Gun Monkey Madness!

[T. A. Gardner]

We are a nation created from the colonialization/imperialism of other countries ... laying waste to the native population while using a century or so of institutionalized slave labor to "build this country". There is NO WAY to transition to some similar type of gov't as based in Europe/South America/Asia as we do NOT have their history of "same-ness" in population and culture.

Actually, slave labor built almost nothing in the US before the practice was ended. If anything, the practice of slavery retarded growth of business and industry in the South rather than enhanced it. The same is true in Mexico where the similar Hacienda system was in place, throughout the Caribbean, and in S. America, like Brazil, where it was practiced.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Try selling your screed to the surviving victims and/or the families of mass shootings for the last what, 30 years. Or for that matter, the same for victims of criminal (i.e., gangs) gun violence where the guns were easily obtained via an Iron Pipeline. Explain to them that they have "liberal paranoia" regarding the gun controversy. I suggest you do so from a fast moving car.

One can debate whether it's the "biggest" problem our nation faces, but it sure as hell is in the top five.

And it's not a case of "reverence" for our Constitutional checks and balances....it's a desire for our congressional representatives to actually make the damned things work for all Americans. Hence the OP.

Just because you're not feeling the heat doesn't mean you can blow off what others feel .... especially when we all (technically) pay the same entry fee to have things work better (aka taxes).

I don't mean to blow off what others feel.
I'm merely admitting that I don't seem to feel it nearly as much,
particularly while we have no national health service,
unaffordable education,
and anti-worker "right-to-work" laws.

I'm more curious as to your opinion on the constitution being amendable anymore.
It takes a level of consensus that I don't believe we'll ever see in our remaining lifetimes.

As for guns, we're obviously a socially regressive nation,
many Americans don't want to be governed,
and asking them to give up a uniquely American birthright--
the right to bear arms--
is a hard sell.

I have several firearms,
not to mention a concealed carry permit,
and I haven't used them for decades.
If the government is willing to give me market value,
which is a lot,
I'll gladly let them have them.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Once again, Jon Stewart plainly speaks truth to power regarding this country's never-ending nonsense on gun ownership and liberties. As it stands now, the MAGA GOP has a proposal out for making the purchase of gun "supressors" (aka silencers) more accessible (if not totally legal) to the general public. There's also a "reciprocity" act on the table that would allow any yahoo in a lax gun law state to bring his weapon along their travels to any other state .... sort of an "old West" type of thing to an extent.

Now of course the mantra is that more "good guys with guns" will save the day and reduce crime ... especially with all these criminal illegal aliens running amok unchecked throughout the country (sarcasm). Hmm, Jon Stewart takes a look at this:

www.youtube.com/shorts/c_OTcpFtfQA

www.youtube.com/shorts/wVu9UPBcwZU

I don't know why anyone needs or should have an AR unless they are a military or law enforcement person. Why on Earth should anyone need a silencer/suppressor? Isn't the whole idea of that to be able to not draw attention to yourself when you're firing your weapon? As in making it harder for people to escape when you're committing a mass murder event?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't know why anyone needs or should have an AR unless they are a military or law enforcement person.

Neither do I.

If only that were the one single prevalent mystery as to why humans have self-destructive opinions.

As an animal lover, I wish that I were a vegetarian,
but I'm not;

I'm a meat eater who won't do his own wetwork.

As a meat eater,
I have no right to criticize meat eaters who will do their own wetwork.

I can't favor the prohibition of sporting arms,
and a sporting arm is also sufficient to defend your home.

An AR is an OFFENSIVE weapon,
so if you think that you need one,
you, at least at the subconscious level,
are prepared to render malfeasance.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't know why anyone needs or should have an AR unless they are a military or law enforcement person. Why on Earth should anyone need a silencer/suppressor? Isn't the whole idea of that to be able to not draw attention to yourself when you're firing your weapon? As in making it harder for people to escape when you're committing a mass murder event?

there have been several discussions about 'needing' ARs. I'm still left wondering how anyone with a minimum level of historical knowledge would not understand the necessity of, not just ARs, but all automatic weapons.

as was previously stated, suppressors are not 'silent' that allows people to avoid drawing attention, but to protect ones hearing. Real life is not like the movies where firearms are silent. you can still hear them fire, they are just not as loud

 

[Taichiliberal]

I don't mean to blow off what others feel.
I'm merely admitting that I don't seem to feel it nearly as much,
particularly while we have no national health service,
unaffordable education,
and anti-worker "right-to-work" laws.

