Cider's ?safer? gun free home.

[Ben Framed]

Make no mistake about it folks.

Once they have our guns,... they'll be coming for our Bibles!

Sal
Just another Bitter Clinger

Ain't that the truth. Amen.

Most likely so. 

[Acebird]

The NRA is causing the problem because they stonewall any logical thinking ... it is us against them.  And I said this before, the us's are going to loose eventually and when all is said and done you can thank the NRA.

Let me ask you two questions and I hope you will answer this time.

1. Please give some examples of the NRA blocking logical thinking?

2.  If we did not have a group to lobby for us, where do you think we would be right now on gun ownership?

1 Registration, red flag, prosecution for laws that exist.
2 Far better off because you are going to lose some privileges to own certain fire arms.  That is how it goes with all or nothing.

[iddee]

"Registration,"   Of persons, yes, of each gun, no.
 "red flag," so if your teenage daughter gets mad at you for not allowing her out after midnight, you would be all right with her claiming you are acting violent and them taking all your guns??  NO THANK YOU
 "prosecution for laws that exist."  Links, please??  Are you referring to laws that are being challenged as unconstitutional?

""2 Far better off because you are going to lose some privileges to own certain fire arms.""  Better known as one bite at a time, until all are gone.

"That is how it goes with all or nothing.  That's right. We say NONE, they say ALL. They will never be happy with part way. We won't either, as the constitution doesn't say part way.It says  "Right to bear arms."

[Dallasbeek]

The NRA is opposed to registration because that always leads to confiscation.

I don't know if the NRA has taken a position on Red Flag laws.  I think that is a mixed bag.  Depends on how the law is written and what raises the red flag.

The NRA is all for enforcing existing laws.  It's the politicians and US attorneys who refuse to tuck people in jail who sell guns illegally, for example, like the Obama administration did in selling guns to Mexican drug cartels and illigally exporting them to Mexico.

And what Iddee says X2.

[Ben Framed]

Quoting iddee
"That is how it goes with all or nothing.  That's right. We say NONE, they say ALL. They will never be happy with part way. We won't either, as the constitution doesn't say part way.It says  "Right to bear arms."

I am with you on this iddee and so was our Founding, Patriot Fathers. You know, I have noticed that  ''most''  of the proponents of breaking The
Constitution are not far back generation, rooted fellow Citizens. Check them out. The biggest majority are recent immigrants or from family's of recent immigrants , only two or three generations back. These newer citizens, opposing and disregarding our Constitution,  just don't seem to have the love for this Land, (or the appreciation of the sacrifices and wisdom that our founding fathers possessed), and our Constitution as our long time, many generation, deep rooted citizens. Even though we have welcomed them here with open outstretched arms!! Is seems they do not want to just join us, but ruin a good thing which is for All Citizens, both older and newer. If our Constitution has a flaw, I would think this may have been the biggest one. I don't know, what are your thoughts?

[Kathyp]

1 Registration, red flag, prosecution for laws that exist.
2 Far better off because you are going to lose some privileges to own certain fire arms.  That is how it goes with all or nothing.

The only thing I have heard anyone say is what has been said here.  How red flag laws are written and enforced is the question.  So far, I have not seen a draft of any proposed laws.  While I think most of us are in favor of keeping dangerous people from getting weapons, we need to be sure they narrowly define what a dangerous person is.

We have already lost the ability to own certain weapons.  We also have well-funded groups like Any Town who advocate for disarming the public, and politicians openly talking about confiscation...so I ask again:  If there is no one to lobby for our protection under the 2nd, what do you think eventually happens to private ownership of weapons?

[Ben Framed]

When the human element is involved, there is no perfect solution. The founding fathers had it as close to perfect as could be expected. Stick to the Constitution and let that be that, to try to improve it will more than likely mess it up. Nuts are nothing new. The Founding Fathers was well aware of this segment of human faults and falls.  Love, be kind, curious, and all good things, but in the case of the nuts, be as iddee; be ready to defend yourselves and your fellow citizens in the case of an emergency.   

