Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?

Official TSP Center polls.

Moderator: Aitrus

Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?

Yes
27
13%
No
180
87%
 
Total votes: 207

Toadystyle
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Toadystyle »

Relevant came up with some great quotes, however those quotes came from another lifetime. The purpose of those quotes is to reinforce the fact that the masses shall not be oppressed by government, and if they are they shall overthrow said government.

That is not the case today. They were making those statements in the days when weapons were essentially even. Today your AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is no match against, Apache's, C-130 gunships, F-22's, M1A1 Abrams or any other of the weapons at the disposal of the governments of the developed world.

User avatar
wulfent
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:17 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by wulfent »

Allow me to quote a famous politition:
"This year will go down in history, For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Any one know or care to guess who said this and when?

User avatar
Snapdragon
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Snapdragon »

Toadystyle wrote:Relevant came up with some great quotes, however those quotes came from another lifetime. The purpose of those quotes is to reinforce the fact that the masses shall not be oppressed by government, and if they are they shall overthrow said government.

That is not the case today. They were making those statements in the days when weapons were essentially even. Today your AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is no match against, Apache's, C-130 gunships, F-22's, M1A1 Abrams or any other of the weapons at the disposal of the governments of the developed world.


If something big were to happen, along the lines of overthrowing the government, who says the military and police won't be on our side? At the very beginning maybe not, but when it was clear cut on what is happening and why, I have faith in my brothers and sisters to stand by my side and fight with me, not against me.

User avatar
Relevant
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:01 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Relevant »

Toadystyle wrote:Relevant came up with some great quotes, however those quotes came from another lifetime. The purpose of those quotes is to reinforce the fact that the masses shall not be oppressed by government, and if they are they shall overthrow said government.

That is not the case today. They were making those statements in the days when weapons were essentially even. Today your AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is no match against, Apache's, C-130 gunships, F-22's, M1A1 Abrams or any other of the weapons at the disposal of the governments of the developed world.


That is why the National Guard is under the command of the State Governors. They do have F-16's etc.. It is part of the checks and balances.

Military troops may not hesitate to arrest or detain unarmed citizens at the direction of a President but I would hope they would think twice if armed citizens were defending their rights.

You're correct that armed citizens are no match against a modern military but it is a detterent.

That "Other Time" is still "Relevant" today.

User avatar
Relevant
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:01 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Relevant »

wulfent wrote:Allow me to quote a famous politition:
"This year will go down in history, For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Any one know or care to guess who said this and when?


Adolph Hitler, 1935

He also said the following:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Aitrus »

The following reasons are why we have the 2nd Amendment:

1 - To protect ourselves from our government, doesn't matter if that govermnet is local, state or Federal
2 - To protect our land from an invading force
3 - To stop bad guys from doing bad things to good people
4 - To provide sustenance for ourselves should we choose / need to

#1 has been used several times in our nation's history, most recently in 1946 in the Battle of Athens.

#2 was used during WWII. The Japanese had a plan to invade Alaska (then just a territory), take over the oil fields and other resources, then invade the US down through Canada. After they landed on Atak Island, the US bombed the living bajeezus out of the place, and Alaskans took up arms. The Japanese war ministry decided that invasion would be a bad idea because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

#3 is used daily. The number of crimes comitted with a gun is paltry compared how many crimes aren't comitted because the bad guy suspects his victim has a means of defense, or when that defense is actually used but no shots are fired. I myself have made somebody think twice just by placing my hand on my CCW and giving them a look that conveyed in no uncertain terms that I was ready to do whatever was necessary to protect myself and my loved ones.

#4 is also used daily. I'm from Alaska originally, and I grew up hunting and fishing. Until I joined the military I ate way, way more home-ground moose and elk burgers than I did beef burgers.

All these things, #1 - 4, were just as true in 1776 as they are today.

