Sorry, but anyone that doesn't agree with what he's saying is a moron

[Creepy Green Light]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=930678490425237

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I agree. This video is bogus. Nobody is taking gun rights away in this country, or take away their guns if acquired legally. Just proposing common sense regulation that's favored by the vast majority of this country. Overall, violent crime levels are much lower than years ago. Still trolling, eh?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I agree. This video is bogus. Nobody is taking gun rights away in this country, or take away their guns if acquired legally. Just proposing common sense regulation that's favored by the vast majority of this country. Overall, violent crime levels are much lower than years ago. Still trolling, eh?

LOL - trolling? No. Sharing info that I think the majority of the country agrees with - unless it's the extreme left which have lost their minds. What more gun control can you get than what there already is? I mean seriously; propose a law that would have stopped the last 10 years of random shootings/school shootings right up until the last one.

The people all these ridiculous laws punish is me (as the guy in the video stated). Does anybody really think your local gang member, crook, drug dealer goes into a gun store, fills out the application - waits on the background check, get's the gun, then goes and fills out a concealed weapons permit, gets finger printed, etc. then waits for the permit to show up in the mail and then goes "Ok good. Now I'm all set to commit my mass shooting at the local high school."? Don't be ludicrous. PUT THE BLAME AT THE FOOT OF THE SHOOTER INSTEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE WHICH INCLUDES MYSELF.

California has THE most strictest gun laws and look what happened. Here's another thing; is cocaine & heroin illegal? Yes. Can anybody get them within minutes if they want to? Yes. Is the drinking age 21? Yes. Do you think there are any people under the age of 21 that are not going to follow the law tonight and have a beer? Yes. Point is; people do what they want. Adding more ridiculous gun laws punishes me. Not "Rocket" who is part of the Crypts gang. Chicago also has the most stringent gun laws. I think it was 9 people got shot and killed by guns in under 24 hours. The laws don't work or prevent anything. What DOES work is having a gun in your home or on your person when a crime is being committed. I get a daily feed of people that saved their own life or their families life by having a gun on them. Problem is, main stream media squashes these stories. I mean, why broadcast those? They only publicize the stories of the nut that brought a gun into their place of work and shot 4 coworkers and then themselves.

But I would seriously be interested from hearing from anybody about what law(s) could have prevented any of the past shootings? If someone is hell bent on killing someone else and they can't get a gun, they'll use a knife, if they don't have a knife, they'll use a bomb, if they can't make a bomb they'll use a car, etc. etc. etc.

It's ironic that all the left wing wacko's in Hollyweird that hate guns are flanked on all sides of security guards that have the very guns they protest. Talk about irony.

This is a completely different story but we're also tired of all the nut jobs that don't know the difference between automatic, semi automatic, an "assault rifle" etc. A topic for another time I guess.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Actually the whole gun industry is based on deliberately misinterpreting the second amendment. Start with that rather than your nonsense about what the public favors.

I also suspect the person in that interview is an actor. It's repeating a racist trope attitude. Nobody can believe this nonsense.

 

[Minny McNinny]

Let me be the first to take the honor (Gene doesn't count lol) to be surnamed "Moron" by someone known as "Creepy Green Light".

Speaking of irony...

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Honestly I find the title of this thread to be revolting and totally counterproductive - a symptom of the problem, not a step toward a solution.

And it's a huge problem. America is obviously plagued with a soul-shattering epidemic of gun-related mass murders that targets the young and vulnerable with chilling consistency.

Doing nothing about this crisis is obviously an insane suggestion. And magnifying the gun problem by spreading around more firearms is obviously an evil and totally counter-effectual suggestion: we know that more guns = more gun deaths, period - studies from all around the world have proven that beyond any shadow of doubt.

Australia halted gun-related mass murders with sensible gun laws. Those laws have saved lives - and spared untold trauma for hundreds if not thousands of people:
How Australia All But Ended Gun Violence

But America is a very problematic case. Widespread corruption and the dismantling of our Constitutional government (aided and abetted by our own Congress and Supreme Court and the corporate "news" media) have sent us careening into civil unrest that could erupt into a national class insurrection unlike anything we've ever seen here before. And we've been so negligent about controlling firearms for so long now that any 15 year-old psychopath with murderous impulses can get hold of a deadly assault rifle with little if any effort. And our own militarized police forces are as terrifying to huge percentages of our population as the criminals are.

