[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

What is this? I feel like we have a monarch king now, and not a president.

So does he.

[Templar]

I think even the forum liberals are a little iffy on some of these proposals/executive actions... I haven't seen them posting very much in any of these threads.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

So does he.

This idea that the U.S government can never become tyrannical or turn on its own citizens being propagated by the left is frightening. It's scary, I am literally afraid that the left will manage to get a blanket ban (which btw is their ultimate goal), and we'll be defenseless against tyranny.

The 2nd amendment exists for a reason, and our forefathers knew this reason personally. German citizens of Jewish descent wished they had these rights in 1939.

I'm not some wacky, tin-foil, anarchist who thinks all government is bad, but to assume the U.S government can never turn on its own citizens is lunacy. The threat of armed citizen resistance is one of the reasons this hasn't happened in over 200 years, but now? I feel like 1776 is due for a sequel if this continues.

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by Templar

I think even the forum liberals are a little iffy on some of these proposals/executive actions... I haven't seen them posting very much in any of these threads.

what does this "executive order" mean for the rest of the country. Specifically for us in NC. I know Texas and Oregon has opposed it already.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

This idea that the U.S government can never become tyrannical or turn on its own citizens being propagated by the left is frightening. It's scary, I am literally afraid that the left will manage to get a blanket ban (which btw is their ultimate goal), and we'll be defenseless against tyranny.

The 2nd amendment exists for a reason, and our forefathers knew this reason personally. German citizens of Jewish descent wished they had these rights in 1939.

I'm not some wacky, tin-foil, anarchist who thinks all government is bad, but to assume the U.S government can never turn on its own citizens is lunacy. The threat of armed citizen resistance is one of the reasons this hasn't happened in over 200 years, but now? I feel like 1776 is due for a sequel if this continues.

The American government turned on citizens with Japanese ancestry during WWII. Look into Executive Order 9066 signed by FDR. History usually finds a way to repeat itself.

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

what does this "executive order" mean for the rest of the country. Specifically for us in NC. I know Texas and Oregon has opposed it already.

It all boils down to enforcement really. The President can make whatever orders he wants to, but at the end of the day, who is going to enforce an assault weapons ban for weapons that are already out there? The local police aren't designed to go door-to-door and take weapons or magazines from people. Not to mention the fact that some of them probably just won't do it because they don't agree with it. Are the feds going to do it? It will take decades to make a difference. I have heard from the Democratic NC Senator saying that she did not want to touch the 2nd Amendment because she is a fan of hunting.

The executive order is supposed to be taken as law, although it can be overturned by Congress. Unfortunately, they are usually not overturned, only two in history have been overturned. I have not heard of any intent for NC to fight any EO enacted by the POTUS, though.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by Templar

I think even the forum liberals are a little iffy on some of these proposals/executive actions... I haven't seen them posting very much in any of these threads.

I'm pretty liberal and posted in this thread already... and I think the new laws in NY are pointless. A bunch of new laws mean shit if nothing is getting enforced, I'd prefer they'd enforce existing laws better, and fund the instant background check database better. That would be a start.

[e92oholic]

Join the class action law suit!

http://www.nysecond.org

[Nate4641]

[KingOfJericho]

When 75% of gun deaths are caused by gang violence in inner cities, it's hard to take this type of legislation seriously. How can they possibly think that this will have an impact when the overwhelming majority of the deaths are caused by guns that are already illegal?!? Guns are already nearly entirely banned in NYC, yet murders still occer, albeit largely contained within certain demographics. Also, as a % of all gun deaths in NY state last year, less than 1% of them were with a long gun (they don't specify beyond rifle/pistol). What a fucking joke. I am so sick of hearing "we have to get these semi-automatic guns off the street!" They don't seem to realize that they've been around since 1883 and that even a revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. They seem to think it's another word for a machine gun (i.e. fully auto). I'm so sick of listening to these dummies and their misinformation!

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by e92oholic

Join the class action law suit!

http://www.nysecond.org

i'm in.

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

When 75% of gun deaths are caused by gang violence in inner cities, it's hard to take this type of legislation seriously. How can they possibly think that this will have an impact when the overwhelming majority of the deaths are caused by guns that are already illegal?!? Guns are already nearly entirely banned in NYC, yet murders still occer, albeit largely contained within certain demographics. Also, as a % of all gun deaths in NY state last year, less than 1% of them were with a long gun (they don't specify beyond rifle/pistol). What a fucking joke. I am so sick of hearing "we have to get these semi-automatic guns off the street!" They don't seem to realize that they've been around since 1883 and that even a revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. They seem to think it's another word for a machine gun (i.e. fully auto). I'm so sick of listening to these dummies and their misinformation!

No one is concerned with gang violence right now. What they are worried about, as shown by the kids behind the POTUS, is mass shootings where people who live in lower crime areas and are law abiding are involved. Thats all they care about. They want to take anything away from law abiding citizens so that criminals and those with bad intentions have a harder time getting firearms.

[MiddleAgedAl]

The Newtown tragedy (especially with the fact that 6 year olds were killed), has made this event fall under more focus than other. Whether you agree with gun restrictions or not, surely everyone can at least appreciate or understand that, in particular, many parents of young kids themselves will watch coverage of the tragedy, and it will hit home more emotionally than other similar events.