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the "Bill of Needs". Nobody has the right to tell me what firearms I can own, which I "need" or what I "need them for". Limiting magazine capacity is telling me what I "need". Limiting the type of firearm I choose to own is telling me what I "need". Different firearms have different uses. A handgun is not a shotgun, a shotgun is not a .22 single shot, a .22 single shot is not an AR-15, an AR-15 is not a muzzleloader, a muzzleloader is not a hunting rifle. Each firearm has specific uses. Limiting the number of firearms I can own is telling me what I "need".

We already have a background check system, and it works just fine for it's intended purpose. We can't get wrapped all around the axle when somebody slips through the cracks. Even if we had a complete blackout on firearm ownership, or registration and mandatory annual inspeciton of our firearms at the federally-managed armory where they're stored, we would still have criminals with guns who shoot up shopping malls and schools. The problem isn't the background checks, it's how we deal with our criminals and mentally ill.

Yes, it's indeed a tragedy when somebody goes out and shoots up a school or theatre. But I consider that to be a cost of freedom (along with other costs). I consider the deaths of children by firearm to be less an evil than the subjugation of an entire people where not just children, but their mothers, fathers, doctors, priests, and everybody else is subject to torture and death at the hands of a tyrranical and out of control government. Just look at China, North Korea, or any country run by Sharia law.

Fewer children die by firearm per year than die by cancer, or by disease, or by auto accident, or by malpractice. Deaths caused by a firearm fired by another is very, very low. Any stastic you see based on "firearm deaths" also includes suicides, which makes up about half of the stastic.

We're focused on firearms because it's so traumatic, there's tons of emotion, so many die in a short time, and because it makes for great ratings. If we compared the numbers, we should logically and ethically be more outraged by so many other things. We could have solved cancer by now if we had really wanted to, but we've chosen not to. And that's just one example of how skewed our priorities are.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
grizzly386
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by grizzly386 »

I think Skiehawk said it best when he stated that any law limiting law abiding citizens to possess and acquire firearms effects only law abiding citizens.

I have a couple of points for everyone to consider. First and foremost there are EVIL people in this world and no matter what law you make, they will find a way to deliver their evil regardless of type of gun, number of bullets, etc. These monsters prey upon the weak and usually will not go against someone with similiar force. When they do, they lose, or take their own life. I cannot understand how someone could have the will and mental capacity to take the lives of small children. Look past the device and try to figure out what made this person do the things he did, if we can. I honestly believe that this monster would have utilized whatever he could to conduct this gruesome act as well as the others.

I believe that our current lawmakers are trying to figure out ways to protect people, especially our children, but the current draft of the law would not have prevented the recent incident from happening again. My suggestion would be rather than be swayed by political winds to take a look at the issue and try to fix it for the betterment of the "PEOPLE" not what your political affiliation dictates. There have been some states that have enacted laws to prevent persons with a propriety of violence (domestic violence, etc.) from having the ability to own or carry a firearm. They created and ENFORCE the law, which is the most important issue of any law. If you don't enforce it, its not worth the paper its written on.

One of the biggest hurdles I think they have is the background checks. Most people would agree that if someone had a serious history of mental problems then they should be banned from owning or carrying a firearm. However, who decides on what classifies it as serious. Would someone be reported to a national database (whole other issue) who has sought long-term mental health assistance when dealing with a loss of a love one, divorce, return from combat, etc. Plus where do we draw the line on doctor patient confidentiality.

Finally, when enacting a law that effects the entire US, our lawmakers need to ensure that it is thought through not pushed through. They need to think about the cause and effect of the law. For example if you have a mandatory background check, what do you do when a father wants to pass along to his son/daughter a hunting rifle? Those kind of discussions. I do agree that the loopholes should be closed and that is where I would start but also looking at the point I previously made.

Whatever is proposed, I will ensure to educate myself on the proposed law, not listen to the media, and express my concerns with all of my elected representative. If I feel they are more worried about party affiliation, then I will do my part, and cast my vote not to have them continue the services of the PEOPLE.

TSPKip
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:34 am

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by TSPKip »

Aitrus: You have good points. You make the cost of restriction argument, whether it is acceptable filth argument by the FDA [amount of rat feces per pound of flour] , or the total deaths of children by outlawing abortion [pregnant adolescents plus fetus deaths inevitable due to back room abortions] vs legal abortion.

