jews. But we all know he did. This is the type of argument you are making, that their charter didn't 'explicitly' say something so it can't be true. Only what we see written on Paper can be the only thing that's true. 

No im not saying it "cant" be true,  It totally could be true but the NRA themselves don't say it is so we have no reason to believe it to be. They give their origin story and it doesnt include starting out as a civil rights organization.

Thats like me saying it could be true that Trump eats children. I mean he hasnt ever explicitly denied it and we know he has to eat so it could be kids that he eats. Despite the fact that its quite well documented that he likes Mcdonalds. (mildly hyperbolic in the context of this conversation but rather fitting when looking at the overall context i was speaking to) .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

Yeah I think you've burned one to many today Bro!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, lost_shaman said:

Yeah I think you've burned one to many today Bro!

Sure, the one who wants to stick with established facts is the one who is having mental difficulty :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure, the one who wants to stick with established facts is the one who is having mental difficulty :lol:

 

No I'm just tired of talking to a Democrat, there is no point in it. It just wastes my time when I have better things to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No I'm just tired of talking to a Democrat, there is no point in it. It just wastes my time when I have better things to do. 

I was about to launch into my "im not a democrat" rant but thanks to ya'll and your dear leader I will be one for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I was about to launch into my "im not a democrat" rant but thanks to ya'll and your dear leader I will be one for the foreseeable future.

Glad you saved your breath instead of launching into a rant that not a single one of us here would have believed. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Glad you saved your breath instead of launching into a rant that not a single one of us here would have believed. 

Shoulda been around during the election, believe it or not I actually bashed Hillary more than Trump back then. 

Whats really crazy is that while I would have rather drank bleach than vote for either of them if one had to win I wanted it to be Trump!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 10/3/2018 at 9:16 PM, Gunn said:

Well first of all, I didn't say people don't carry. I was trying to explain to you that most of us (besides cops, peace keepers, licensed gun carriers) don't hardly carry our guns on our hips in a holster like cowboys. A few do carry concealed weapons hidden on our persons (shoulder holsters, ankle holsters, purses),

It seems to be varied quite a bit. LS and andthen seem to have conflicting opinions. Most of the pro gun posters I have seen posting seem to think it's a good idea to carry, as per the 'guns save lives' threads. 

There seems to be little agreement amongst US posters there. 

Quote

but that's "if" we are approved to have a license to carry a weapon, which isn't easy to get BTW; they don't just hand those out like candy.

I don't think it's new and legal weapons that are the problem. I suspect there's even an 'iPhone' mentality there that drives some to make sure they have the latest in firepower. 

The love affair with guns is leaving a lot of second hand items going into the wrong hands. Making those people stand out would be the best way to look at the issue I would think. 

Quote

Second of all, what you read on here from a handful of Americans is no reason to judge the rest of us. Okay? That's really generalizing all of us when you do that. Hell man...there are some Americans in our country who don't even own a BB gun for godsakes.

No not at all. Its not the majority that are a problem or there would be nobody left over there. I've said many times  society has to walk at the pace of its slowest members. The US having such a huge population results in a huge amount of people that simply should not be armed. 

What most posters tell me is that these idiots must be armed to protect the 2nd, their apparent God given right, which I honestly cannot envisage as a right, but a privelidge. I am told often that the 'sensible' people who do the right thing should not be punished by being subject to regulations because 'its not fair'. 

Hard to respect that sort of reasoning. It sounds anything but sensible to me. Society should be considered above personal wants. I have not ever heard a US poster disagree with the idea that all must be armed so that nobody can be questioned about owning a weapon. Its just another illogical idea that sits on top of so many others. 

Quote

There again, what you see on the news over there about shootings and gun fights over here is only a handful of incidents. You make it sound like all you are seeing is ALL Americans shooting at each other 24/7.

There are a lot of incidents and regularly reported. A hell of a lot man. 

If what is reported is barely a handful compared to what is actually happening, then that's worse than I imagined. We hear a lot through just this place let alone social media. 

Quote

We got law and order here man and a majority of Americans obey those laws a majority of the time. And on the rare occasions somebody does go waving their gun around like an idiot, you can bet the police are there not long after arresting them or shooting them first and asking questions later. Police don't tolerate that crap.

And yet look at cases like the Florida SYG case with Drejka. Police assisted what would be considered murder anywhere else. Police stood by an outright murderer because gun laws were ambiguous. 

The majority of American people may not go in school or general spree shootings. But the majority is not required. Too many still die  and its the school shootings that I feel elevate the situation well beyond what is reasonable. I don't believe for one second that it's a good idea to have a deadly weapon available to anyone 'just in case' a tyrannical government shows up or 'just in case' a break in happens. Kids are dying for this 'just in case' scenario by flooding America with cheap guns. 

