The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)

[LisztesFerenc]

Guys as many of you know I do not comment on political anymore. But allow me to enlighten some of you a bit. I am a firearms rights guy as many of you know. You can debate the topic as deep as you like, but there is something very basic here. There is a point with firearms ownership where ~I~ will not give anymore. If the US government wants to take anymore past this point they are going to have to fight me in a very literal sense of the word. There are tens of thousands of people who believe just like me. Just look up total membership of the NRA.

So now we are talking about having reached a point of open rebellion. The rebels, that would be folks like me if we got that far god forbid, would loose. But well it would still be a very, very, ugly matter. There are certain points where people like me will back up no further. Let us all hope and pray it never comes to that.

But well if it does to quote the movie Tombstone "say when." Argue all you want about what kind of right something is, but I have a very deep held beliefs about when enough is enough and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

  Wouldn't voting be a better way to protect your gun rights? This is disturbing. Are you saying that if politicians follow the democratic will of the people to restrict the second amendment, you will resort to violence. Which is domestic terrorism. Or will you not user violence if it is the result of democratic vote?

[Retribution]

Not getting pulled back in to this thread, but let me try to offer some insight. Then I am out of here.

Yes, the political is better. You will note in the US gun control measures for the most part fail. That is a political solution, that is the best solution. But well many on the gun control side do not like the fact such measures failed. The response is the NRA cheated what have you. I am paraphrasing of course. Of course this argument fails to take into account that the NRA "won" because guys like me vote and are not afraid to make contributions.  All that money the NRA has did not come from the tooth fairy after all.

So lets say the gun control folks manage to finally shove a law through. As lets say happened in Australia all repeating firearms are now illegal. So they are going to come to people's houses and take them. Well they better be well freaking armed when they come to mine. There are many who feel just like I do. Like I said look at total membership in the NRA.

And yes, that thought is really, really, disturbing. But from my point of view, the democratic process has been in place. Gun control measures consistently have failed, the courts have upheld gun rights, case closed IMHO. If the gun control crowd wants to win politically they should go muster the votes to repeal the second amendment. Until they have that many votes they lost in the democratic process and I wish they would kindly leave me alone. Those are the basic facts of life when it comes to this issue. That is the reason each time more gun control is proposed gun sales go through the roof. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize the issue will not fly in the US just look at the statistics.

Anyway! We are a thankfully a very long way from that point. I just happen to think many touting gun control fail to grasp how strongly some of us oppose it. I am not bothering anyone and I believe no one like the government will be bothering me so we are all good.

My last comment here because I have found there are too many divergent views to waste the energy arguing on such forums. I like to live and let live. Have a good day.

[LisztesFerenc]

And yes, that thought is really, really, disturbing. But from my point of view, the democratic process has been in place. Gun control measures consistently have failed, the courts have upheld gun rights, case closed IMHO. If the gun control crowd wants to win politically they should go muster the votes to repeal the second amendment. Until they have that many votes they lost in the democratic process and I wish they would kindly leave me alone. Those are the basic facts of life when it comes to this issue. That is the reason each time more gun control is proposed gun sales go through the roof. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize the issue will not fly in the US just look at the statistics.

  So just to be clear: if the second amendment is repelled/neutered through the democratic process, you will peacefully surrender your guns in according to the new law if that is what is required?

[Blythe]

Guys as many of you know I do not comment on political anymore. But allow me to enlighten some of you a bit. I am a firearms rights guy as many of you know. You can debate the topic as deep as you like, but there is something very basic here. There is a point with firearms ownership where ~I~ will not give anymore. If the US government wants to take anymore past this point they are going to have to fight me in a very literal sense of the word. There are tens of thousands of people who believe just like me. Just look up total membership of the NRA.

So now we are talking about having reached a point of open rebellion. The rebels, that would be folks like me if we got that far god forbid, would loose. But well it would still be a very, very, ugly matter. There are certain points where people like me will back up no further. Let us all hope and pray it never comes to that.

