Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[Newtosavage]

I was in the Bass Pro by the DFW airport a few years ago. I was looking at ammo (when that was an option). I started chatting with this other guy doing the same thing. He had immigrated to the US several years before from a country in Africa. I don't remember which one. Maybe Mali? Anyway, he starts telling me (very passionately) about how American's don't know how good they have it with the 2nd amendment and how we take it for granted. He goes on to tell me that guns had been banned in his country. He said there were really few people outside of criminals who had guns.

He said the way people would rob you in his country was very different than here in the US. You would get a knock on your door and when you opened it there would be a group of a few guys with a gas can and box of matches. They would ask for whatever they were going to ask you for. And if you didn't comply they would dump gas on your porch and burn your house down. They knew nobody had any guns to fight them with.

I always think of that conversation whenever this topic comes up.

How did we get from what constitutes "arms" to nobody having guns?

The 2A is a great Amendment. I'm damn glad we have it and I wish other's countries did too. But fighting to keep the right to "bear arms" is not the same as fighting for the right to own anything and everything. That's where the pro-gun crowd loses the bulk of support among typical Americans. Insisting that we must be able to own suitcases full of 50 round magazines and bump stocks to defend ourselves just doesn't sound very reasonable to the average voter.

That's actually what worries me most - is that the loudest arguments by the pro-gun crowd are going to sound so extreme to the typical voter that they ( the loud pro-gun crowd ) will cause the rest of us to lose what rights we have.

 

[Bubblehide]

I agree, which is why I only ever spoke about my own choices, only to be ganged up on and "educated." LOL

That is very insightful, lol.

 

[Newtosavage]

That is very insightful, lol.

How so?

 

[Dos Perros]

Why do people believe that citizens defending themselves from tyranny would be an exercise in symmetrical warfare? Surely it's not like Joe and Jim and Bob from the HOA band together and take on Uncle Sam by acquiring weapons and bombs and aircraft and aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons and hold government targets at risk. Of course not, that's implausible.

But, the Taliban didn't do that either, and they gave us more than we could handle.

 

[Newtosavage]

Why do people believe that citizens defending themselves from tyranny would be an exercise in symmetrical warfare? Surely it's not like Joe and Jim and Bob from the HOA band together and take on Uncle Sam by acquiring weapons and bombs and aircraft and aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons and hold government targets at risk. Of course not, that's implausible.

But, the Taliban didn't do that either, and they gave us more than we could handle.

They didn't have to (give us more than we could handle). But we're playing by the rules and they aren't. I would assume that a "tyrannical government" would not play by the rules, and would have no trouble cleaning the surface of the earth just fine, regardless of how many and what kind of "arms" I have.

Again, if you think through the possible scenarios, where does the AR fit in? Home defense for some... okay. Not my choice but if that's what they want then fine. But defending against a tyrannical government? Nope. Your AR ain't gonna save you from that. Someone, somewhere can delete you and all your friends with a push of a button. That's just the facts of where we are today.

But if the AR makes you feel like you could put up more of a fight and take a few more "of them" with you... sigh... At the end of the day, you're still pushing up daisies. That is, if daisies will even grow where they just wiped you off the earth.

 

[Hoodie]

First of all, an AR-15 is not a battlefield tool. M4 (select fire) and M-16 (select fire, full auto) were used by the US military. AR-15s were not ever used by the military.

Some police forces use AR-15s? Why? Because it is effective.

Secondly, depending on what you are using for shotgun, it can be worse than an AR-15 shooting V-Max, or A-Max rounds. Buckshot will keep on trucking where V-Max doesn't.

Thirdly, the way your house or apartment is setup may be different than mine (or others). I live on 3 acres. I'm not concerned with over penetration. My neighbors are over 100 yards away from my house.

The AR-15 is an excellent self-defense tool. Just ask (or search the web, preferably using DuckDuckGo) for examples of homeowners using AR-15s for self defense.

It is my "go to" for self defense. I also use an AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel for hunting. Harvested many whitetails with it. Larger magazines are great for hog hunting.

You're correct regarding the select fire variants.

I would, however, argue that three round burst on the M4 variants lacking full-auto is basically useless. There are a few scenarios where full-auto can be sort of useful, like breaking contact in a tight alley with an Australian Peel (which sounds dirty when you type it out).

Three round burst on the other hand is total crap. You could take it away and the weapon would lose zero effectiveness. Might even be more effective.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2A which, interpreted as you've outlined, should make allowance for full-auto variants given that they're issued to modern infantry. That's a different discussion.

I just think three round burst is comically stupid. Totally screws up the trigger pull too. Every gun loving American should be anti-three round burst.

Having gotten that PSA out my system, I will attempt to refrain from further derailing.

 

[brocksw]

Those hunters are called fudds and should be looked at as enemies to the hunting and shooting sports communities

I dunno man. Don't you think those are people passionate 2a supporters should be reaching out to first?

I mean, gun owners can't always be looking for the fight. We should double down on education, have the tough conversations, take the time to discuss. It's okay to disagree, but it's something else when gun owners attack everything they don't understand or everything that doesn't look like they think it should or everyone that doesn't totally agree, all without a second thought. They're still your fellow Americans. Some of the passionate gun owners cause the other side to dig their heels in even more. If someone doesn't know any better, never been around guns, and holds a soft anti-gun opinion when you meet them....calling them a freedom hating communist probably isn't going to be very effective. But there are all too many gun owners that essentially do that to any person or organization that doesn't line up exactly how they think they should.