In this sociopolitical climate I'd be loathe to surrender my weapon; if the violent offenders stalking our streets every night don't threaten my life at some point, then it seems only a matter of time before outbreaks of riots threaten to topple the rule of law entirely. America is a powder keg waiting to go off, and every institution that should be capable of alleviating the pressure is only contributing to it instead because our government doesn't represent the people anymore; it only represents the rich and their corporations - especially the US mass murder machine that is now steamrolling nation after nation without a protest movement to be seen anywhere on our shores.

So the only way to avert complete catastrophe at this point would seem to be a huge national political revolution to wrest back control of our government from the hands of the few to the hands of the many, but that's not happening because the masses are hypnotized into impotent complacency by all of the lying and manipulative news media outlets. But if we could retake our usurped government, then we could begin the long and arduous task of deweaponizing our populace, and ending the interminable slaughters abroad.

The vastly more likely outcome of this appears to be the complete collapse of our nation - we've been the frog in slowly boiling water for decades, and when it finally hits home that the powers now controlling our government are working to create a new technological era of neofeudalism where the vast majority are irrecoverably enslaved by a handful of sociopathic billionaires with a pathological greed and lust for power, our cities will burn and erupt into open violent conflict, which will more likely result in an openly fascist police state rather than the egalitarian freedom-loving nation that we want. And at that point it will be up to the rest of the world to stop us - which will probably result in a global holocaust because of our vast nuclear arsenal.

I wish I could see a solution to this inevitable fall of the dominoes. But the total betrayal of America by the artful manipulation of the fourth estate has set us on a collision course with the last stage of civilization, which seems to play out like clockwork throughout history. And in our own deliberately encouraged stupidity, we think that it can't happen here. But it's already happening here, and the self-deluded who deny it are the ones guaranteeing the end of human civilization as we know it, and a scale of loss and suffering unprecedented in human history.

If anyone sees a credible path out of this, I'd love to hear it.

 

[pigfarmer]

This is one of those topics that is so polarized it’s virtually impossible to discuss. Abortion is another one.

CRL – I actually agree. This man is extremely well spoken and I couldn’t have framed it better myself. The thread title is a bit provocative and I can see why it rankled some. It’s a matter of perspective.

I’ve been a collector, avid shooter, occasional hunter and hand loader for decades. I live in New York State and the gun control laws here are second only to California. I have absolutely no problem with common sense gun laws. My first handgun purchase in 1987 took six months and included both a state and federal background check. Any time I purchased an additional handgun I had to reapply at the local Sheriff’s office and wait approximately two weeks for another background check and the signature of a county judge. I cannot take possession of the firearm until I present the approved permit/supplement.

Whether you are buying a handgun or long gun, either at a store or gun show, the seller has to first call the NICS database for an instant federal background check. Long guns do not require permits but there are strict rules about how they are transported and where you can use them.

I take personal responsibility for firearm ownership. I lock them up in a commercial safe and never leave them loaded in the house or unattended. I could give a rat’s ass about AR and AK style weapons and yes, there are too many in circulation. If I could snap my fingers and make them disappear I would. I do not agree with the NRA and do not belong to the organization – I think there was an opportunity after Parkland that was missed. In my opinion Mark Walker spoke extremely well on this topic – there are a great many people who are responsible, who do feel strongly about their rights and are easy targets for laws which are more about political grandstanding than effectiveness. I live in New York and have earned the right to say that – read up on what the NY Safe Act is and the foolishness that flowed from it. Niggling about the individual characteristics of weapons is like arguing about what kind of nails to use on the barn door after the horse has run away. It’s also true that there are extremists who can tolerate zero gun control measures and foam at the mouth at the mere suggestion and shriek about confiscation. It may come as a surprise but those types irritate me as much if not more than the rabid anti-gun lobby.

What works in other countries is all fine and well but we have an enormous population spread unevenly over a huge territory and I always say that you have to deal with the actual problem you have not the one you’d like to have or maybe think you do. There are millions of firearms in circulation and even if you shut down every factory in the country and banned all imports it wouldn’t solve the problem.

It’s a mistake to lump all gun owners into the same basket. I had a friend that liked to call me up and grill me about ‘why do you need …’ in the wake of a shooting. Do I speak for the entire community? I wonder if he calls up black friends or women and asks the same types of things in other situations.

