The Art of Compromise

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, Doug1029 said:

I don't know just what kind of voltage it would take to turn a hog.  A horse flees from an ordinary electric fence in terror.  But if you tie a green ear of corn on the wire, a cow will stand there and eat it.  Her eyes blink every time the charger hits, but she won't let go of that corn.  We tried to keep ground squirrels out of new tree plantings with a miniature electric fence.  The squirrel would get shocked a couple times and then get mad and charge the fence.  We had one get caught between the two wires and was in danger of electrical frying until I couldn't stand watching him suffer and turned the power off.  Maybe we could do some experimenting to find out whether an electric fence would work against hogs.

P.S.:  people don't believe in signs.  They might reduce liabilities if someone were injured, but I doubt they'd keep most people out.

Doug

It was just a thought.  I remember my cousin's goose got caught in an electric fence and his sister and I screamed until my uncle came out and turned the power off.  The goose walked away, a little dizzy but seemed fine. I guess it isn't really a good idea.

[Gunn]

9 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

So what is a normal use of an assault rifle?  Or an AK 47?  Why would we need a weapon like that?  I understand the use of a hunting rifle or wanting a hand gun for protection, but I don't understand the over the top weapons as toys idea.  Can you explain it to me?  Is it that you just think we should have right to own any fire arm we want?

Well Desertrat56 - I have a MAK-90 Sporter (Modified AK- 1990) with three 5 round clips and I can tell you it comes in big time handy exterminating vermin like coyotes and feral hogs/razerbacks. The feral hogs are a real menace down in the Southern states, especially in Arkansas, Florida and Texas. They cause billions of dollars worth of property/crop damage and have been known to kill people's small pets and even attack humans. When it comes to these vermin, you want to try and kill as many as you can with "weapon like that", because the time it takes to eject an empty shell from a single shot rifle and reload another round, gives one hog a chance to get away or worse - one of their razor tusks has just gashed your leg wide open with lighting speed (in other cases it's killing your dog), because one of them turned around and charged you (or your dog), because even though you already busted a cap in it's ass, but didn't kill it right off, now it's p***ed off and on the attack for it's life, while you're reloading another round. Because you see, shooting slow moving zombies on the attack with a single shot rifle would be easier and much safer.

I could do even better by bringing you on a feral hog hunt and show you exactly one reason why you would want a "weapon like that" versus using a single shot rifle, then trying to explain it to you.  If you were out in the thick woods with me, where you couldn't shoot from a vehicle (trucks and jeeps can't mow down a bunch of thick trees to get to a hog) and space is limited, trust me, you would want that MAK-90 or AR-15 when you are on foot  No single shot rifle will substitute for the danger you go through trying to bring those crazy things down when they stop and turn on you. Besides, I don't know how old you are, but I'm getting too old to climb trees and I couldn't get up one quick enough to save my life anyway.

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Well Desertrat56 - I have a MAK-90 Sporter (Modified AK- 1990) with three 5 round clips and I can tell you it comes in big time handy exterminating vermin like coyotes and feral hogs/razerbacks. The feral hogs are a real menace down in the Southern states, especially in Arkansas, Florida and Texas. They cause billions of dollars worth of property/crop damage and have been known to kill people's small pets and even attack humans. When it comes to these vermin, you want to try and kill as many as you can with "weapon like that", because the time it takes to eject an empty shell from a single shot rifle and reload another round, gives one hog a chance to get away or worse - one of their razor tusks has just gashed your leg wide open with lighting speed (in other cases it's killing your dog), because one of them turned around and charged you (or your dog), because even though you already busted a cap in it's ass, but didn't kill it right off, now it's p***ed off and on the attack for it's life, while you're reloading another round. Because you see, shooting slow moving zombies on the attack with a single shot rifle would be easier and much safer.

I could do even better by bringing you on a feral hog hunt and show you exactly one reason why you would want a "weapon like that" versus using a single shot rifle, then trying to explain it to you.  If you were out in the thick woods with me, where you couldn't shoot from a vehicle (trucks and jeeps can't mow down a bunch of thick trees to get to a hog) and space is limited, trust me, you would want that MAK-90 or AR-15 when you are on foot  No single shot rifle will substitute for the danger you go through trying to bring those crazy things down when they stop and turn on you. Besides, I don't know how old you are, but I'm getting too old to climb trees and I couldn't get up one quick enough to save my life anyway.

Thanks.  You are the 3rd person that mentioned wild hogs.  So you wouldn't have that weapon if you lived in town or a city?

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Thanks.  You are the 3rd person that mentioned wild hogs.  So you wouldn't have that weapon if you lived in town or a city?