If one has a screen on a window which has a mesh small enough to stop mosquitoes, but, this only covers 60% of the window, one should not call that system good for it's accepted purpose. Just stop all background checks, or, screen the entire window.
Seek Wisdom where it can be found.

mwnuk
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:47 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by mwnuk »

The poll seems to be worded in a way to encurage one answer. That being said, I own a gun and dont see anything wrong with assalt riffles or mag size. Their are collectors for things alot nuttier than that. Background checks are a no brainer though. No one knows how many background checks have stopped criminals from buying guns because restrictions have been placed on the governments ability to keep track. That is just nuts.

User avatar
MakeMe$$$$
Posts: 772
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:12 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by MakeMe$$$$ »

So, I guess the answer is go ahead an build an arsenal? Perhaps become a merc for the Koch brothers because they can afford to stockpile all manner of weapons? After all, it sounds like the only way some think the government will change is through a well maintained militia exercising a vigorous 2nd amendment campaign. Where is Sara Palin (the American version of Joan of Arc) when you need a leader?

All this quoting of things by Hitler and our founding fathers whom never new the level of weaponry that would be developed is all nice and interesting. I'm just wondering where all of these folks stood on human rights...you know slavery, indigenous populations, lynching and such. I bet few white southerners "back in the day" (and probably today) felt the bill of rights applied to non-whites.

I just get freaking tired of all this constitutional tongue wagging based on some utopian worshiping of the founding fathers like they had it all figured out for the next 3 millennium. These are the same folks that supported slavery, began the concept of manifest destiny and took weapons away from the natives unless it benefited their agenda.

It just pisses me off that the rabid 2nd amendment folks tend to be of the red state philosophy variety that want to circumvent other's voting rights by trumped up voter registration rules (fixing a problem that doesn't exist) and voter suppression. They seem to be ignoring the (theoretically) constitutional principles of a democratically based government. What is even funnier is that swing states with a majority of red state-level seats are the battle front of this attempt to rig elections while the red states don't want these changes because they are already rigged. Ya, if you don't like the way a vote count ended up, just change the laws to help change.

The reality is that we are no longer a democracy. With the SCOTUS endorsing Citizens United we are now under the control of a government that is bought and sold on the auction block. We are now a Capitalist government and those with the money (ergo the guns) will control those without the money. Hell, those that MAKE the guns will be king.

So, ya'll have convinced me that we need MANY MORE GUNS. Hell, we need bigger and better guns for all. Then, all we need to do is have another civil war and let the vultures pick the good ole' US of A's carcass clean. We need to arm all teachers and pubic officials. We need more towns to pass laws that require gun ownership and abridge an individual's rights to NOT own a gun. We need every little league to raffle off AR15s to earn thousands of dollars. We need every restaurant, bar and grill to require patrons to pack heat. I can see it now, does the S&W go to the left of the salad fork or to the right of the spoons. (I bet Emily Post would say it would depend on whether the guest is right or left handed.) Which is a better place setting accessory for dinner, a chromed snub nosed revolver or black semi-automatic?

Ya, I know this will spin way out of control but what the heck. Since we are quoting Hitler and preparing for a governmental Armageddon there isn't anything to loose anyway. It must be time to double down my investments in guns, ammo, bunker builders and the whole survivalists genre of industries. We won't have to worry about the Chinese owning America because we will make it easy for them. So, go ahead and make my day.

Yep, it will be just like a circle firing squad.
Don
Rolled over to Fidelity 2/24/18.
Fantasy still playing with Daily Strategy 12767.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Aitrus »

TSPKip,

Your point is valid - if the screen covers only 60% of the window then why have a screen at all? So what if we just completely covered the window with a black plastic sheet? This would ensure that no bugs get in at all. But at the same time we would eliminate the whole reason we had the window in the first place - to let in sunlight and fresh air. There are those who would treat the 2nd Amendment issue with a black plastic sheet - Senator Feinstein, the Brady bunch, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns just to name a few. They would limit the right so extensively that we might as well not have a right at all.