What Mark Walker said is correct – legal gun owners who comply with the law are the first and easiest targets for grandstanding politicians more eager to be seen ‘doing something’ than to actually address an almost impossible situation. I see him as a voice of reason in an unreasonable situation. Personally, as a first step I think we ought to examine the gun control laws already on the books and properly enforce them. Compliance in reporting to NICS might have prevented Sutherland Springs and maybe even Parkland. I believe a gun store owner prior to the Orlando nightclub shooting did actually find the shooter’s request for ammo in quantity to be unusual but he had nowhere to go with it. And beyond looking for the government to solve every problem in life you can imagine no matter what it is, had Adam Lanza’s mother actually locked up the goddamned guns and not allowed her mentally ill son access to them there would not have been a Sandy Hook. If more gun owners felt as I do and secured things properly there would be fewer stolen weapons in circulation. On the other side of the coin had just one person in the San Bernardino cafeteria been carrying a registered concealed handgun there might have been a very different outcome and we'd be hailing that person as a hero.

To blame one side or the other in a blanket statement is pointless. The missed opportunity I saw was the ability to meet somewhere in the middle and possible apply more common sense and less emotion. And even had that been done it would be impossible to prevent another mass killing. Pressure cookers, trucks and gasoline have also been popular weapons of choice.

OK. I’ve vented my spleen. Let the vilification begin……..

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The video is an obvious flake, playing on the image of "see black people say it too." That has a clear racist implication.

The fact is that the vast majority of people in America want common sense gun controls. The politicians are in the pockets of the NRA, and don't have the courage to do what their constituents want.

 

[pigfarmer]

The fact is that the vast majority of people in America want common sense gun controls. The politicians are in the pockets of the NRA, and don't have the courage to do what their constituents want.

Actually, that's what about I said.

He's not a flake. He is who he is - Representative for North Carolina District 6. You want to add racism go ahead by all means do so but I don't see it. Come to one of my Tuesday night leagues - it's more diversified than you would apparently expect.

 

[pigfarmer]

Gene - my apologies. I thought he was the representative and now I see that it was posted by the representative. I still like what he had to say. Turn off your monitor and just listen to the man. Going off without really looking at something or drawing conclusions without evidence isn't exclusive to paranormal discussion.

OK. Here's a real world extremely current update. I made my post and then my wife and I took our dog for a two mile walk around the block. She's about a 45 pound mutt. The neighborhood is rural and we've lived here for 20+ years and done the walk a million times.
Out of the blue a 60-70lb pit bull mix comes bolting up a driveway and grabs my dog by the neck. She's screaming, we're all tangled and it's game on. I am not a small guy by any means but I absolutely could not pull that dog off. A neighbor and his daughter (the owner who is visiting) came out and only after several minutes of fighting did I manage to choke the damn dog out and get him to release. I just got back from having a tetanus shot. Apparently they don't stitch dog bites for fear of infection but in any other case I would have acquired a half dozen or so.

"he's a good dog" "so quiet" right-o. And then today he chewed the crap out of my dog and ME.

I have had a concealed carry permit for many years and very, very rarely carry. I avoid situations where I think it could be necessary in the first place. Many people who do carry fail to think through the full implications of what it all means and how the law really works.
After today I am seriously reconsidering that. In the past I've had dogs come after me, been bitten a few times but this one takes the cake and the bakery it was made in. Thankfully my dog is banged up but relatively OK and my wife wasn't injured. Not two miles from here in a similar situation a dog like that tore the face off a four year old boy - we still see solicitations for donations in local businesses to help the poor kid. I don't need a 30 round mag, bump-stock or any of that crapola.

The neighbor is a state trooper and privately told me I would have been within my rights. I have no desire to hurt anyone or anything but sometimes you have to defend yourself. If I were alone I could not have. Laws that govern self defense of any kind should represent the area they serve and be well considered before enacted. Even in Imperial New York the onerous laws would not have prevented me from doing so. Only an abundance of caution on my part did - and I am fortunate it turned out the way it did. It just as easily might not have and that's why I am reconsidering carry in certain situations.

This is just one that was visible. There are others and you'd be surprised at the amount of blood.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I heard the words. Standard NRA nonsense. I pity the people who believe the falsehoods that result in tens of thousands of people dying every year as the gun makers earn more money.

 

[pigfarmer]

I heard the words. Standard NRA nonsense. I pity the people who believe the falsehoods that result in tens of thousands of people dying every year as the gun makers earn more money.

Well, I am most definitely not NRA but I like what he said. An inability to play devil's advocate and consider other opinions is why there is so much pissing and moaning over this issue. There is no practical pass-a-law blanket solution for this. Pro-gun does not means pro-mass murder.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Pigfarmer is right: this topic is similar to the abortion rights debate - it’s so polarizing that people talk past each other rather than communicating.

In my view both sides make some good points, so calling people morons for disagreeing with either viewpoint is totally unjustified and only further polarizes the topic – a topic which demands an actual viable solution.

The problems with this video are manifold.