I'm more curious as to your opinion on the constitution being amendable anymore.
It takes a level of consensus that I don't believe we'll ever see in our remaining lifetimes.

As for guns, we're obviously a socially regressive nation,
many Americans don't want to be governed,
and asking them to give up a uniquely American birthright--
the right to bear arms--
is a hard sell.

I have several firearms,
not to mention a concealed carry permit,
and I haven't used them for decades.
If the government is willing to give me market value,
which is a lot,
I'll gladly let them have them.

Okay, the wheels come off your wagon in the first paragraph. It's not about what YOU "feel".... it's the REALITY of what others are going through as victims/survivors/surviving family members.

Your other concerns are most valid, but as I said previously, the gun issue is in the top five (as you corroborated).

Your 2nd paragraph is an attempt at deflection in order to later justify your sentiments. The Constitution is the system of government and laws, DESIGNED to be amended via acts of Congress (per our elected representatives). That's it .... ain't perfect and subject to corruption and indifference, but until you come up with a better solution, it is what it is.

Your 3rd paragraph is a moot point of a fashion .... one of the reasons for the OP.

Your last sentence is basic gun monkey paranoid BS, as to date there has NOT been a general confiscation law of legally obtained weaponry. Hell, even with the 1994 AWB people who had said weapons prior to the enactment of the law were allowed to keep them. So spare me.

 

[leaningright]

So essentially you contain your gun carrying travel in states with laws favorable to you (or not strict enough where you can't illegally carry your weapon). Of course, you can't get on a commercial plane armed, nor on a cruise ship, if I'm not mistaken.

The current proposals would pretty much expand what you do nationwide. Of course, as I pointed out in the OP and subsequent exchanges, not all the possible problems have been thought through.

I try to stay within the law. I fly American because it is the airline that utilizes our small, regional airport. I have purchased the necessary TSA approved gun box and have familiarized myself with the procedure in the airports for checking and picking up my carry weapon. Then I have it available as we drive around the states we happen to be visiting. On our north-central trip I carried as normal in South Dakota, North Dakota and Wisconsin but had to secure it in the vehicle while in Minnesota.

It’s really funny how different it is in different airports when I pick up my carry weapon. In Sioux Falls they were very used to people picking up firearms that have been checked. After the luggage had gone around some guy just stuck his head through the flaps on the luggage carousel and hollered my name. I went over there, showed him my driver’s license and he handed my my bag. Most airports I have to go to a designated place to pick it up. Like I said, I’m getting better.

While uniform laws (reciprocity) among the states would make it easier for me, I understand the desire of some folks to prevent that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I try to stay within the law. I fly American because it is the airline that utilizes our small, regional airport. I have purchased the necessary TSA approved gun box and have familiarized myself with the procedure in the airports for checking and picking up my carry weapon. Then I have it available as we drive around the states we happen to be visiting. On our north-central trip I carried as normal in South Dakota, North Dakota and Wisconsin but had to secure it in the vehicle while in Minnesota.

It’s really funny how different it is in different airports when I pick up my carry weapon. In Sioux Falls they were very used to people picking up firearms that have been checked. After the luggage had gone around some guy just stuck his head through the flaps on the luggage carousel and hollered my name. I went over there, showed him my driver’s license and he handed my my bag. Most airports I have to go to a designated place to pick it up. Like I said, I’m getting better.

While uniform laws (reciprocity) among the states would make it easier for me, I understand the desire of some folks to prevent that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it.

So you go through all that for what?
Those states allow you to carry it concealed? What about hotels?
Carrying around a gun in a box is just silly.

 

[leaningright]

So you go through all that for what?
Those states allow you to carry it concealed? What about hotels?
Carrying around a gun in a box is just silly.