I think you might have gotten the wrong impression about where I live, because I actually do live in a medium size city in Florida most of the time. And I do have the MAK-90 stored in a gun safe with me where I live, but I only take it with me, when I and a couple of friends go hunting for feral pigs on occasions in rural hunting areas, swamps, farms, etc. But on the other hand, I also have relatives that live on small family farm in Arkansas about 10 minutes away from a small town, which is where I use to live from childhood before I moved out. And whenever I lived there before I moved out, we've had to hunt down wild boar(they call them razorbacks in Arkansas) and coyotes, and even a few black bears that bothered our livestock or whatever. Yet I have gone back there (to the family farm) for occasional visits, and I still occasional come across those type of vermin/pests and have had to exterminate them, with relatives as backup, to save the family farm, so to speak. I guess you could say it's a family tradition kind of thing, because the vermin in that region are always there causing problems. Never fails.

[RavenHawk]

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

You have an unconventional definition of socialism.

That is true.  You’ve notice that the more Left someone is, the less likely they actually try to understand this view.  I use a more simplified spectrum.  I don’t focus on the differences between the various totalitarian and authoritarian forms of government.  That is what the Left uses to confuse the issue.  I focus on the ultimate goal of all government which is power.  I do believe that I see things as the Founding Fathers did.  This is why we are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic and not something either ‘Right’ or ‘Left’.  There is tyranny in all government and it must be limited to preserve the Rights of the people.  That is what the Constitution does, if we can keep it.

 

So when the government gives everybody free health care for the betterment of their livers with no strings attached, by your definition that is not socialism?  

There are strings attached with healthcare.  My prior comment was a poor explanation on my part.  Perhaps an example will be better??  Let’s say that there is a road between point A and point B.  The government spends money to maintain it.  That expenditure helps everyone in a broad sense.  Now, person 1 may not actually use that road to drive on, so why should that person pay taxes to maintain that road?  Person 1 may still benefit from that road if their food and gas are supplied over that road. 

 

Not everyone needs or wants healthcare and by forcing them to buy it is enslaving a population.  A woman of 70 shouldn’t be paying for reproductive health.  People should secure healthcare only when they need or want it.  Maintenance of a road is pretty static.  You fill the potholes and it’s ready to go.  Paying for healthcare is always increasing and creates rationing.  Forcing people to pay more for others and receive less for themselves.  This paradigm doesn’t help people.  But it does allow a government to control the population.  Someone is always losing out with healthcare.  How far one goes on a road is only limited by their imagination.

 

What Rights do you think are in danger? 

Every single one!  If one can be restricted or taken away, then all of them can be.

 

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are guaranteed. 

If we can keep them.  The Constitution only has power if the people are able to exercise the full range of their Rights.  The government is what threatens them.

 

Beyond that, I don't think there are any guarantees by this government or any other.

That’s exactly right!  At the moment, this government is unique among governments.  And only because of our Founding Documents.  The Left wants to stray from them.

[RavenHawk]

On 11/5/2019 at 7:23 AM, Doug1029 said:

I do not acknowledge that.  You are writing off 375 people every nine months just so you can have a hobby (guns).   That's only justifiable in a sick mind.

Of course you don’t acknowledge it because you’d rather exploit their deaths so you can beat your chest and feel better about yourself.  My “hobby” is protecting *ALL* of my Rights.  They are all tied together.

No matter what happens, we continue to see mass murders.  

No matter what happens, we will continue to see mass murders, even if you take the guns away.  Does that not register with you?

A split-second before he pulled the trigger, the average "mass murderer" was a "law-abiding gun owner."  e have to find some way to [protect ourselves from "law-abiding gun owners."

Be as it may…  It isn’t that easy to take a life.  Because of that, that split-second is usually enough for that law-abiding gun owner to think twice.  Most gun owners have that sense of Responsibility.  They act on their Right.  We are all a split-second from being a mass murderer (and wouldn’t need a gun to do so).  It’s because of our Responsibilities to defend our Rights, we don’t act unwisely as a whole.  Those without a moral fortitude are usually those that fail this sacred trust.

Sounds like you need a civics course so you'll know what rights you think you are defending.

That’s not even an answer.  Which Federalist Paper states that there is no intrinsic Right to own weapons?  And an answer to the other question would be nice too, what do you think gun Rights were intended to be?  

You had stated: “there is no intrinsic right to own a gun, except as a member of a "well-ordered militia."”  If this is the case, then can I assume, in your mind, that when duty with the well-ordered militia is over that the firearms are collected and stored in an armory?  In Washington’s letter I referenced, that last part stated: “that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”  Storing arms in an armory seems to defeat the purpose of “short notice”.  An enemy won’t wait for the people to assemble and retrieve their arms.  And if the armory somehow becomes unavailable, how will the militia secure arms?  The intent was for each individual to own and maintain their own arms for when they are needed, i.e. Minuteman.  Washington pretty much intended that just about everyone be on the rolls of the militia.  So whatever you think the 2nd Amendment says, you are wrong.