Not saying NRA members should be happy about it, but nobody should be really surprised that "this time is different". Support for "being seen to do something" is probably at an all time high, and acceptance of doing nothing at all is probably near an all time low. There are parents out there, who are not into guns recreationally, who are literally saying "I'd be happy to voluntarily relinquish some of my 2nd amendment rights in exchange for decreased chance that my little Timmy doesnt get shot dead in grade 1".

You can disagree, but to pretend that only insane people would have that attitude is not useful. Dont forget, for every NRA member who thinks a worried mother is nuts for focusing on the wrong type of shooting risk, there is someone who thinks an NRA member is nuts for clinging to the notion that there is a sufficiently high probability that the US government is about to tyrannically oppress the citizens, so everyone must be armed to deter against it.

In both cases, the person is fixated on a risk with an extremely low probability of happening, and they are asking the opposing group to discard their own respective concerns so they can mitigate their own fears. Saying that my fear is legit, while yours is nuts, get you nowhere. As someone with no skin in this game (I have neither children nor guns), frankly, I look at both groups and shake my head.

IMHO, the thing that tilts the deck against the NRA now (especially with global media and ever-connected world), is that people can see that all around the globe, parents are justifiably concerned for their child's safety, and are willing to do things to increase it; BUT, outside of the USA, there are not large organized groups of people in modern democracies who are concerned that their own government will oppress them, and thus need to be armed.

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

I'm not some wacky, tin-foil, anarchist who thinks all government is bad, but to assume the U.S government can never turn on its own citizens is lunacy. The threat of armed citizen resistance is one of the reasons this hasn't happened in over 200 years, but now? I feel like 1776 is due for a sequel if this continues.

And yet no such tyrrany has occurred in places like Australia or Canada in over 200 years either, and they have no equivalent deterrent (heavily armed populace). People notice stuff like that, and start to question the legitimacy of the risk. There are Jewish Germans who are old enough to remember what happened in 1939. Are these folks spearheading fights to allow German citizens the same gun ownership rights as Americans have? Nope. Why is that? Hell, if any place has a legitimate reason to fear government tyranny, it's those folks. Their lack of comparable fear or paranoia in an arguably riskier position does somewhat weaken the credibility of the NRA in the eyes of a lot of moderates.

[carve]

Austria was taken over by Hitler. Switzerland wasn't.

Any western democracy knows the US would not currently allow a tyrant to take over, and they take that security umbrella for granted. What about us? Who watches the watcher? If I were a citizen of any other western democracy, I'd be very happy the US has a heavily armed populace.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

And yet no such tyrrany has occurred in places like Australia or Canada in over 200 years either

That's an argument formed from fallacy. It assumes that because it hasn't happened in another country, that you can assume it wouldn't happen here.

There are numerous countries that have started off as democratic that eventually became tyrannical. It happened to France in the 19th century, it happened in Spain in the 20th century, it happened in Germany in the 1930s, it happened in Italy, it happened in Japan, and it happened in the Phillipines in the 80s. In fact one of Ferdinand Marcos's first orders as a dictator of the country was to command the populace to turn in all firearms to government officials within 30 days or risk DEATH as a punishment.

Why would a dictator ask its populace to disarm?

Laws have to be calibrated to solve problems, not created to sooth fears. If they want more control over who is sold guns, more mental health checks, and more strict background checks, fine. But to ban weapons and punish law abiding citizens for the actions of one deranged psychopath who was on prescription pharmaceutical drugs? That's not law making, that's fear mongering.

I for one won't shit on the Constitution because some liberal thinks it's going to garner votes in some future election. The Constitution was formed by a group of people who would find this type of knee jerk legislation tyrannical, and this document is the basis for which this country was formed. Attempting to weaken the words within, or out right erase it is an act of treason.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

No one is concerned with gang violence right now. What they are worried about, as shown by the kids behind the POTUS, is mass shootings where people who live in lower crime areas and are law abiding are involved. Thats all they care about. They want to take anything away from law abiding citizens so that criminals and those with bad intentions have a harder time getting firearms.

But taking away one particular type of gun doesn't solve the problem. A shooter's access to an AR-15 isn't the reason why so many people died, nor was it the reason he chose to shoot people. If that particular gun never existed, this would have happened with a pistol. Let's not forget, he had two of them on him as well. It takes a couple of seconds to reload a gun so the size of the magazines also doesn't matter one bit.

I grew up one town away from Newtown and my coworker's girlfriend was in the school and escaped and another coworker of mine went on a date a few weeks earlier with Vicki Soto. I'm pretty close to this tragedy, however I don't see how this legislation addresses the problem one iota.

If you don't want people to seek this type of carnage as a means to their infamy, don't give it to them! I think the media is largely responsible for this particular type of crime. If you're a nobody and you do something like this, you know full well that your name and picture will be all over the news - thus giving you EXACTLY what you're seeking... Infamy. My suggestion is to forget the shooter ever existed. Don't put their name on TV. Don't show their picture. Just let them rot in the hole of anonymity from which they were trying to climb.