[CoolBees]

... the constitution doesn't say part way.It says  "Right to bear arms."

I thank God every day that I've have been allowed to live in a country where I can be a free citizen - and no group or individual is willing to try to take those freedoms away by force, because they are afraid that I/we would sand up and say "I don't think so!" ... and we can make that stick. This is the true freedom the 2nd amendment brings. Because I have a rifle locked in a safe - there is peace. Because I can say "No" - there is no need to open the safe.

I most definitely pray that the day will never come that I need to open that safe. (Except for the occasional Elk Steak of course  )

[CoolBees]

...so I ask again:  If there is no one to lobby for our protection under the 2nd, what do you think eventually happens to private ownership of weapons?

Kathy - the answer is: We would have to use them if we wanted to keep them - at that point. ... I certainly hope that day never comes.

Some here may remember that I take a dim view of the NRA - but make no mistake, I'm eternally thankful for the job they are (trying) to do.

[Ben Framed]

...so I ask again:  If there is no one to lobby for our protection under the 2nd, what do you think eventually happens to private ownership of weapons?

Kathy - the answer is: We would have to use them if we wanted to keep them - at that point. ... I certainly hope that day never comes.

Some here may remember that I take a dim view of the NRA - but make no mistake, I'm eternally thankful for the job they are (trying) to do.

I would never, ever,  want to be put in a position that I would have to use a weapon, any weapon to hurt someone although it be in defense, I agree Alan, I hope that day never comes.  We are so blessed here, I only wish the blinders would be removed that all of our citizens could clearly see, in a good way, just how blessed we Americans really are. 

[Acebird]

If there is no one to lobby for our protection under the 2nd, what do you think eventually happens to private ownership of weapons?

As long as the owners act in a responsible way the second amendment will not be revoked.  The NRA is not acting in a responsible way so that representation puts the 2nd at risk of being changed.  There are many responsible gun owners in this country.  They are not all republicans or a member of the NRA.  The NRA will drive gun ownership away exactly as the labor unions drove jobs away.  All or nothing doesn't work too well in a democracy.

[Acebird]

The NRA is opposed to registration because that always leads to confiscation.

Interesting conclusion ... Your car is registered and millions are killed by cars so how come they aren't banned and confiscated?  The fact of the matter is if "they" come to confiscate all your weapons just give them all to "them".  Use your car to run over "them".  The end result will be the same.  You will kill more of "them" and stand a chance of temporarily getting away.
Dallas, the point is to confiscate weapons from people who should not have them even if it is only temporary.  Are you responsible?  Then what is your worry?

[Acebird]

That's right. We say NONE, they say ALL.

Yupp, there are two minority groups.  The purpose of a democracy is so the minority groups do not run the country.  Lobbyist screw up a democracy.

[Dallasbeek]

The NRA is opposed to registration because that always leads to confiscation.

Interesting conclusion ... Your car is registered and millions are killed by cars so how come they aren't banned and confiscated?  The fact of the matter is if "they" come to confiscate all your weapons just give them all to "them".  Use your car to run over "them".  The end result will be the same.  You will kill more of "them" and stand a chance of temporarily getting away.
Dallas, the point is to confiscate weapons from people who should not have them even if it is only temporary.  Are you responsible?  Then what is your worry?

Gee, it?s so simple the way you explain it, Ace.  Why didn?t the people the Nazis deprived of guns think of that?  Or the ones that fell under Soviet or Communist Chinese, or the Cambodians?  I guess they were all just stupid.

Confiscation only occurs when the people have something the people in power want or want the population not to have.  Like the farms the Kulaks had in Russia, or the three-bedroom apartments a lot of Russians had ? the Bolsheviks very wisely saw those apartments were large enough for six or more families, so they confiscated the surplus space and gave it it the homeless.  In the case of the Kulaks, the Bolsheviks just killed the farmers and their families and turned the farms into collectives, to be run by committees, most of which knew nothing about farming.  But, hey, they were good party members, which is what really counts.