Do you think you could go up against a company of Marines, using the weapons of your choice, and beat them?  

Absolutely.  Nothing but farmers stood toe-to-toe with the best military in the world of the time.  It can be done.  Why do you think we haven’t been invaded?

Military services are usually split by revolutions.  Some fight for one side, some for the other, as their commanders decide.

Absolutely and if the government starts turning the military on the people, there will be droves of the military flocking to the people.  Why do you think Obama wanted a NCSF Just as big as the military?  He needed a force loyal to him and the Progressive ideology that could counter the military.

Last week there was a Supreme Court decision by Justice Kavanaugh that business owners could sue people for picketing them, boycotting them, or saying bad things about them, even if true.  

“Even if true”!?  Wow.  Just let that sink in for a while.  Don’t you think if someone’s Right of Free Speech directs them to picket or boycott somebody, that it is that other person’s Right of Free Speech to defend themselves and sue?  Or do you believe that people can be irresponsible and take cheap shots at others without consequences?  Someone that slanders someone else is more irresponsible than a mass murderer.

One by one our rights are eroded while gun owners sit on their asses.  

You are certainly twisting things.  So because Kavanaugh stood up for the 1st Amendment, that we are now losing our Rights?  I don’t think gun owners sat on their asses.  I think they whole heartedly agree with Kavanaugh’s support of the Bill of Rights.

So much for your concern about rights.  You talk tough, but you don't do anything.  

I’m doing plenty standing up to the likes of you and your attempt to do away with our Rights.  Rights for everyone as long as they agree with you?  is that it?

You haven't even got the guts to outlaw automatic weapons.  

I’ve got the guts to standup for them.  Guns to Americans is just like air to breathe.

If gun owners can't find a way to curb the violence, then us non-gun owners will have to find a way to take your toys away from you.

Come and take’em!  The violence has nothing to do with gun owners.  It is Socialist ideology that fosters the violence.  When you attack the family unit, children don’t have the benefit of learning respect for life and guns, or any other Right.

Then it's time for those who want guns to pay that price, instead of foisting it off on grade schoolers.

The nature of violence is to go after the weakest.  Do you think taking away guns will stop that targeting?  We need to address the problem, not the implement.

I was saying that demonstrations/protests are more effective than guns.  When I was a kid there was a strike by postal workers in the New York office.  It was illegal, but that didn't stop them.  Before they went out, workers removed the labels from their cases (Most nail is still put up by hand sorting.).  The National Guard was called in to deliver the mail, but they had no idea what went where and got things hopelessly snarled.  The govt finally settled, the regular folks went back to work and got the mail moving again.  The National Guard was completely inept.

I’m not taking about strikes to correct civil ills.  I’m talking about when a tyrannical government continues to steal Rights from the people, the Founding Fathers gave us two means to affect change.  Either by the ballot or by the bullet.  I prefer the ballot but we must endeavor to keep our swords bright.  What the Left is trying to do is nothing short of a coup.  As long as we remain vigilant, it won’t go any further and that’s what it looks like.  The Left’s fearmongering has become inept.

The Right is making steps toward a police state right now,

Seriously?  Do you need to be reminded who it is that wants to rewrite the Constitution or do away with it?  Who is it attacking the family?  Who is it that wants to control speech?  The answer is, not Conservatives.

or haven't you noticed military trucks and weapons in the hands of police?  

Talk about a CT…

tRUMP's lawyers are arguing that Congress has no oversight function over the executive branch and that the President can do anything he wants.  

That is incorrect.  Oversight is one thing.  What the Left is doing isn’t oversight.  Oversight is when you are collecting facts.  What the Left is doing is inventing facts.  The last I knew, the Legislative and the Executive are co-EQUAL branches.  That means Congress has two means to do their oversight.  Either ask nicely or go to court.  That’s the way the Founding Fathers designed it.  If Congress had oversight over the Executive, then who has oversight over the Legislative?  That must be the President.  Congress is not above the law.

Hasn't gone to court, yet, but we'll see.  

Yes we will.  If we go on track record, this will be a nothing burger as well.  When Schiff gets to the put-up or shut-up point, he shrinks till the next time.

You're civil rights are gradually being eroded, and this by your own champion.  

That is a joke right?  Trump is preserving our rights.  I think your problem is that you think government grants Rights.  That is not so.  “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example and France has followed it, of charters of power granted by liberty.”

I would worry more about the Right abolishing the Bill of Rights than the Left.

You are really full of it.  The Left has been trying to do away with our Rights.  What do you think the purpose of packing the courts does?  Even you have been calling to put limits on the 2nd Amendment.  Just those two things there are an indicator of the desire to abolish the Bill of Rights.
 

