Brandon Strikes Again

[aubaseball 2,651]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

1) respectfully,  that makes absolutely no sense 2) there’s only 1 guarantee on this forum:  have any kind of opinion about any basic parameters on weapons and you get irrational  meltdowns like no other topic.  As predictable as gravity.

Ps I have 4 guns. 2 bolt action rifles,  a revolver, and a shotgun.  Just none  over 6 rounds.  

Good for you.  Now try not to tell me what to buy.   If you want to set up something that you know will prevent the crazy from getting a weapon and killing others, I’m all for it.   Just don’t tell me what to buy.   How bout that?

[AU9377 5,036]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

You wrote this and still don’t understand the reason to take this amendment serious?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” .........  We also don't allow people to possess pipe bombs and battle tanks, but those would certainly aid the purpose of a militia.

There are limits.  Pretending that they don't exist gets us nowhere, which is likely why the NRA has pushed this insanity for so long.

[auburnatl1 5,029]

31 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Good for you.  Now try not to tell me what to buy.   If you want to set up something that you know will prevent the crazy from getting a weapon and killing others, I’m all for it.   Just don’t tell me what to buy.   How bout that?

The point is many mass murderers had no record. But they did have large mags to eliminate pause time to reload. 

If it sincerely takes someone 30 friggin rounds to defend (vs mass attack), they may want to take some lessons or get glasses

[KansasTiger 3,254]

Just now, AU9377 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” .........  We also don't allow people to possess pipe bombs and battle tanks, but those would certainly aid the purpose of a militia.

There are limits.  Pretending that they don't exist gets us nowhere, which is likely why the NRA has pushed this insanity for so long.

That doesn't mean that's a blank check to keep restricting our ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical govt, either. Using the argument that 'since restrictions have been applied I should be able to apply more' perfectly describes why I will fight further restrictions to any of my rights tooth and nail. Don't give them a freaking inch.

[AU9377 5,036]

32 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Good for you.  Now try not to tell me what to buy.   If you want to set up something that you know will prevent the crazy from getting a weapon and killing others, I’m all for it.   Just don’t tell me what to buy.   How bout that?

We all have a responsibility to keep our communities safe.  We have a society built around laws and a moral conscious.  We should want our children to live in a community that is as safe or safer than the one we were born into.  None of that should be controversial.  That means that we give up some things if we see doing so as making our communities better.  The cost benefit of those weapons doesn't add up.  You want them to play with, but they aren't toys.  Is your life made less enjoyable by not owning them?  No.  Is the community more safe with fewer of then on the street?  Yes.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The point is many mass murderers had no record. But they did have large mags to eliminate pause time to reload. 

If it sincerely takes someone 30 friggin rounds to defend (vs mass attack), they may want to take some lessons or get glasses

Whiff

[AU9377 5,036]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

That doesn't mean that's a blank check to keep restricting our ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical govt, either. Using the argument that 'since restrictions have been applied I should be able to apply more' perfectly describes why I will fight further restrictions to any of my rights tooth and nail. Don't give them a freaking inch.

There was an assault weapons ban in place for 10 years and no other type fears came to fruition.  You can be as unreasonable as you want, but that is a fact.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

There was an assault weapons ban in place for 10 years and no other type fears came to fruition.  You can be as unreasonable as you want, but that is a fact.

I dont even understand what you're trying to say here. 

[AU9377 5,036]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

I dont even understand what you're trying to say here. 

You say if you give an inch, they will take a mile.  They didn't take a mile when the assault weapons ban was in place.  Nothing happened.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

Just now, AU9377 said:

You say if you give an inch, they will take a mile.  They didn't take a mile when the assault weapons ban was in place.  Nothing happened.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the massive amounts of people and organizations lobbying and fighting the efforts to do that. Because it didn't happen doesn't mean they weren't trying. You're the one who used the argument, not me. It's a bad argument. 

[auburnatl1 5,029]

33 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

That doesn't mean that's a blank check to keep restricting our ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical govt, either. Using the argument that 'since restrictions have been applied I should be able to apply more' perfectly describes why I will fight further restrictions to any of my rights tooth and nail. Don't give them a freaking inch.

I missed this and just want to make sure I’m understanding .  The thinking is that a bunch of guys in lower Alabama, north Georgia, Wyoming, whatever, with badass guns, are going to repel the US military (lead by a “tyrannical gov”). A $900b military that’s designed to defeat China and Russia on 2 fronts and have room for home defense.

Thats the argument for AR15s and large mags? Right?

[KansasTiger 3,254]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I missed this and just want to make sure I’m understanding .  The thinking is that a bunch of guys in lower Alabama, north Georgia, Wyoming, whatever, with badass guns, are going to repel the US military (lead by a “tyrannical gov”). A $900b military that’s designed to defeat China and Russia on 2 fronts and have room for home defense.

Thats the argument for AR15s and large mags? Right?

Well if they'll let us have access to more it would help. I'm working with what we have. And arguing that because they have taken away access to alot of stuff and already made it hard to make our own govt fear it's people, that isn't a good argument for why they should be allowed to take away more.