But well if it does to quote the movie Tombstone "say when." Argue all you want about what kind of right something is, but I have a very deep held beliefs about when enough is enough and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

To be honest, I don't quite follow your logic here.

The reason individuals are talking about more restrictive gun laws and more gun control is because of the belief gun-related violence and murder has been on the rise.

Your response to this is to say "rebellion," which would....presumably entail gun violence. This does not play into a narrative of "responsible gun owner willing to reasonably work on current issues." This plays into the narrative of "gun owner willing to hurt others." You may not mean it at such, but it doesn't look good at all.

I'm not sure that route would convince the opposing side that your position is a reasonable one worth listening to. It's only going to cause fear.

Personally, I think it would be better be more politically active, vote and voice your views, and try to show ways that maintaining the right to bear arms as is is more beneficial than harmful.

Just my two cents. :/

Edit: Ninja'd twice while posting, dang it. >_<

[eBadger]

There are tens of thousands of people who believe just like me. Just look up total membership of the NRA.

Uh, speak for yourself.  I've been a member of the NRA, and I think shooting police because of a new gun law is crazy pants. 

But well many on the gun control side do not like the fact such measures failed. The response is the NRA cheated what have you.
...
So lets say the gun control folks manage to finally shove a law through
...
But from my point of view, the democratic process has been in place.

So democracy is good, unless it isn't in your favor? 

[Retribution]

Really out after this, but these two were thoughtful and deserve a response.

LisztesFerenc --> Exactly, but if I were you I would not hold my breath for the votes for that to show up. Just so you get a feel for how I view things lets take another controversial topic that is considered more liberal. Abortion has been legal for decades. Courts have upheld it and so on. Do I like abortion? No, but it is the law of the land so I deal with it and go on with my life. And I do not think the votes are ever going to be there to make abortion illegal. I think the abortion foes should cast their energy in more constructive directions. I do not think gun control advocates are going to get the votes to repeal the second amendment so I wish they would cast energy in a more constructive direction like say the fact our mass shootings show we have a serious mental health problem going on.

Sherlock --> I was setting a rather extreme, Mad Max type scenario to try and illustrate a point.  I am not trying to convince the opposing side because quite frankly I can no more convince them than they can convince me. At several points in my posts I used terms like "god forbid" to illustrate I cannot even conceive of such a setting happening in my life time. But many who advocate gun control seem to think gun owners are just going to go along like sheep. That is simply not something that is going to happen. To illustrate in an extreme and humorous way while poking a bit of fun at myself, do you really want to try and disarm a bunch of drunk rednecks? LoL I can make fun of rednecks because in many ways I am one.

The issue I have with a lot of the current gun proposals is that I feel they are an attempt to chip away at a right that cannot simply be disposed of politically because the votes are not there. That is why I oppose them with my heart and soul. When the Brady Bill was passed the law had not even been signed yet and Sara Brady was already calling for -more- gun control. That approach makes guys like me very nervous. I think Brady was a failure but we could toss dueling factoids at one another for ages and all either side would get would be tired and pissed off.

As for the problem of murder? Mass shootings we have a serious mental health problem in this nation and funds need to be channeled to address it. Murder we have a serious poverty problem in this nation and funds need to be channeled to addressing it because the murder rate is linked to the crime rate and the crime rate in many ways is a sign of desperation. I honestly think gun ownership is a minor part of it, but these are simply my opinions.

But no, I do not live in a compound or a shack on top of a mountain. I am educated and have all my teeth LoL And I do not see an open rebellion happening in my lifetime. I just wish energy wasted on this issue would be channeled in a more constructive direction and I wanted to illustrate the fact that I do not see private gun ownership going away in the USA because there is a point when enough is indeed enough.

Peace ~R~

[Blythe]

As for the problem of murder? Mass shootings we have a serious mental health problem in this nation and funds need to be channeled to address it. Murder we have a serious poverty problem in this nation and funds need to be channeled to addressing it because the murder rate is linked to the crime rate and the crime rate in many ways is a sign of desperation. I honestly think gun ownership is a minor part of it, but these are simply my opinions.