A 100% background checks on absolutely all transactions and covering a very wide range of topics means that there has to be databases, and databases open the door for further government regulation. Just look at what happened with the Journal News did in New York back in December - published a list, complete with a map, of all the people in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties who owned a CCW. They got this information under a FOIA request. Any government-maintained database for registration, list of background check submissions, list of mentaly ill, etc would be subject to the same FOIA request.

And Grizzly has a good point as well - who gets to define what "mentally ill" means? Is somebody who goes to a marriage counselor mentally ill? What about going to AA? What about acting out in high school and getting suspended? What about those who never get classified as "mentally ill" yet still have mental issues that never get identified before they go to the gun show?

In the end, I believe it's a case of just accepting things as they are. We have a place in this Circle of Life, and we can't be ashamed or self deprecating of our location, for doing so would be to deny who and what we are as humans. We accept that sickness and death is a part of life. We accept that we get hungry, tired, horny, irritated, angry, frustrated, happy, and a whole host of other things both pleasant and unpleasant. We need to accept that defense of one's own life and the life of his loved ones is a right that isn't granted by Man. It's granted by Nature. It's why we have fingernails, testosterone, and an affinity with tools, firearms in this case.

Since Man didn't grant the right, he has no ethical responsibility to limit that right for himself or his fellow members of the species. Doing so under the guise of "For the children" or "For the safety of the whole" is exactly what we left Europe for. Of the 5 basic forms of government, Monarchy, Oligarchy and Democracy often do things "for the good of the whole" in order to gain power and control. In a Democracy, the rights of the few are eliminated in favor of the wishes of the majority.

We are a Republic, and therefore the rights of the individual are protected by law. In our land, the Constitution is the ultimate Law of the Land. And the 2nd Amendment limits the actions of the Federal Government, not the actions of the People. "A well regulated militia..." doesn't mean that the Government regulates the militia, the milita regulates itself. It drills, has structure, etc. The National Guard doesn't fit this description because while it is well regulated, it is regulated by the Government. The "...shall not be infringed." portion seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Relevant
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:01 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Relevant »

I've sworn to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC - with my life if necessay. Every last word of it, as written, as intended by the original authors and interpreted by the Supreme Court of this land, or properly ammended IAW Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The End

Toadystyle
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Toadystyle »

Relevent and Aitrus, you each have referenced my point of a well regulated militia.

Relevent you referenced the National Guard, which is as the amendment states, a well regulated militia.

Aitrus, you referenced the Battle of Athens. The agressors in this situation raided a National Guard Armory. Again, what should be well regulated.

I know people point to the battle of Athens as a reason guns are needed, however look beyond the story and you will see that there was a mob mentality and they became the agressor when they fired on local pd without being fired upon themselves. That is dangerous.

Well said Makeme$$$$

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by Aitrus »

So, I guess the answer is go ahead an build an arsenal? Perhaps become a merc for the Koch brothers because they can afford to stockpile all manner of weapons? After all, it sounds like the only way some think the government will change is through a well maintained militia exercising a vigorous 2nd amendment campaign.


History has proven that the most effective change is accomplished through force of arms. Take that away, and you take away any meaningful potential for true change according to the wishes of the People.

All this quoting of things by Hitler and our founding fathers whom never new the level of weaponry that would be developed is all nice and interesting. I'm just wondering where all of these folks stood on human rights...you know slavery, indigenous populations, lynching and such. I bet few white southerners "back in the day" (and probably today) felt the bill of rights applied to non-whites.

I just get freaking tired of all this constitutional tongue wagging based on some utopian worshiping of the founding fathers like they had it all figured out for the next 3 millennium. These are the same folks that supported slavery, began the concept of manifest destiny and took weapons away from the natives unless it benefited their agenda.


And you are so enlightened that you know better than they what is best for the next 3 milennium?