Yes, those states allow for concealed carry wherever I go with few exceptions like state parks, hospitals, etc. Yes, I carry concealed in hotels, restaurants, malls…wherever.

And in states like Minnesota which have more restrictive laws, the weapon doesn’t have to be in a box, just unloaded in the vehicle, ammo in a different place from the gun and made known if there is any encounter with law enforcement (some states). I comply.

The box is just for legal transport via commercial air travel.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Okay, the wheels come off your wagon in the first paragraph. It's not about what YOU "feel".... it's the REALITY of what others are going through as victims/survivors/surviving family members.

Your other concerns are most valid, but as I said previously, the gun issue is in the top five (as you corroborated).

Your 2nd paragraph is an attempt at deflection in order to later justify your sentiments. The Constitution is the system of government and laws, DESIGNED to be amended via acts of Congress (per our elected representatives). That's it .... ain't perfect and subject to corruption and indifference, but until you come up with a better solution, it is what it is.

Your 3rd paragraph is a moot point of a fashion .... one of the reasons for the OP.

Your last sentence is basic gun monkey paranoid BS, as to date there has NOT been a general confiscation law of legally obtained weaponry. Hell, even with the 1994 AWB people who had said weapons prior to the enactment of the law were allowed to keep them. So spare me.

I'm not making an argument, Tacky, as relentlessly as you're trying to provoke one.
I'm merely sharing my perspective.

It's not about what I feel?
That's entirely wrong.
To me, it's ENTIRELY about what I feel,
and while you won't admit it,
to you, it's entirely about what you feel.
That's how humans function.

I know how the Constitution works as well as most non-lawyers do,
and of course, it is what it is. What else can it be?

Are you disputing the point
that amending the Constitution, given the process of how that's done,
is unlikely given the current level of extreme polarization in this nation?

If you are, than THAT's our real argument.

 

[Lionfish]

I don't know why anyone needs or should have an AR unless they are a military or law enforcement person. Why on Earth should anyone need a silencer/suppressor? Isn't the whole idea of that to be able to not draw attention to yourself when you're firing your weapon? As in making it harder for people to escape when you're committing a mass murder event?

 

[Taichiliberal]

I'm not making an argument, Tacky, as relentlessly as you're trying to provoke one.
I'm merely sharing my perspective.

It's not about what I feel?
That's entirely wrong.
To me, it's ENTIRELY about what I feel,
and while you won't admit it,
to you, it's entirely about what you feel.
That's how humans function.

I know how the Constitution works as well as most non-lawyers do,
and of course, it is what it is. What else can it be?

Are you disputing the point
that amending the Constitution, given the process of how that's done,
is unlikely given the current level of extreme polarization in this nation?

If you are, than THAT's our real argument.

Your first 2 sentences are just plain old baloney. You're realizing that your screed when analyzed does not stand up to scrutiny, so you try to portray me as pursuing an irrational conflict. Unfortunately for you, the chronology of the posts don't pan out that way to the objective reader.

Your second paragraph is just a regurgitation that ignores my previous analysis. I'll repeat: YOUR FEELINGS DON'T MEAN SQUAT TO THE VICTIMS (AND THEIR FAMILIES) OF MASS SHOOTINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERELY LESSENED (IF NOT AVOIDED) HAD THINGS LIKE THE 1994 AWB NOT ALLOWED TO SUNSET. You're talking BS that results in an indifference to others suffering while you suffer none. I am quite the opposite, as I don't have some need to have guns just for the sake of having them.

Nice try, but the OP is what it is. You do the usual gun monkey shuffle .... putting on blinders, diverting to a created aspect, and ignoring any previous response that negate your current attempts, as posts #12 and #44 cover.

No, you're not a constitutional lawyer .... period. Neither am I. BUT what I do know is that gun monkey's perform mental gymnastics to defend their version of the 2nd amendment that would make Nadia Comaneci envious. So your trying to shift the goal post (again) just ain't cutting it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes, those states allow for concealed carry wherever I go with few exceptions like state parks, hospitals, etc. Yes, I carry concealed in hotels, restaurants, malls…wherever.

And in states like Minnesota which have more restrictive laws, the weapon doesn’t have to be in a box, just unloaded in the vehicle, ammo in a different place from the gun and made known if there is any encounter with law enforcement (some states). I comply.