If automobiles started being used as weapons, they would be be banned instantly, and since there?s no way to easily conceal them, the confiscation would be accomplished quickly.  The steel in them would be turned into munitions for the state and you would be allowed to ride your bicycle to work at the munitions factory, provided your political commissar approved your job application. 

When will you wake up and try living in the real world, my friend? 

[Dallasbeek]

The NRA is opposed to registration because that always leads to confiscation.

Dallas, the point is to confiscate weapons from people who should not have them even if it is only temporary.  Are you responsible?  Then what is your worry?

I would like nothing better than to deny access to guns to those who either temporarily or permanently exhibit a danger to others.  In my legal practice, I lost eight clients murdered by spouses who were unable to cope with the fact that their marriage was over.  I have seen several people with mental illnesses that should have been grounds for removing guns from their reach, but because law enforcement was ineffective, they still had access to guns.  In one case, I had a client who was clinically depressed.  He actually had a rifle taped to his torso with the muzzle under his chin and was threatening to pull the trigger.  He was a danger to himself, sure, but I could not see any threat to anyone else.  Nevertheless, a young cop was telling him to put the gun down (how, with it taped to him?) and pointed his weapon at my client.  I placed myself between the cop and the client to (hopefully) keep the cop from shooting, talked to the client a while, calmed him and the cop both down and got the rifle from under the client?s chin.  He did pull the trigger, but the bullet went into the air past his head.  Just so I don?t appear to be bragging too much, or make myself out as brave (since the rifle was no threat to me) and  the cop?s sergeant (who knew me) and the client?s father came during all this and helped a great deal in defusing the situation.  My real point is that I understand about needing to keep guns from people who should not have them, but I have a lot of trouble with who makes the decision and what you mean by ?temporary?. Once the police in some places have your guns in their hands they quickly consider them their guns.  It?s a lot like any property seizure.  I?ve had to get court orders to force police to return vehicles after acquittals.  They really, really wanted to keep those nice wheels so they could use them or turn them into cash for their departments. 

[Kathyp]

The NRA is not acting in a responsible way so that representation puts the 2nd at risk of being changed. 

Examples please.  If you make a statement like this you need to be able to back it up with specifics.

Interesting conclusion ... Your car is registered and millions are killed by cars so how come they aren't banned and confiscated?  The fact of the matter is if "they" come to confiscate all your weapons just give them all to "them".  Use your car to run over "them".  The end result will be the same.  You will kill more of "them" and stand a chance of temporarily getting away.
Dallas, the point is to confiscate weapons from people who should not have them even if it is only temporary.  Are you responsible?  Then what is your worry?

Car registration and licencing is about collecting money.  It is also a state matter. 
The potential problem with red flag laws is in how they are written and how they might be implemented.  We have a woman here who was undergoing cancer treatment and staying in one of those places that are offered close to the hospital.  One of the nurses overheard her talking about her pro-life stance and made a report to CPS about how she was abusing one of her kids.  The family was kicked out of the residence because there was an open CPS case.  Even though all the other hospital staff, including her doctor, backed the family she now has to fight a CPS case because someone didn't like the fact that she was pro-life.

Deciding someone is not responsible can be a pretty subjective call.  The last admin warned that people like me who are conservative, former military, etc. were potential crazy people who needed to be watched.  Who determines and how, which of us are "responsible"?

Yupp, there are two minority groups.  The purpose of a democracy is so the minority groups do not run the country.  Lobbyist screw up a democracy.

No, the purpose of democracy is to make sure the minority has no voice.  It is mob rule.  That works as long as you agree with the mob.  What happens when you don't and have no voice?