I think this is a much more interesting view and approach than what I'd read in your first post, and thank you for sharing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong), but if I read you correctly, you feel that gun violence is related more to underlying problems in society (mental health, desperation over certain social issues, crippling poverty, etc.) that we need to address at the root, that the gun problem is more a symptom than cause? And that we should address those underlying things that drive people to violence rather than the guns?

I may be overstepping and putting words in your mouth, and stop me if I am, but if what I've summarized explains your views, then I think that's a potentially quite reasonable stance.

[LisztesFerenc]

LisztesFerenc --> Exactly, but if I were you I would not hold my breath for the votes for that to show up.

  Sure, I do not in any way expect this to happen, the ideology behind it is important. I am well aware that the democratic repeal of the second amendment is a fantasy, only slightly more so than the non-democratic repeal of it. As long as you support democratic restrictions to your gun rights, its fine. As for the fighting the government literally, I can find no inherent fault in the ideology even if I do not agree with it myself, I just wish people could be as passionate about combating other injustices, such as wealth inequality and cozying up to corporations at the expense of the worker.

[Retribution]

I think this is a much more interesting view and approach than what I'd read in your first post, and thank you for sharing. (Please correct me if I'm wrong), but if I read you correctly, you feel that gun violence is related more to underlying problems in society (mental health, desperation over certain social issues, crippling poverty, etc.) that we need to address at the root, that the gun problem is more a symptom than cause? And that we should address those underlying things that drive people to violence rather than the guns?

I may be overstepping and putting words in your mouth, and stop me if I am, but if what I've summarized explains your views, then I think that's a potentially quite reasonable stance.

You hit it right on the head Sherlock.

As for my extreme example that drew me into a thread I had sworn off of. Australia had a mass shooting I forget how many years ago. The political answer was to all but outlaw private gun ownership across the board in a very fast tracked manner. I see that sort of thing and I cringe and go "yeah this is where I fight." I cannot conceive of it ever happening in the US, but still when I see it happening other places it makes me very, very, nervous. Kind of a there but for the grace of god go I sort of thing. Why do I bring this up? Because the president has used Australia as an example of gun control done right.

[LisztesFerenc]

You hit it right on the head Sherlock.

As for my extreme example that drew me into a thread I had sworn off of. Australia had a mass shooting I forget how many years ago. The political answer was to all but outlaw private gun ownership across the board in a very fast tracked manner. I see that sort of thing and I cringe and go "yeah this is where I fight." I cannot conceive of it ever happening in the US, but still when I see it happening other places it makes me very, very, nervous. Kind of a there but for the grace of god go I sort of thing. Why do I bring this up? Because the president has used Australia as an example of gun control done right.

  I'm pretty sure that's because homicide with guns fell after that law passed. So the president bringing it up as working, is basically him commenting on reality. Now whether or not such measures would work as well for the USA is another question, and yeah, its highly unlikely such a law will ever be passed there.

[Retribution]

  Sure, I do not in any way expect this to happen, the ideology behind it is important. I am well aware that the democratic repeal of the second amendment is a fantasy, only slightly more so than the non-democratic repeal of it. As long as you support democratic restrictions to your gun rights, its fine. As for the fighting the government literally, I can find no inherent fault in the ideology even if I do not agree with it myself, I just wish people could be as passionate about combating other injustices, such as wealth inequality and cozying up to corporations at the expense of the worker.

And I think you will find from my response to Sherlock that your view and mine are not that far apart. Hell I will take it a step further and say the problem with terrorism is at its heart a poverty problem. Desperation makes extremism look attractive if you have a full belly.

Politically I am a conservative who leans pretty hard left on a lot of issues -shrugs- I also find it best to stay out of political discussions because they tend to tick people off. I also think it has lead to a lot of the polarization in current politics. Which is odd because one has to talk to reach any sort of agreement. But no one seems willing to give an inch on either side of current events.