It just pisses me off that the rabid 2nd amendment folks tend to be of the red state philosophy variety that want to circumvent other's voting rights by trumped up voter registration rules (fixing a problem that doesn't exist) and voter suppression. They seem to be ignoring the (theoretically) constitutional principles of a democratically based government. What is even funnier is that swing states with a majority of red state-level seats are the battle front of this attempt to rig elections while the red states don't want these changes because they are already rigged. Ya, if you don't like the way a vote count ended up, just change the laws to help change.


I'm not saying that the red side is empty of intregity. Both sides suffer from this affliction. On the blue side they manipulate as well, just in different ways. Not saying it's ok for either side to do it, just that it happens on both sides.

And we are a nation of laws, a Republic. If you can't follow the law (register to vote properly) then you don't deserve to reap the benefits those laws provide to you.

The reality is that we are no longer a democracy. With the SCOTUS endorsing Citizens United we are now under the control of a government that is bought and sold on the auction block. We are now a Capitalist government and those with the money (ergo the guns) will control those without the money. Hell, those that MAKE the guns will be king.


Cronly Capitalsim is just as bad as Socialism or any other Oligarchy. True Capitalism keeps economics separate from politics. We don't have that, and haven't for a very long time. And we were never a Democracy, and were never meant to be.

So, ya'll have convinced me that we need MANY MORE GUNS. Hell, we need bigger and better guns for all. Then, all we need to do is have another civil war and let the vultures pick the good ole' US of A's carcass clean. We need to arm all teachers and pubic officials. We need more towns to pass laws that require gun ownership and abridge an individual's rights to NOT own a gun. We need every little league to raffle off AR15s to earn thousands of dollars. We need every restaurant, bar and grill to require patrons to pack heat. I can see it now, does the S&W go to the left of the salad fork or to the right of the spoons. (I bet Emily Post would say it would depend on whether the guest is right or left handed.) Which is a better place setting accessory for dinner, a chromed snub nosed revolver or black semi-automatic?


Yep. So since it's a right guaranteed in the Constitution (just like healthcare), I move that every able-bodied person be issued a firearm for basic self defense at the cost of their employer, or be given one at the expense of the Government via a W.I.C. program (Weapons to protect Infants and Children).

Ya, I know this will spin way out of control but what the heck. Since we are quoting Hitler and preparing for a governmental Armageddon there isn't anything to loose anyway.


Armageddon comes in many forms. A hurricane that forces all semblance of law and order to vacate the area for X number of days or weeks is a kind of Armageddon that would require me to already have, and be proficient with, a suitable firearm to protect myself, my family and my properts. Reference Hurricane Katrina, Rodney King riots, or any number of other natural disasters.

It must be time to double down my investments in guns, ammo, bunker builders and the whole survivalists genre of industries. We won't have to worry about the Chinese owning America because we will make it easy for them. So, go ahead and make my day.

Yep, it will be just like a circle firing squad.


Hah! The day we have a circle firing squad for discussing differing opinions is the day I move to Canada or New Zeland. Except for the crummy healthcare, firearms issues and high rate of taxes, they're the next best thing to America.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

skiehawk11
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arm

Post by skiehawk11 »

IMO, the reasoning for certain laws and/or regulations is well meaning and for a good cause, but the only way to prevent anything bad from ever happening would be to live in a police state where everyone and everything is regulated to some degree.

I prefer to keep risk in my life so I can maintain my liberty. I'd prefer it over no risk and being told constantly what I can and can't do all in the name of public safety.

Post Reply

Fund Prices2022-08-05

FundPriceDayYTD
G $16.98 0.01% 1.45%
F $19.05 -1.07% -8.80%
C $63.14 -0.15% -12.24%
S $67.93 0.74% -18.59%
I $33.31 -0.76% -15.55%
L2065 $12.78 -0.24% -14.10%
L2060 $12.78 -0.24% -14.10%
L2055 $12.79 -0.24% -14.09%
L2050 $26.41 -0.27% -12.04%
L2045 $12.13 -0.27% -11.26%
L2040 $44.61 -0.25% -10.41%
L2035 $11.88 -0.24% -9.47%
L2030 $39.88 -0.21% -8.47%
L2025 $11.54 -0.16% -5.76%
Linc $22.85 -0.12% -2.72%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".