For starters, the actual wording of the Second Amendment is ambiguous; it’s not clear at all. Here’s the pertinent section:

"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."

That’s some of the worst legal wording I’ve ever read: on one hand you can read the last part in the context of the first part and say that the right to bear arms applies only to well-regulated state militias. That’s a valid interpretation. On the other hand, the last part isn’t explicitly connected to the first part in any well-defined manner, so it can be read as a separate statement even though it’s all part of the same sentence. That’s a valid interpretation as well. Here’s a more detailed discussion of this interpretation crisis:
Second Amendment

Now when you add a couple of centuries of technological progress from the musket and Derringer to the modern assault rifle that can mow down an entire classroom of children in a matter of seconds, the ambiguity of the Second Amendment leads to heaps of dead kids every year. That guy never even mentions all of those dead bodies piling up.

But then he starts throwing around bogus straw man arguments. Nobody’s talking about taking away grand-dad’s hunting rifle – that’s not the conversation. Nobody’s talking about “punishing” responsible gun owners like pigfarmer. So what is the guy so upset about? Washington isn’t even close to an assault weapons ban. Nobody’s asking this guy for anything, or trying to impinge on any of his liberties – yet he’s talking like a victim. It’s all smoke and no fire. The victims are the dead children and their loved ones – this guy isn’t being victimized by anybody, so his feigned moral outrage is complete BS.

Here’s the thing: we could solve this problem. We just increased our military budget by $80 billion/year beyond what the DoD asked for. We could implement a government buy-back program and get most of the guns off of our streets, because the most dangerous guns are in the possession of the most economically desperate people – and most of those people would rather have a check for $1000 than a gun in the closet. Think of all of the innocent American lives we could save by spending money on this serious domestic problem, instead of spending it on more senseless mass murder operations abroad.

But then we’re up against the larger problem again: our government has zero interest in solving our problems. All of our institutions work 24/7 to make the rich richer and more powerful, and to keep the campaign donation / political bribery cycle going. The people in power now have secured gated communities and private jets and private schools that are almost completely protected from the problems that you and I have to live with every day. The breakaway civilization is already here, in little bubbles of privilege interspersed throughout our nation. And they don’t give a damn how many of us suffer, or how many of our children are gunned down, because their children aren’t at risk.

The abhorrent and oppressive aristocracy that our forefathers fled Europe to escape is now in full control of America. And there’s nowhere to escape to now. So it’s going to come down to a fight for our survival, and I’m not optimistic about our chances.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Let me be the first to take the honor (Gene doesn't count lol) to be surnamed "Moron" by someone known as "Creepy Green Light".

Speaking of irony...

Since you've been here on the forums since breakfast, I'll cut you some slack. Yes, Creepy Green Light is a handle and/or alias which is kinda goofy. However, your real name is Minny - and you are stuck with that so.....LOL.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Well, I am most definitely not NRA but I like what he said. An inability to play devil's advocate and consider other opinions is why there is so much pissing and moaning over this issue. There is no practical pass-a-law blanket solution for this. Pro-gun does not means pro-mass murder.

Agreed. But the left have an agenda and/or cannot figure this out. They don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to guns, yet they want to determine what law abiding citizens can/cannot buy & carry. Trying to explain this to them is like trying to break through a concrete wall with your skull.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, actually it's about logic. You do not want people who shouldn't buy guns to get them. It saves lives. Clearly the skull that needs a little breaking is yours.

 

[pigfarmer]

Agreed. But the left have an agenda and/or cannot figure this out. They don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to guns, yet they want to determine what law abiding citizens can/cannot buy & carry. Trying to explain this to them is like trying to break through a concrete wall with your skull.

It's fair to say that many opinions on both sides of the firearms issue form their opinions from TV and movies. I've seen many idiots out there with flash suppressors, goofy stocks, high capacity mags and optics that run in the thousands just banging away that have absolutely no idea what the hell they are doing who make menaces for range officers and everyone else. I've also encountered people who are equally clueless who treat any firearm like a bucket of creepy spiders and there's no point in trying to even talk to them.

Speaking from experience in New York it is damned frustrating to have laws passed ad hoc with little understanding of the real world impact - beyond political visibility. When they passed the Safe Act in response to Sandy Hook they failed to consider that one of the provisions meant that every single police officer in the state was in violation for having more than seven rounds in any magazine. There were a few other clever bits like that and the Act had to be instantly edited to get some of the stupid out of it. Nothing in this Act would have prevented Sandy Hook and still won't years later.