[+and-then]

All I've EVER WANTED was for the Constitution to be followed and for rule of law to MEAN something other than being a punchline to a bad joke.  When that's your beginning point, there is no room to compromise further.  After that, all that's left is whether you're willing to bleed to defend it.

[aztek]

especially when it comes to problems that do not exist,  you just can't compromise on that.

[RavenHawk]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:17 AM, Tatetopa said:

What was your oath?  It was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the President or any administration but the Constitution.

Correct, but it also includes protecting the President when he is attacked.  It’s not just to defend the Constitution but also those that live under her (and that includes the people and the President) from all enemies foreign *AND* domestic.

 

I will go so far as to say that your presence has protected us from a tyrannical government up until the present. 

That simple act of “presence” can do a lot to make a tyrannical government back down.  It’s just not me but millions of others as well.  And if you arm them to the teeth, that same tyrannical government thinks twice.  That’s why Trump was elected.  The people surged and the government retreated.  The Left has been trying to counter attack ever since.  It can’t get anywhere as long as people stand and be a presence.  And it will try to wait it out for the people to tire.  Those on the Left will crouch waiting for their shot.  So the people need to be constantly vigilant. 

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It can’t get anywhere as long as people stand and be a presence.  And it will try to wait it out for the people to tire.  Those on the Left will crouch waiting for their shot.  So the people need to be constantly vigilant. 

Absolutely true and when tyranny comes to America, it will come to those who did nothing to stop it and who deserve their plight.

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, and then said:

Absolutely true and when tyranny comes to America, it will come to those who did nothing to stop it and who deserve their plight.

While all you conservative types rant about freedom and tyranny, your rights are being eroded by the very people you elect.

The Patriot Act was voted in by conservative Republicans after the 9/11 attack.  It abolished your gun rights and most of you don't even know it.  Under that act, the President can declare gun owners to be terrorists and the govt can then start rounding up your guns - and you, too, if you object.  Bush had that authority.  Obama had that authority.  And Trump has that authority.  None has used it, but as long as that act exists, the Second Amendment is dead.

You rant about liberals violating the Constitution, yet a woman was fired for giving tRUMP the finger.  That's "protected" free speech, but the First Amendment didn't apply to her.

You claim guns will protect us from crime, yet the US has more guns per person than any other country - and more mass murders, too.  What happened to the Right to Life?

You want freedom of religion, but harass Muslims and shoot up synagogues.  Are Jews and Muslims not entitled to Freedom of Religion?

You want Freedom of Speech, but you allow laws which make it illegal to "malign a fruit or vegetable."  Like turnips have civil rights!  That law was passed by the Idaho legislature after the alar scare.  True that the claims were unfounded and that it cost apple growers a lot of money, but what happens if the next controversy is well-founded?

You want freedom of religion, but do not allow atheists to register as a religion so that you can charge them a $1500 fee for having a savings account (This is in Oklahoma.).

You want freedom of speech, but allow businesses to make frivolous lawsuits against people who criticize them or expose corrupt practices.

 

It;s time to wake up to the fact that your rights are being lost on the right while you're looking at the left.

Doug

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

The Patriot Act was voted in by conservative Republicans after the 9/11 attack.  It abolished your gun rights and most of you don't even know it.  Under that act, the President can declare gun owners to be terrorists and the govt can then start rounding up your guns - and you, too, if you object.  Bush had that authority.  Obama had that authority.  And Trump has that authority.  None has used it, but as long as that act exists, the Second Amendment is dead.

 

Doug, what you are talking about only refers to people who make terroristic threats, not all people who own guns. That is exactly what is happening now with the latest arrests with potential mass shooters, they made terroristic threats and got arrested under that act. And I think you know, that you and O'Rourke will never see mass gun confiscation in your  entire lifetimes or the government would have made it permanently happen back in 1994.

So what's with all this psychological stab at gun owners, Doug?

[Doug1029]

23 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Doug, what you are talking about only refers to people who make terroristic threats, not all people who own guns. That is exactly what is happening now with the latest arrests with potential mass shooters, they made terroristic threats and got arrested under that act. And I think you know, that you and O'Rourke will never see mass gun confiscation in your  entire lifetimes or the government would have made it permanently happen back in 1994.

So what's with all this psychological stab at gun owners, Doug?

The President can define "terrorist" any way he wants to.  The law is very definite about that.  That's why I think we should repeal the Patriot Act.  We can detain people who kill people under other laws that don't endanger the Bill of Rights.

And I agree that I will likely never see mass gun confiscation.  It isn't necessary.  I think we can fix the problem without confiscating most guns.

But I am very tired of the gun-lobby bs and their constant opposition to any reasonable effort at getting murder weapons off the streets.  Open carry:  do you think the unwashed weirdo sitting in the next booth is there for your protection?  Do you feel safer because a bunch of right-wing nuts is walking around the parking lot carrying loaded automatics?