Does this image not resonate with anyone?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

Austria was taken over by Hitler. Switzerland wasn't.

Any western democracy knows the US would not currently allow a tyrant to take over, and they take that security umbrella for granted. What about us? Who watches the watcher? If I were a citizen of any other western democracy, I'd be very happy the US has a heavily armed populace.

So why dont the citizens of Austria fight vigorously to get even more gun rights then the US has? Like I said, if the risk of government tyranny was legitimate today, then those Austrians should be crapping their pants as bad as anyone right now, until everyone there gets a rifle with unlimited magazine size. Yet they are not.

Do you truly believe they are unconcerned simply because they are entirely relying on American soldiers coming to liberate them again if the shit does hit the fan ?

I'd suggest that older Austrians (or Germans, etc etc) who lived thru the last time, will still recall that liberation took years, and their parents, siblings, etc where killed during that wait, would not likely adopt such a relaxed approach if they thought such a risk was real.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

So why dont the citizens of Austria fight vigorously to get even more gun rights then the US has? Like I said, if the risk of government tyranny was legitimate today, then those Austrians should be crapping their pants as bad as anyone right now, until everyone there gets a rifle with unlimited magazine size. Yet they are not.

Do you truly believe they are unconcerned simply because they are entirely relying on American soldiers coming to liberate them again if the shit does hit the fan ?

I'd suggest that older Austrians (or Germans, etc etc) who lived thru the last time, will still recall that liberation took years, and their parents, siblings, etc where killed during that wait, would not likely adopt such a relaxed approach if they thought such a risk was real.

Again, that question is formed out of fallacy.

I don't have any opinion about Austrians, or Germans about their version of the constitution or their views on gun rights. I'm talking about the U.S Constitution, the "spirit" of what the 2nd amendment represents, and why this legislation is an affront to that. It should be noted however that the Jews who would have a pro-gun stance in those countries were probably turned to ashes in camps.

What I can comment on is if the citizens of 1930s Germany, 1930s Spain, and 1980s Phillipines were armed as the citizens of the U.S are today, the dictators in those countries would have had a much harder time of committing the atrocities that they ended up inflicting upon an unarmed, and defenseless populace. That I am 100% sure of.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Laws have to be calibrated to solve problems, not created to sooth fears.

Yes I do agree with that, but I would argue the NRA is as guilty as any entity in behaving in a manner designed to leverage fears more than solving problems in a cold, calculating way (unless the problem they are trying to solve is maintaining the revenue stream of the gun companies who support it).

[KingOfJericho]

The NRA is a special interest group. They are interviewed because the media knows that their opinion will be polarizing. They can't get on TV unless they buy ad time or are put on TV by the media. It's the same reason why we still see Al Sharpton on TV. The media knows that their opinion will make for a good debate so they empower them by granting them airtime.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes I do agree with that, but I would argue the NRA is as guilty as any entity in behaving in a manner designed to leverage fears more than solving problems in a cold, calculating way (unless the problem they are trying to solve is maintaining the revenue stream of the gun companies who support it).

Don't focus on the NRA. They are a political lobbying group that can be used as a mouth piece like any.

Besides, why listen to the NRA when you can get the opinion of the founding fathers on the 2nd Amendment and why they included it in the Constitution of the United States in the first place.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -George Washington

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

Again, that question is formed out of fallacy.

How exactly is it a fallacy? What is false?

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

I don't have any opinion about Austrians, or Germans about their version of the constitution or their views on gun rights. I'm talking about the U.S Constitution, the "spirit" of what the 2nd amendment represents, and why this legislation is an affront to that. It should be noted however that the Jews who would have a pro-gun stance in those countries were probably turned to ashes in camps.

What I can comment on is if the citizens of 1930s Germany, 1930s Spain, and 1980s Phillipines were armed as the citizens of the U.S are today, the dictators in those countries would have had a much harder time of committing the atrocities that they ended up inflicting upon an unarmed, and defenseless populace. That I am 100% sure of.

Yes, the pro-gun Jews then would have been turned to ashes. But, with no such risk today, and the memory of what happened still fresh in their minds when they look at the tattoos they were given in the camps, why wouldnt the surviving Jews today (or Spanish, etc) advocate strongly for more gun ownership. I know you are talking about the US constitution, but doesnt it make you wonder at all why those groups are not as concerned about owning a gun, when they have more reason to be?

I dont know if you have the opportunity to talk to many non-Americans from around the world. If you do, you'd likely find that most of them dont feel "punished" by their gov when their ability to own guns is more tightly regulated. Their bad guys ignore the laws anyways of course, cause that's what bad guys do. And yet, despite the lower risk of encountering return fire, bad guys are still far less likely to shoot you in those places. I wonder why that is ?

I guess a lot of the pro-gun people dont share my curiosity for that at all, for some reason.... The only time I would completely ignore looking over my own fence at what others might be doing, even to just try and learn from them, is if I became convinced that I enjoyed an exclusive monopoly on common sense.

[Litos]

i like how the govt always picks on New York, because they're a bunch of pussies.

try doing that shit to Texas HAHAHA !!!!