[LisztesFerenc]

I honestly think gun ownership is a minor part of it, but these are simply my opinions.

  When looking for the explanation of a difference though, you tend to look for other differences. Say New York vs. London. They both have mental health problems, they both have poverty, depression and criminals. So what's the difference?

  Homicide rate: 1/6 (London) vs. 4.0 (New York)

  Population density is higher in London, which should lead to a higher homicide rate, not a lower one. Ethnicity? London is 60% White, whilst New York is 45%. Could this lead to more violence? Probably, as minorities tend to be socially disadvantaged which contributes to a greater social inequality.But would this really explain the 1:2.5 ration we are seeing?

  What's the single biggest difference between the two though? Probably the gun laws.

[Retribution]

Not getting into that debate man. Like I said I swore off this thread because we chase one another in circles and I have already been baited in deeper than I planned on in the beginning. I have definite opinions on such things but I shall keep them to myself.

Now I am really out!!

[LisztesFerenc]

Not getting into that debate man. Like I said I swore off this thread because we chase one another in circles and I have already been baited in deeper than I planned on in the beginning. I have definite opinions on such things but I shall keep them to myself.

Now I am really out!!

  Sure thing, you shouldn't debate something you don't want to. If you don't mind though, ff this has already been discussed in this thread, can you point out where it was discussed? I'll skim the thread myself, but whilst I've seen this point raised a couple of times times, I've only ever seen it deflected than addressed.

[Retribution]

I meant the political thread in general or I should say board. Not this thread in particular sorry. I used to be pretty active on this board, but I find it is better for my mental health and friendships if I am not. Sorry for the confusion.

[Ephiral]

Am... not sure where your stand is, exactly, Retribution: You say you would comply with laws which were enacted through the democratic process, then point to a law that was enacted through democratic process (albeit, not at the usual glacial pace) and say "I would resort to violence if they did that." Not trying to suck you into argument, just... I don't see how these are coherent?

Also curious what exactly gun-control advocates can do to "leave you alone" and engage in the democratic process at the same time. Are they actually trying to physically seize your weapons?

The one point I will actually argue with: It is entirely possible to think that mental health is woefully underserved and that less guns in the hands of people willing to use them on others are a good idea. It is possible to work on multiple problems at once.

[Tairis]

It's a largely pointless debate because every politician in the United States has completely lost any concept of how government is supposed to work. It's nothing but talking points and political screaming matches that refuse to budge on a point.

On one side you have the morons at groups like the Brady campaign that don't even understand the basic mechanics of guns or an actual concept of what they're used for in the real world. On the other side you have the equally retarded NRA who basically just screams and waves a flag around anytime someone even mentions an idea that has the word 'gun' in it that doesn't follow it with 'give one to every child'.

You could solve alot of problems in short order by creating a federal background check system with universal standards and requirements instead of the patchwork system of failure that currently exists.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's a largely pointless debate because every politician in the United States has completely lost any concept of how government is supposed to work. It's nothing but talking points and political screaming matches that refuse to budge on a point.

On one side you have the morons at groups like the Brady campaign that don't even understand the basic mechanics of guns or an actual concept of what they're used for in the real world. On the other side you have the equally retarded NRA who basically just screams and waves a flag around anytime someone even mentions an idea that has the word 'gun' in it that doesn't follow it with 'give one to every child'.

You could solve alot of problems in short order by creating a federal background check system with universal standards and requirements instead of the patchwork system of failure that currently exists.

Though stuff like that - seems to terrify the NRA hardcores even worse than simple ownership restrictions, because it combines restrictions with registration. It's easy for Them to round you up for the FEMA death camps if you've already registered to own your gun, after all. ;)

[Caehlim]

As for my extreme example that drew me into a thread I had sworn off of. Australia had a mass shooting I forget how many years ago. The political answer was to all but outlaw private gun ownership across the board in a very fast tracked manner. I see that sort of thing and I cringe and go "yeah this is where I fight." I cannot conceive of it ever happening in the US, but still when I see it happening other places it makes me very, very, nervous. Kind of a there but for the grace of god go I sort of thing. Why do I bring this up? Because the president has used Australia as an example of gun control done right.