I have even spoken to posters who are quite religious yet feel that sacrifice is warranted. One poster even said they would be OK with telling the parent of a shot child that the sacrifice was necessary for freedoms and protection of the 2nd. I personally find that somewhat horrifying, and from my perspective, guns killed of a slice of humanity in that person. 

Quote

Yeah but are you telling me you think ALL teenagers do that here in the U.S.? The handful who do that stupid crap, I can tell you they don't last long or end up prison.

Nope, sorry if I have that impression. What I was trying to say is that teenagers who would flaunt the over 21 law are more likely to get caught due to the same attitude that makes them defy the law to begin with. Overconfidence is likely to lead to exposure making the job of police identifying illegal carriers easier to spot in public. 

Quote

It's not like most get away with it, you know? It's almost like you believe every thing you see on your news about us. I certainly don't  believe every negative thing I see on our news about your country, Psyche.

Well that's good, as the majority of US posters I have discussed this issue with haven't the foggiest clue how our country works, and rather than ask the make stuff up. AnchorSteam is very good at that. I'm not saying ever American is a gun toting redneck fool I'm saying the minority who ruin it for all are guarded and spurred on by the general resistance to fight gun controls which made a difference in countries that adopt regulative measures. 

My opinions have been more shaped by the posters. Our of all the US posters I have spoken to, I would say 5% or less see regulation or improving the situation in case they find themselves weapon less, which I feel says a great deal about how complacent most are about gun responsibility. I find the excuse of a tyrannical government invasion outright ridiculous and the threat of home invasion is not proportion to the responses. I have also spoken to very responsible and good people who do support the culture respectfully and are in favour of regulation knowing they are very responsible and have nothing to fear from demonstrating accountability, but the fools who talk like the clown in post #9 are by far the majority. 

These are real people living the life, would you not agree they most likely paint a better picture of the situation than the media? 

Quote

I mean what are they telling you about us and what happens over here? Are they only reporting the worse of the worse to you? Like it's going on 24/7 and we are at war blowing each other away or something? I think we're being misrepresented by a few incidents that occasional happen from to time.

From my perspective its more regular than anywhere else. You have seen how often the killing threads show up. Rarely does a week go by without a new one. We don't even get our own board, there's not enough to discuss, and I don't see the UK boards lighting up with such incidences either. That's not picking on anyone, it's just the state of things. Where regulations exist, gun crime is minimal. Chicago doesn't come close to country wide regulation, it only offers a comparison to other US states. Entire countries with regulation well illustrate the benifit, but are ignored or outright dismissed. 

Quote

Wait a minute...It sounds like you think we're all crazy and have no self control or responsibility while owning a gun. Is that what you think of us? Hell I carry a gun in my glove box too, but I've never thought about pulling it out and pointing it at someone on the road, just because they're driving too slow or for any reason. And most responsible gun owners lock the glove box, if they don't want it stolen, and carry it into the house for the night. I'd appreciate it if you would quit generalizing all of us like that. That's honestly ridiculous.

As I say, it's not the people, it's the adherence to the insistence of owning a weapon that arms them. It's easy for a maniac like Drejka or a mentally ill person like Lanza to get a gun because not enough will agree to the regulations that would stop people form owning without demonstrating responsibility. 

What can one take away from that other than guns are more important to many than lives are? 

Quote

Nah that doesn't effect criminals anyway, even if those advantages didn't exist, since most criminals don't get their guns from legal a source of purchase. In some case they may have stolen them, but usually they buy them cheap along with drugs, traced back all the way from across the Mexican border.

It has to be an advantage. No need to regulate and easy second hand purchase. I don't see how easy access and no registration is not a huge advantage to law enforcement. Police can tell if a gun is legal through a database and find any gun running source easier. 

Quote

Yet who it would have given an advantage to, before the new Florida gun laws, is those who might commit massacres with mental health problems. But guess what? It might interest you to know that Florida has clamped down on potential cases who make threats and have mental health problems as well.

That's is good to hear. 

Quote

That's all in that same article about Florida's new gun laws BTW. Guess you missed that? And I think a lot of other states will soon follow with similar laws, and I think that will help hopefully solve some of the senseless gun massacres we've been having.

Yes I did miss that, I'll have a look and see what has changed. I hope they dump the SYG laws, it seems to get abused often. Two major cases that attracted world wide attention. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 hours ago, Hawken said:

In the US, if a foreign country sent an invading army to conquer, Not only will it face the US military but Armed Citizens.

Citizens will cause havoc on the invaders. In countries where there government took the peoples guns, the invading

army will sweep across their country with little effort.

Your in fantasy land. You do know the year is 2018? You would be wiped out before you knew you were under attack. 

A tyrannical government or invading forces is just ridiculous. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.