The box is just for legal transport via commercial air travel.

So ALL hotels, restaurants, malls that you travel to allow patrons to be armed? Proof please. I ask because when you say things like "state parks, hospitals, etc." casts doubt on the general validity of your claims

So you carry an unloaded gun in a car with the ammo NOT in the same location. Hmm, since one of the gun monkey mantras is to be armed and ready should the "good guy with a gun" can stop the "bad guy with a gun" arise, abiding by such a law kind of severely lessens response time, n'cest pas?

My pointing out these little contrary facts is to demonstrate the sheer psychological need for gun monkey's to have that gun near them. The OP stands valid.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Your first 2 sentences are just plain old baloney. You're realizing that your screed when analyzed does not stand up to scrutiny, so you try to portray me as pursuing an irrational conflict. Unfortunately for you, the chronology of the posts don't pan out that way to the objective reader.

Your second paragraph is just a regurgitation that ignores my previous analysis. I'll repeat: YOUR FEELINGS DON'T MEAN SQUAT TO THE VICTIMS (AND THEIR FAMILIES) OF MASS SHOOTINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERELY LESSENED (IF NOT AVOIDED) HAD THINGS LIKE THE 1994 AWB NOT ALLOWED TO SUNSET. You're talking BS that results in an indifference to others suffering while you suffer none. I am quite the opposite, as I don't have some need to have guns just for the sake of having them.

Nice try, but the OP is what it is. You do the usual gun monkey shuffle .... putting on blinders, diverting to a created aspect, and ignoring any previous response that negate your current attempts, as posts #12 and #44 cover.

No, you're not a constitutional lawyer .... period. Neither am I. BUT what I do know is that gun monkey's perform mental gymnastics to defend their version of the 2nd amendment that would make Nadia Comaneci envious. So your trying to shift the goal post (again) just ain't cutting it.

You just want to have an argument over a topic that doesn't interest me enough to sustain a prolonged argument.
In other words, you're just being a dick.

I don't even think about guns unless somebody else brings up the subject,
and you don't get to tell me what I should think is important.

Further, if I called a black man like yourself a monkey, as you've called me,
you'd get indignant. So basically, go fuck yourself.

Also, it's YOU who refuses to address whether the Constitution is realistically amendable
in today's polarized environment. Whether or not you understand, that's the core issue
impeding further gun control, not my indifference to the matter.

 

[leaningright]

So ALL hotels, restaurants, malls that you travel to allow patrons to be armed? Proof please. I ask because when you say things like "state parks, hospitals, etc." casts doubt on the general validity of your claims

So you carry an unloaded gun in a car with the ammo NOT in the same location. Hmm, since one of the gun monkey mantras is to be armed and ready should the "good guy with a gun" can stop the "bad guy with a gun" arise, abiding by such a law kind of severely lessens response time, n'cest pas?

My pointing out these little contrary facts is to demonstrate the sheer psychological need for gun monkey's to have that gun near them. The OP stands valid.

I never said “all” hotels, restaurants , etc. Somehow you, with your advanced wisdom, read that in to what I wrote. I simply avoid the ones that don’t in states that allow for reciprocal carry. It’s not difficult.

And yes, I comply with the laws of the states that I am in when it comes to carrying. I do not plan to be made an example of for not doing so if caught not complying in a state that is unfriendly to gun owners. So I take the chance that I will not need that weapon (there are others I keep at my disposal) when in those states.

A friend of mine from church was carjacked, beaten and left for dead in Dallas as he was returning to his home after having been to New Orleans to help out during Katrina. That is not going to happen to me or my family without resistance.

You call the desire to be armed a sheerly “psychological” need. Maybe it is. We make allowances for psychological needs to be met for people all the time in this country. So no, I’m not arguing that part of the OP.

Finally, I do appreciate the need of people who are so much smarter than the rest of us to use such nice terms to refer to gun owners. I highlight each and every reference like “gun monkey” to people who are on the fence of this issue as I actively campaign for the expansion of concealed carry rights and the expansion reciprocity laws across all of the states.