Our state legislature wanted to legalize guns on campus.  When I was an undergrad, one kid shot another one while playing a fast-draw game.  These are the people the legislature wants to arm.

I am also tired of the sheer hypocrisy of people who self-righteously talk about "defending freedom" while letting those freedoms be taken away.  Protecting our liberties has to be about ore than carrying a gin around or we will lose what liberties we still have.

Doug

Edited November 8, 2019 by Doug1029

[Gunn]

2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

The President can define "terrorist" any way he wants to.  The law is very definite about that.  That's why I think we should repeal the Patriot Act.  We can detain people who kill people under other laws that don't endanger the Bill of Rights.

Well anybody can, but it doesn't mean they have the constitutional right or they would get away with it if they try. And there is a myth going around in relation to that;

Quote

 

Section 802. Definition of domestic terrorism.

• Summary: Adds to 18 U.S.C. § 2331 a new definition of "domestic terrorism," similar to the existing definition of "international terrorism."
   
• Myth: "Expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." [ACLU, Feb. 11, 2003]; The Patriot Act includes "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" [ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor, "Backlash Grows against Patriot Act- But Critics Miss the Mark," Fulton County Daily Report, Aug. 5, 2003]
   
• Reality:
   
  • Section 802's definition of "domestic terrorism" is extremely narrow - indeed, it is much narrower than the pre-existing definition of "international terrorism."
     
  • Individuals and groups would be eligible for surveillance under this definition only if they engage in criminal wrongdoing that could result in death. That is so because the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life.
     
    • In addition, law enforcement would have to show that the conduct appears to have been committed with a specified terrorism related intent, and that the conduct occurred primarily in the U.S.
       
    • By contrast, an individual would fall within the definition of "international terrorism" whenever he or she commits a crime that involves "violent" conduct.

 

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/add_myths.htm#s802

Quote

And I agree that I will likely never see mass gun confiscation.  It isn't necessary.  I think we can fix the problem without confiscating most guns.

Doug I think we can fix the problem too, but without confiscating any guns that are acceptable to own under current Fed/state laws. And I'm willing to bet some of my money on what the LEO's are currently doing now to stop potential mass shootings as one example.

Quote

But I am very tired of the gun-lobby bs and their constant opposition to any reasonable effort at getting murder weapons off the streets.  Open carry:  do you think the unwashed weirdo sitting in the next booth is there for your protection?  Do you feel safer because a bunch of right-wing nuts is walking around the parking lot carrying loaded automatics?

I have to admit I got mixed feelings about that, Doug. Yet, I grew up seeing guns in the back windows of trucks, guys walking around with side arms in small town rural communities, although some of them were off duty police officers or a constable, and some women even carried a pistol in their purse for protection. I was never bothered by that back then, still not to some degree to be honest. On the other hand, that stupid ass Drejka who was recently sentenced 30 years is exactly the kind of person that should have had his concealed carry permit revoked. He had a history of road rage and making threats, but unfortunately the victims never pressed charges. Anyway, I think states do need to at least revise some of those open carry/concealed carry laws involving people making unwarranted threats just because they feel they can while be armed and the other person is not.

Quote

Our state legislature wanted to legalize guns on campus.  When I was an undergrad, one kid shot another one while playing a fast-draw game.  These are the people the legislature wants to arm.

Does your thoughts on that have anything to do with this;

Permitless carry law to go into effect on Nov. 1 in Oklahoma

Seems they let the "education institutions to set their own policies regarding the carrying of firearms on campuses", which sounds reasonable to me in that regard concerning campuses. I'd rather have security guards on campus. I believe they're much more effective in deterrence.

Quote

 

I am also tired of the sheer hypocrisy of people who self-righteously talk about "defending freedom" while letting those freedoms be taken away.  Protecting our liberties has to be about ore than carrying a gin around or we will lose what liberties we still have.

Doug

 

I know what you're saying, giving the list of things you mentioned in your previous post, and I'll just say - you have a point, but it's a double edge sword that swings both ways and I've seen other kinds of hypocrisy on other issues come from both sides. But then again, I'm a Independent that doesn't always agree with either left or right political opinions.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Gunn said:

Does your thoughts on that have anything to do with this;

Permitless carry law to go into effect on Nov. 1 in Oklahoma

No.  There was an attempt several years ago to make guns legal everywhere.  It failed.  That was what I was referring to.

The student gun fight occurred in Idaho back in the 1960s.

I have to get some stuff done. Be back layter.

Doug

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Gunn said:

Well anybody can, but it doesn't mean they have the constitutional right or they would get away with it if they try. And there is a myth going around in relation to that;

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/add_myths.htm#s802

Thanks for posting that.  I have some reading to do.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

On 11/8/2019 at 12:06 PM, Gunn said:

I have to admit I got mixed feelings about that, Doug. Yet, I grew up seeing guns in the back windows of trucks, guys walking around with side arms in small town rural communities, although some of them were off duty police officers or a constable, and some women even carried a pistol in their purse for protection. I was never bothered by that back then, still not to some degree to be honest.