The law makes a great deal out of 'assault style' features which admittedly does catch a few nasty items in the screen - imagine that a fanatic gun toting lunatic that can admit that some gun control measures are good. But in general the law just provides more hoops to jump through for legal owners than security of any sort. It's just a self-serve registration program. The governor will brag about his gun safety legislation but it doesn't pass the smell test. Here's the thing - I'm a reasonable, moderate gun-owner who does feel frustrated but is perfectly willing to admit that there have to be some limits and would be willing to sit down with a counterpart on the other side of the debate and have an intelligent discussion that might lead to useful change.

Unfortunately the political climate of the past 20+ years involves one side forcing an issue and ramming a solution down the other side's throat. We also have the attention span of gnats. No matter how many people are killed the incidents fade and we go right back to where we started. That video may well be 100% scripted propaganda but if you take the time to put aside strong opinions you might understand why I say it's worth listening to. Again - there is no quick fix solution. Is suggesting cooperation and a little moderation such a bad idea?

I'd also like to add this - remove gun control as a topic. Pick any other you'd like to exchange it for that people have strong opinions about. Then be dismissive of someone else's opinions. Be so convinced of the veracity of your case that you don't really need to consider anything else. See how that all works out. Try it with lawyers in a divorce setting and you'll be putting someone else's kids through college.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

It's fair to say that many opinions on both sides of the firearms issue form their opinions from TV and movies. I've seen many idiots out there with flash suppressors, goofy stocks, high capacity mags and optics that run in the thousands just banging away that have absolutely no idea what the hell they are doing who make menaces for range officers and everyone else. I've also encountered people who are equally clueless who treat any firearm like a bucket of creepy spiders and there's no point in trying to even talk to them.

Speaking from experience in New York it is damned frustrating to have laws passed ad hoc with little understanding of the real world impact - beyond political visibility. When they passed the Safe Act in response to Sandy Hook they failed to consider that one of the provisions meant that every single police officer in the state was in violation for having more than seven rounds in any magazine. There were a few other clever bits like that and the Act had to be instantly edited to get some of the stupid out of it. Nothing in this Act would have prevented Sandy Hook and still won't years later.

The law makes a great deal out of 'assault style' features which admittedly does catch a few nasty items in the screen - imagine that a fanatic gun toting lunatic that can admit that some gun control measures are good. But in general the law just provides more hoops to jump through for legal owners than security of any sort. It's just a self-serve registration program. The governor will brag about his gun safety legislation but it doesn't pass the smell test. Here's the thing - I'm a reasonable, moderate gun-owner who does feel frustrated but is perfectly willing to admit that there have to be some limits and would be willing to sit down with a counterpart on the other side of the debate and have an intelligent discussion that might lead to useful change.

Unfortunately the political climate of the past 20+ years involves one side forcing an issue and ramming a solution down the other side's throat. We also have the attention span of gnats. No matter how many people are killed the incidents fade and we go right back to where we started. That video may well be 100% scripted propaganda but if you take the time to put aside strong opinions you might understand why I say it's worth listening to. Again - there is no quick fix solution. Is suggesting cooperation and a little moderation such a bad idea?

I'd also like to add this - remove gun control as a topic. Pick any other you'd like to exchange it for that people have strong opinions about. Then be dismissive of someone else's opinions. Be so convinced of the veracity of your case that you don't really need to consider anything else. See how that all works out. Try it with lawyers in a divorce setting and you'll be putting someone else's kids through college.

In NJ it's like ringing the dinner bell for criminals. Whether they go into a bank, 7/11, Wal-Mart to rob; they know that NOBODY is going to have a concealed gun (unless there happens to be an off duty copy that happens to be carrying) in there - because the law does not allow it. But if you tried pulling that in say Vermont, who knows? Maybe 1, 5, 10 or 20+ people ,might have a gun on them - you might get shot back. So like I said, NO MATTER WHAT, the bad guys will have them - the people that are punished are people like myself. The same mentality behind nobody wanting any of us to have guns is the same mentality that thinks hanging up a sign that says "This Is A Gun Free Zone" is going to actually make the criminal/terrorist go "Oh crap Raheem - this sign says there are no guns allowed here. Great. Now there goes our plan to rob/shoot up the place."

The Sheriff of a town put this up near him. Good for him.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And just how many incidents were there where a mass shooting was prevented because someone there had a weapon handy? Point me to the stories.

 

[pigfarmer]

Sutherland Springs Church might've been avoided entirely by a NICS check had the shooter's bad conduct discharge been reported as required. An armed citizen put two bullets into the shooter. As I recall he had to go spin the dial on his safe to get to his rifle, hence the delay and additional loss of life.