You don't need tanks and a massive military footprint to mount a solid rebellion. But I refuse to let your backwards thinking of "its hopeless to resist our military so let's give up more rights" prevail. Cause that's how we get there. Especially for a solution that doesn't even fix the damn problem. 🙄 

[CoffeeTiger 5,178]

[auburnatl1 5,029]

11 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Well if they'll let us have access to more it would help. I'm working with what we have. And arguing that because they have taken away access to alot of stuff and already made it hard to make our own govt fear it's people, that isn't a good argument for why they should be allowed to take away more.

You don't need tanks and a massive military footprint to mount a solid rebellion. But I refuse to let your backwards thinking of "its hopeless to resist our military so let's give up more rights" prevail. Cause that's how we get there. Especially for a solution that doesn't even fix the damn problem. 🙄 

Got it. And wow.

Edited July 19, 2023 by auburnatl1

[KansasTiger 3,254]

29 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Got it. And wow.

Yup.

[aubiefifty 16,905]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the massive amounts of people and organizations lobbying and fighting the efforts to do that. Because it didn't happen doesn't mean they weren't trying. You're the one who used the argument, not me. It's a bad argument. 

tell that to the kids mowed down in school. or the little girl that got her face blown off.

[auburnatl1 5,029]

15 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Yup.

Ok….. There’s obviously a whole world of thinking that’s beyond my ability to grasp. So I won’t try. Btw

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/islandia-lets-buy-an-island-micronation/index.html

 

 

 

[KansasTiger 3,254]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

tell that to the kids mowed down in school. or the little girl that got her face blown off.

Banning guns would have been as effevtive in preventing things like that from happening as banning drugs seems to prevent drug use. But continue to try and blame law abiding citizens like me for tragic deaths like that instead of the criminals that commit them so you can score some political points, fifty.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

Ok….. There’s obviously a whole world of thinking that’s beyond my ability to grasp. So I won’t try. Btw

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/islandia-lets-buy-an-island-micronation/index.html

 

 

 

Which is why separation might be inevitable someday, sadly.

[aubiefifty 16,905]

9 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Banning guns would have been as effevtive in preventing things like that from happening as banning drugs seems to prevent drug use. But continue to try and blame law abiding citizens like me for tragic deaths like that instead of the criminals that commit them so you can score some political points, fifty.

i am not trying to score political points and i resent that. that little girl had her face shot off and it is and has been stuck in my mind. if the left took the same stance as the right i would be on their ass as well. you should be ashamed. maybe i misjudged you. some things are about decency and common sense..............

[KansasTiger 3,254]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

i am not trying to score political points and i resent that. that little girl had her face shot off and it is and has been stuck in my mind. if the left took the same stance as the right i would be on their ass as well. you should be ashamed. maybe i misjudged you. some things are about decency and common sense..............

Then, sadly, that makes two of us. When you make agreeing with you a condition of friendship and your judgement, you've missed the boat.

Edited July 19, 2023 by KansasTiger

[auburnatl1 5,029]

18 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Which is why separation might be inevitable someday, sadly.

I would suggest there’s  a fine line between the whole endearing libertarian / pioneer spirit thing ,and alluding to some pretty dark stuff.

[KansasTiger 3,254]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

I would suggest there’s  a fine line between the whole endearing libertarian / pioneer spirit thing ,and alluding to some pretty dark stuff.

I dont allude to it because I want it.

I'm not suggesting that's what you meant, either. It just reminded me of that fact. That's all.

Edited July 19, 2023 by KansasTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,989]

2 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

You don't need tanks and a massive military footprint to mount a solid rebellion. But I refuse to let your backwards thinking of "its hopeless to resist our military so let's give up more rights" prevail. Cause that's how we get there. Especially for a solution that doesn't even fix the damn problem. 🙄 

What the left here does not understand is that they are telegraphing to our government that they want them (the government) to take control.  They don’t have faith in their fellow law abiding citizens and can’t distinguish us from the criminals.  This is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution was written for.

If a leftist wants you to have a gun, they will tell you what kind of gun you should have.  They know best after all.  Biden says all you need is a double barrel shotgun.  That might have been OK in his day when most people respected the law, not today.

Like you said, the left wants a feel good law to satisfy their urge to control.  No bail, defund the police, make the police the bad guy; what could go wrong?

[AU9377 5,036]

2 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Banning guns would have been as effevtive in preventing things like that from happening as banning drugs seems to prevent drug use. But continue to try and blame law abiding citizens like me for tragic deaths like that instead of the criminals that commit them so you can score some political points, fifty.

"Banning guns" has never been mentioned as an option.  Banning the sale of that style weapon has. There is no way to defend an 18 year old in Uvalde,  Texas being able to walk into a gun shop and buy that gun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. 

Had he been forced to purchase a regular rifle or shotgun, many of those kids that are dead today would be alive.  There were other mistakes made that day,  but there is no getting around that fact.