Me too.  One of my friends and I used to bungee our .22's to our bike handlebars ride our of town to a farm belonging to a friend of my father.  He had a nice safe clay gully on his place  where we could shoot.

But open carry of assault rifles and other long guns for show and demonstration purposes still makes me nervous.  I know it can be dome but it is unwise and very antisocial.  I have been in the grocery store a couple of tomes when a guy was not shopping but just strolling around for display.  It makes women and kids and store personnel nervous.  You may disagree, but people that do this sort of thing do not seem like level headed responsible gun owners to me.

If I were a clerk in a 7-11,  I would figure anybody with a rifle in plain sight was coming in to rob me and sound the alarm. One doesn't need a lot of self defense in a convenience store. 

 

[Gunn]

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Me too.  One of my friends and I used to bungee our .22's to our bike handlebars ride our of town to a farm belonging to a friend of my father.  He had a nice safe clay gully on his place  where we could shoot.

But open carry of assault rifles and other long guns for show and demonstration purposes still makes me nervous.  I know it can be dome but it is unwise and very antisocial.  I have been in the grocery store a couple of tomes when a guy was not shopping but just strolling around for display.  It makes women and kids and store personnel nervous.  You may disagree, but people that do this sort of thing do not seem like level headed responsible gun owners to me.

If I were a clerk in a 7-11,  I would figure anybody with a rifle in plain sight was coming in to rob me and sound the alarm. One doesn't need a lot of self defense in a convenience store. 

 

I know what you mean, you're talking about be the idotic jerkoffs who have their guns in their hands and wave/flash them at you for the soul purpose of intimidation. That's what that's all about. They're not there to hunt (well hopefully not people regardless), they're not there in a war zone, no one else is threatening them with another gun, but they have no civility and feel they need to compensate for their unmasculinity by flashing their gun in your face, as if to say - hey this is my real penis and I feel much bigger then all of you.

Yeah idiots like that make the rest of us law abiding gun owners look bad. I don't play around flashing my guns around like a bandit, like they're toys, disturbing the peace, I think it's just plain stupid. You might see me with a side arm on my hip, usually out in woods or on lone rural road if I'm walking, or at a shooting range, etc., but you'll never see me draw it out of it's holster without a damn good sane reason. Same thing with the MAK-90 I own, if I'm not out in the woods, plains, desert hunting with it, if I'm not taking it to the gunsmith for repairs, shooting range, it either stays in a locked vehicle or in a gun safe. I've got no other reason to have it out in my hands, waving it around for all to see, because that's a damn good way to get shot by a cop.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Gunn

[RavenHawk]

11 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

The President can define "terrorist" any way he wants to.  The law is very definite about that.  That's why I think we should repeal the Patriot Act.

No $-hit sherlock!  Just like how Napolitano tried to define terrorists?  I think we do have other laws.  The Patriot Act isn’t the only way to define terrorists.  I’m not a fan of what the PA has evolved into but the other part of the equation is character.  Character determines everything.  It wasn’t in Bush’s character to abuse the PA.  It might have been with some of his subordinates.  Obama’s character didn’t waste a second to abuse it (power in general) and turn it on the American people.  And it readily transferred down to the Deep State.  Obama basically gave them a blank check.  It is simply not in Trump’s character to abuse it.  Again, Trump is no angel but his character is honest.  If something isn’t done, there will be another Obama and this one will have the audacity like never before.  Our laws must take into consideration human nature and limit the tendency of that abuse.  Which means to eliminate Socialism.  That was the whole point to our Constitution.  To provide checks and balances to stop abuse and corruption.  Our system is working pretty good considering.  No, it doesn’t prevent it but it does correct it.  Trump is the correction in the system.

 

We can detain people who kill people under other laws that don't endanger the Bill of Rights.

Killing does endanger the Bill of Rights.  When someone kills someone else, the murderer violates the Rights of the victim.  It’s not any of our Rights that is responsible for the killing.  It is the murderer that is Responsible.

 

And I agree that I will likely never see mass gun confiscation.  It isn't necessary.  I think we can fix the problem without confiscating most guns.

You say you’re for a “top limit” on the number of guns one can own yet you say it isn’t necessary.  What type of double-speak is that?  When you take away just one ounce of a Right, you’ve effectively confiscated the own thing.  And when you take one Right, you’ve effectively confiscated them all.  And when that happens, we become nothing more than a Proletariat.  The Proletariat is the opposite of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  As long as you are fixated on guns, you’ll never solve the problem.  But then that’s the point.  If there are no endless problems, then the Left loses power.

 

But I am very tired of the gun-lobby bs and their constant opposition to any reasonable effort at getting murder weapons off the streets. 