The Port Arthur massacre 19 years ago.

Speaking as a recreational shooter, private gun ownership is hardly outlawed here. It's licensed and admittedly a bit of a bureaucratic process to obtain a gun but if I went often enough it was worth owning my own gun, I could easily do so.

[Tairis]

Own a gun or 'own' a gun that has to live at a shooting range or club?

[Caehlim]

Own a gun or 'own' a gun that has to live at a shooting range or club?

As long as I owned a gun safe, I could bring it home with me.

[kylie]

     It's no longer about Virginia per se, but I dunno, do we really need a "new" thread every time it's a different location with the same problem.  Today it's Oregon.  And tomorrow wherever, but quite likely somewhere in the US.

      Trotting out a few statistics:

Since Obama’s reelection to a second term in November 2012 – which itself was followed by the shooting of 26 people including 20 children at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, just a few weeks later – there had been 993 mass shooting events in the United States . Thursday’s attack, at Umpqua community college in the town of Roseburg, was No 994. Almost 300 of them have occurred in 2015.

That’s almost one every day.

...

Umpqua is the 294th mass shooting event in 2015, as defined by the website Shootingtracker.com, which chronicles them as an event in which four or more people are shot. Since the Newtown shooting, there have now been 994 such events in the US. The death toll of this litany of tragedy stands at approximately 1,236 people since the beginning of 2013.

By the FBI’s definition – four or more killed rather than four or more shot, a “mass murder” event rather than a “mass shooting” – there have been 45 such incidents this year, and 142 since Sandy Hook.

...

The number of firearm homicides in 2013, the last year for which the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has statistics, was 11,208. The year before Sandy Hook, it was 107 fewer than that.

That’s just intentional homicides. Firearms are the cause of death for more than 33,000 people in America every year, according to the CDC; a number that includes both accidental discharge, murder and suicides, which are on the increase, especially in states with lax gun-control laws, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

That means guns kill more people in America every six hours than terrorist attacks did in the entire year of 2014.

On top of that, in 2010 more than 73,000 Americans were treated in hospitals for firearm-related injuries, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

This year is on track to break records. So far in 2015 there have been 39,449 total firearm incidents, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 9,940 people killed. Of those, 550 were children, and 1,962 were teenagers.

Almost half of all guns in civilian ownership on the planet are held by Americans.

[kylie]

      So, would all of the ten dead students have been insulted?  All of their parents?  Their friends and neighbors?  How about now?

      Then there is the little matter of being in a country with a federal system to begin with...  It ain't King George, although George W was sometimes pushing it a touch.

County sheriff John Hanlin, leading the response, had written to vice president Joe Biden in 2013 vowing he would refuse to enforce or allow the enforcement of any federal gun control laws because it was “unconstitutional” and an “insult to American people”.

[Oniya]

Both Donald Trump and Jeb Bush have spoken about the event saying 'Things happen'. 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/jeb-bush-after-oregon-massacre-stuff-happens?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Bush is backpedaling on it a little bit, but I haven't heard any damage control from the Trump camp. 

[kylie]

      Yeah, last I read Trump was all 'anti-social loner weirdo' and "things fall through the cracks," blah blah.

It's just that the thousands of little "cracked" cases in the US, keep coming up with multiple body counts.  ::)

-------------

      And otherwise, generally speaking there's the racial scenarios comparison: But if it had been a Black guy?  "Why don't these people integrate better/control their own community?" -- "Omg no a riot is coming!" -- "Stop funding welfare and making these people believe they deserve anything at all..." -- "Seeee, this is what they're really like!"  Oh, but since it's this White guy:  Instead it's all  "Sad, isolated loner, he just couldn't take the heat in our modern society, tough breaks, but so shocking for the families, just can't understand it at all."    :o