You guys are making headway though. Please do keep up the good work of campaigning to restrict the rights of gun owners or to make it more difficult for the average citizen to purchase a handgun or other firearm. It seems like a winning strategy to me.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I am a bit confused when "true believers" like my friend Leaning Right--
people who think that America is the greatest nation in the world--
realize that America has SO MANY MORALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY DEFICIENT PEOPLE
that they feel that they need to carry a concealed firearm to be safe.

I suppose that if one travels in "cracker" environs like Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, and such,
one possibly, if not necessarily probably,
does need to walk heavy to be safe. LR would know far better than I, of course.

In Boston, I walk around with my concealed carry permit in my wallet for some reason,
but I can't be bothered to uncomfortably carry an actual firearm.

My daughter, an actual police lieutenant detective,
can't be bothered to walk around her her bulky Glock service weapon.
If she carries at all, it's her own little Walther.
Few gunfights occur around her desk.
A donut fight, maybe, but no gunplay.
Maybe that's an OK City thing.
I hear that they have some colorful precincts there.

We should be able to agree on one thing, however.
If we need to carry guns to be safe---
and I'm not saying that we do or we don't--
but if we do,
we have to be ludicrously full of shit to call America the greatest nation in the world.
How isn't that obvious?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I never said “all” hotels, restaurants , etc. Somehow you, with your advanced wisdom, read that in to what I wrote. I simply avoid the ones that don’t in states that allow for reciprocal carry. It’s not difficult.

The tactics of the anti gunners gets revealed from time to time, like taichi just did. Make as many complicated and prohibiting laws to still leave carrying legal, but so difficult to follow that people feel it's not worth it. Not that it makes anyone safer, because the anti gun morons still don't seem to understand that criminals will not follow those laws and carry anyway

 

[Taichiliberal]

I never said “all” hotels, restaurants , etc. Somehow you, with your advanced wisdom, read that in to what I wrote. I simply avoid the ones that don’t in states that allow for reciprocal carry. It’s not difficult.

And yes, I comply with the laws of the states that I am in when it comes to carrying. I do not plan to be made an example of for not doing so if caught not complying in a state that is unfriendly to gun owners. So I take the chance that I will not need that weapon (there are others I keep at my disposal) when in those states.

A friend of mine from church was carjacked, beaten and left for dead in Dallas as he was returning to his home after having been to New Orleans to help out during Katrina. That is not going to happen to me or my family without resistance.

You call the desire to be armed a sheerly “psychological” need. Maybe it is. We make allowances for psychological needs to be met for people all the time in this country. So no, I’m not arguing that part of the OP.

Finally, I do appreciate the need of people who are so much smarter than the rest of us to use such nice terms to refer to gun owners. I highlight each and every reference like “gun monkey” to people who are on the fence of this issue as I actively campaign for the expansion of concealed carry rights and the expansion reciprocity laws across all of the states.

You guys are making headway though. Please do keep up the good work of campaigning to restrict the rights of gun owners or to make it more difficult for the average citizen to purchase a handgun or other firearm. It seems like a winning strategy to me.

My bad. I should have said "but not allowed at" to reflect what you said accurately. You offer no proof of what I previously requested.

Again, by your own words you sometimes bend the rules of compliance in order to get as near to being strapped 24/7.
Gun monkeys are folk who talk all types of BS to avoid the logical / fact based consequences of things like the sunset of of the 1994 AWB, or the additional burdens this reciprocity proposals will put on local cops .... your last 2 sentences being prime examples.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You just want to have an argument over a topic that doesn't interest me enough to sustain a prolonged argument.
In other words, you're just being a dick.

I don't even think about guns unless somebody else brings up the subject,
and you don't get to tell me what I should think is important.

Further, if I called a black man like yourself a monkey, as you've called me,
you'd get indignant. So basically, go fuck yourself.

Also, it's YOU who refuses to address whether the Constitution is realistically amendable
in today's polarized environment. Whether or not you understand, that's the core issue
impeding further gun control, not my indifference to the matter.

Your subjective regurgitation only agrees with your mirror reflection and is not supported by the chronology of the posts. That you try a "reverse racism" ploy
is pathetic. You're done.