Thank God for the NRA!  The last true bastion of freedom in this country.  Do you understand that your version of “reasonable” is different than reality?  “Reasonable” is a vague indeterminate amount that can mean just about anything.  Typical Leftist double-talk.  Reasonable would be to not touch the 2A and in fact begin to return what has been already taken.  To the Left, “reasonable” is only a means to remove the last line of defense the people have from a tyrannical government.

 

Open carry:  do you think the unwashed weirdo sitting in the next booth is there for your protection? 

I guess anyone who doesn’t think like you is an unwashed weirdo.  My guess is that you’re severely outnumbered.  I really hope that that guy is not here to protect me.  I hope he is here to protect himself.  And if I worry about protecting myself, then we can help each other.  That’s how it is supposed to work.  The Invisible Hand even works here.

 

Do you feel safer because a bunch of right-wing nuts is walking around the parking lot carrying loaded automatics?

As I’ve said before, Left and Right wing are virtually the same.  I would feel much safer with armed Americans accustomed to exercising their Rights and Responsibilities.  The way to start is to establish the expectation.

 

Our state legislature wanted to legalize guns on campus.  When I was an undergrad, one kid shot another one while playing a fast-draw game.  These are the people the legislature wants to arm.

What do you expect?  There was nothing wrong with allowing guns on campus but they didn’t consider ensuring that people know how to be responsible.  When one is not used to exercising their full Rights and developing their Responsibilities should only be expected to screw up their Rights.  It takes a little time and effort for people to grow.  When the population becomes more mature on the subject then stunts like that will stop.

 

I am also tired of the sheer hypocrisy of people who self-righteously talk about "defending freedom" while letting those freedoms be taken away.  Protecting our liberties has to be about ore than carrying a gin around or we will lose what liberties we still have.

I’m tired of ignorance and apathy.  What do you think was happening under Obama?  The Socialist agenda was in full play.  Trump is putting a muzzle on the government and unleashing our power.  But we need to meet him half way.  That’s what every President should do.  He is this nation’s greatest cheerleader.

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, Gunn said:

You might see me with a side arm on my hip, usually out in woods or on lone rural road if I'm walking, or at a shooting range, etc., but you'll never see me draw it out of it's holster without a damn good sane reason. Same thing with the MAK-90 I own, if I'm not out in the woods, plains, desert hunting with it, if I'm not taking it to the gunsmith for repairs, shooting range, it either stays in a locked vehicle or in a gun safe.

Same here in Oregon, especially the eastern part, lots of holstered weapons and full gunracks in the back of pickups  and everyday friendly people for the most part.

 

[Doug1029]

On 11/10/2019 at 12:12 AM, RavenHawk said:

When you take away just one ounce of a Right, you’ve effectively confiscated the own thing.  And when you take one Right, you’ve effectively confiscated them all. 

One thing gun owners are NOT doing is protecting the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  They quietly sit on their butts watching the govt take away our rights one little piece at a time.

On 11/10/2019 at 12:12 AM, RavenHawk said:

You say you’re for a “top limit” on the number of guns one can own yet you say it isn’t necessary.  What type of double-speak is that?

Read all my posts, not just one out of context.  There is no need to do away with gun ownership.  But nobody needs to own an entire arsenal.  What's a arsenal?  That needs to be defined.

On 11/10/2019 at 12:12 AM, RavenHawk said:

Thank God for the NRA!  The last true bastion of freedom in this country. 

You mean that bunch that undermines our elections by funneling Russian money into political advertising?  Exactly what "rights" are they defending?  Sounds more like treason to me.

On 11/10/2019 at 12:12 AM, RavenHawk said:

My guess is that you’re severely outnumbered. 

78% of Americans don't own a gun.  

On 11/10/2019 at 12:12 AM, RavenHawk said:

What do you expect?  There was nothing wrong with allowing guns on campus ....

Except that children should not be carrying loaded weapons.

On 11/10/2019 at 12:12 AM, RavenHawk said:

I’m tired of ignorance and apathy.

Then you need to do some reading and start caring.

 

The topic of this thread is (or was) what things would you give up in exchange for what other ones?  You seem to be very clear about wanting to have no limits on guns.  So what are you willing to give up to keep that?

Doug

[RavenHawk]

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

One thing gun owners are NOT doing is protecting the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  They quietly sit on their butts watching the govt take away our rights one little piece at a time.

Really?  I think you are missing a whole lot of things.  Gun owners are protecting the Constitution by simply and quietly exercising their rights.  They are protecting the Constitution by electing and supporting Trump.  Sounds like you think that the only way that gun owners have to react to tyranny is armed conflict.  Jefferson discussed the concept in the Declaration of Independence.  About long suffering, but there comes a time to throw off the old ways and institute new safeguards.  Without the ability to arm against a tyrannical government, the vote can be overturned.  We are seeing an attempt right now to subvert the government.