[Michael Bush]

The only reason anyone thinks the NRA is acting irresponsibly is because they have not bothered to understand why they take a stand on something.  The news media makes any stand they take seem wrong and extreme.  I had a friend who was going off about the NRA one day saying it was stupid that the NRA was opposing a law that would require a saftey on every gun.  I tried to explain that the design of a gun determines if a saftey is useful or not.  A DA revolver has no need of a safety.  A modern lever action rifle with a hammer has no need of a saftey.  You just leave the hammer at halfcock.  A SA revolver has no need of a safety.  A single shot falling block rifle with a hammer has no need of a safety.  I refuse to own any of those if they do put a safety on them (which they usually don't, but my son got a lever action with a safety once...).  Even a Glock does not have a saftey catch.  The only guns I own that have a safety are hammerless so you can't just uncock the hammer...  If you know anything about guns the NRA makes sense on this matter.  If you know nothing about guns it sounds crazy to you.  The NRA did not fight background checks.  They fought every proposed background check plan until the current one because all of them would have created a list of gun owners and a list of gun owners is the first step to confiscation.  You can argue that it isn't all you want but history says otherwise.  If you bother to see WHY the NRA apposes a given proposed law you will see they have a reason.  If you don't bother to find out the reason and take the media's view as reasonable then you will think they are unreasonable.  I have not seen any instance where they were unreasonable.

[Ben Framed]

The NRA is opposed to registration because that always leads to confiscation.

Dallas, the point is to confiscate weapons from people who should not have them even if it is only temporary.  Are you responsible?  Then what is your worry?

I would like nothing better than to deny access to guns to those who either temporarily or permanently exhibit a danger to others.  In my legal practice, I lost eight clients murdered by spouses who were unable to cope with the fact that their marriage was over.  I have seen several people with mental illnesses that should have been grounds for removing guns from their reach, but because law enforcement was ineffective, they still had access to guns.  In one case, I had a client who was clinically depressed.  He actually had a rifle taped to his torso with the muzzle under his chin and was threatening to pull the trigger.  He was a danger to himself, sure, but I could not see any threat to anyone else.  Nevertheless, a young cop was telling him to put the gun down (how, with it taped to him?) and pointed his weapon at my client.  I placed myself between the cop and the client to (hopefully) keep the cop from shooting, talked to the client a while, calmed him and the cop both down and got the rifle from under the client?s chin.  He did pull the trigger, but the bullet went into the air past his head.  Just so I don?t appear to be bragging too much, or make myself out as brave (since the rifle was no threat to me) and  the cop?s sergeant (who knew me) and the client?s father came during all this and helped a great deal in defusing the situation.  My real point is that I understand about needing to keep guns from people who should not have them, but I have a lot of trouble with who makes the decision and what you mean by ?temporary?. Once the police in some places have your guns in their hands they quickly consider them their guns.  It?s a lot like any property seizure.  I?ve had to get court orders to force police to return vehicles after acquittals.  They really, really wanted to keep those nice wheels so they could use them or turn them into cash for their departments.

Thanks for posting this Dallas and giving us a first hand view.
Phillip

PS Really you are a Hero! Thanks

[CoolBees]

...  All or nothing doesn't work too well in a democracy.

For the record Ace - we, in America, have never been a Democracy, and never will be - Thankfully.

Democracy is "Mob Rule" - i.e., 51% of the vote rules - period. Rome was a Democracy.

We are a Constitutional Republic.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin - "a Democracy is 2 Wolves and a Lamb voting on what's for dinner. A Constitutional Republic is a Well-Armed Lamb contesting the vote".

In a Constitutional Republic, 1 individual has rights that outweigh the Mobs vote. Case in point - Proposition 8 here in California (a few yrs ago) - Prop 8 defined marriage as between 1 Man and 1 Woman. It passed by a wide margin. Then it was challenged in court on the basis that the law violated the rights of a small group of people (gays & others). Their case was upheld and the Law was overturned. This is an example of how America is NOT a Democracy - never was, and never will be. Individuals have rights.

In America - I have rights, as defined by our Constitution, such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speach, freedom of religion, freedom from slavery, the right to vote, & the right to Bear Arms. My rights are NOT SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OF THE MASSES!!!!!!!! (I.e. - they are not subject to Mob Rule).

[BeeMaster2]

Good post Coolbees.
Jim Altmiller