Read all my posts, not just one out of context.  

I believe that's what I did.  Well, two different posts from two different threads.

There is no need to do away with gun ownership.  

Where have we heard that before?  Obama never wanted to take our guns, he just wanted to take the ammo.  A clever loophole in the 2A.  It really wasn't because the ammo *is* part of the right.

But nobody needs to own an entire arsenal.  

Why not?

What's a arsenal?  That needs to be defined.

Of course.  By the time the Left is finished with the definition, an arsenal will be a derringer with one shot.

You mean that bunch that undermines our elections by funneling Russian money into political advertising?  

And we have Fake News sign.

Exactly what "rights" are they defending?  Sounds more like treason to me.

All our rights.  As I've said, without the 2A, the others are just an afterthought.

78% of Americans don't own a gun.  

And?  You don't need to own a gun to exercise your right.  The Right has less to do with actually owning a gun as it is about having the Responsibility.

Except that children should not be carrying loaded weapons.

Just not to long ago, that wasn't a problem.  So what has changed between then and now?

Then you need to do some reading and start caring.

Yawn!  

The topic of this thread is (or was) what things would you give up in exchange for what other ones?  You seem to be very clear about wanting to have no limits on guns.  So what are you willing to give up to keep that?

I was only joking when I stated that I would be willing to give up Socialism to keep our Rights, But after second thought, that is no joke.  I've said this several times to you, but our Rights are inalienable, which for all practical purposes means no limits.  Except for what is placed on them by the individual.
 

[Hankenhunter]

48 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Really?  I think you are missing a whole lot of things.  Gun owners are protecting the Constitution by simply and quietly exercising their rights.  They are protecting the Constitution by electing and supporting Trump.  Sounds like you think that the only way that gun owners have to react to tyranny is armed conflict.  Jefferson discussed the concept in the Declaration of Independence.  About long suffering, but there comes a time to throw off the old ways and institute new safeguards.  Without the ability to arm against a tyrannical government, the vote can be overturned.  We are seeing an attempt right now to subvert the government.

I believe that's what I did.  Well, two different posts from two different threads.

Where have we heard that before?  Obama never wanted to take our guns, he just wanted to take the ammo.  A clever loophole in the 2A.  It really wasn't because the ammo *is* part of the right.

Why not?

Of course.  By the time the Left is finished with the definition, an arsenal will be a derringer with one shot.

And we have Fake News sign.

All our rights.  As I've said, without the 2A, the others are just an afterthought.

And?  You don't need to own a gun to exercise your right.  The Right has less to do with actually owning a gun as it is about having the Responsibility.

Just not to long ago, that wasn't a problem.  So what has changed between then and now?

Yawn!  

I was only joking when I stated that I would be willing to give up Socialism to keep our Rights, But after second thought, that is no joke.  I've said this several times to you, but our Rights are inalienable, which for all practical purposes means no limits.  Except for what is placed on them by the individual.
 

 

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Really?  I think you are missing a whole lot of things.  Gun owners are protecting the Constitution by simply and quietly exercising their rights.  They are protecting the Constitution by electing and supporting Trump.  Sounds like you think that the only way that gun owners have to react to tyranny is armed conflict.  Jefferson discussed the concept in the Declaration of Independence.  About long suffering, but there comes a time to throw off the old ways and institute new safeguards.  Without the ability to arm against a tyrannical government, the vote can be overturned.  We are seeing an attempt right now to subvert the government.

Tomorrow Comcast will appear before the Supreme Court to try to get the Civil Rights Act of 1866 overturned.  If it succeeds, and that is quite likely with Kavanaugh on the bench, your/my rights will be one nibble smaller.  Every few days there is a court case challenging some aspect of our rights and it is mostly tRUMP appointees who allow them to be overturned.  And gun owners, for the most part, like everybody else, don't even know it's happening.

Doug

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I was only joking when I stated that I would be willing to give up Socialism to keep our Rights, But after second thought, that is no joke.  I've said this several times to you, but our Rights are inalienable, which for all practical purposes means no limits.  Except for what is placed on them by the individual.

What thing/right do you have now that you would be willing to give up to ensure that socialism is never seen in America?

 

The Tennessee Valley Authority, Columbia River Dams, locks and dams on the Ohio River and two dams on the Colorado are govt owned and operated.  So are National Forests, Bureau of Land Management lands and the National Park Service.  That's govt ownership of capital - the very definition of communism.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of companies owned by their employees.  That's worker ownership of capital - the definition of socialism.

And we have private ownership of companies - that's private ownership of capital - the definition of capitalism.  All co-existing in the United State of America.  This has been the case since before there was a Bill of Rights.

So what don't you like about workers owning the companies they work for?

Doug