If you have a young kid who's never been hunting and you want to take him out. I would think you'd do everything you could to be a good advocate for the sport. You'd teach him, help him appreciate it, help him respect the animal and learn about it, teach him how to be effective, and try not to wound the animal and have shit turn into a rodeo with guts hanging out on his first time out. Wouldn't you?

I think it might be wise to take that same approach with some of the gun issues. Obviously, its not going to work on everyone, and some already have their mind made up. But there's still a lot of people we can reach. Not just to teach about the 2a, but to also teach firearms safety and respect, etc....

 

[Huntinaz]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I’ve never read a scrap of history and mostly didn’t pay attention while in school while I was failing out of it but...

In general is it best for an oppressed minority to just give up? Tyranny and aggression by a government against its own peoples or another, past and present, I mean is it pretty well documented that this sort of thing is typically one-sided and lasts a very short time and that if you just do as you’re told as a minority and get into the cattle trains that’s really the only sensible thing to do? And cultures and power struggles are pretty static right and never spill over from one region to another? So there’s not much utility in extrapolating crazy scenarios where the security of a nation or populace might change in some sense (civil, political, cultural, whatever) correct? Today should pretty much be the same today as it will be tomorrow and years down the road and a consideration or mild distrust of future changes to this is basically the definition of extremism yes?

I know these ignorant questions have nothing to do with the topic at hand but I’m just curious

 

[Chucklehead]

How did we get from what constitutes "arms" to nobody having guns?

The 2A is a great Amendment. I'm damn glad we have it and I wish other's countries did too. But fighting to keep the right to "bear arms" is not the same as fighting for the right to own anything and everything. That's where the pro-gun crowd loses the bulk of support among typical Americans. Insisting that we must be able to own suitcases full of 50 round magazines and bump stocks to defend ourselves just doesn't sound very reasonable to the average voter.

That's actually what worries me most - is that the loudest arguments by the pro-gun crowd are going to sound so extreme to the typical voter that they ( the loud pro-gun crowd ) will cause the rest of us to lose what rights we have.

You give an inch they will take a mile. I'm not willing to give that inch. You think these politicians are reasonable? Then where is the give and take? It doesn't exist.
Giving them something in the hopes they will go away is a very weak strategy. The mob will keep coming, it's never going to end. "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

I'm not going to compromise my ideals simply based on a perceived opinion of the majority that may or may not be true. Gun owners/households are probably the majority in America and almost certainly the voting majority. There were 5 million new gun owners last year alone. That's not nothing. The riots woke a lot of people up. If the mob showed up on my doorstep, first thing I'm going for is my AR.

 

[Dos Perros]

They didn't have to (give us more than we could handle). But we're playing by the rules and they aren't. I would assume that a "tyrannical government" would not play by the rules, and would have no trouble cleaning the surface of the earth just fine, regardless of how many and what kind of "arms" I have.

Again, if you think through the possible scenarios, where does the AR fit in? Home defense for some... okay. Not my choice but if that's what they want then fine. But defending against a tyrannical government? Nope. Your AR ain't gonna save you from that. Someone, somewhere can delete you and all your friends with a push of a button. That's just the facts of where we are today.

But if the AR makes you feel like you could put up more of a fight and take a few more "of them" with you... sigh... At the end of the day, you're still pushing up daisies. That is, if daisies will even grow where they just wiped you off the earth.

I don't think you're thinking very creatively. You're completely ignoring deterrence value, optics, politics, etc.

If your neighbor Joe who cooked BBQ for the HOA every summer, loaned you his ladder when you asked, was generally a good dude and citizen but lover of his 2nd Amendment right...if Joe declined to surrender his 'arms' when demanded by a tyrannical government and was murdered by them, don't you think that'd sway the opinions of his neighbors who previously may not have given a shit?

Sure some family members at Ruby Ridge are dead, and David Koresh is dead, but the dudes from the Oregon wildlife refuge aren't, and probably because of the shit storm caused by those predecessors.

You have enough scrape ups with dudes like Joe, and sooner or later the citizenry will vote those policies out of power, or worse.

 

[Newtosavage]

You give an inch they will take a mile. I'm not willing to give that inch. You think these politicians are reasonable? Then where is the give and take? It doesn't exist.
Giving them something in the hopes they will go away is a very weak strategy. The mob will keep coming, it's never going to end. "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

I'm not going to compromise my ideals simply based on a perceived opinion of the majority that may or may not be true. Gun owners/households are probably the majority in America and almost certainly the voting majority. There were 5 million new gun owners last year alone. That's not nothing. The riots woke a lot of people up. If the mob showed up on my doorstep, first thing I'm going for is my AR.

You really believe that gun owners are the voting majority?

Gun ownership, by party affiliation U.S. 2022 | Statista

In the United States in 2022, 48 percent of Republicans reported that they owned at least one gun, and 66 percent said that they lived in a household with a gun.

www.statista.com

 

[Hoodie]

I don't think you're thinking very creatively. You're completely ignoring deterrence value, optics, politics, etc.

If your neighbor Joe who cooked BBQ for the HOA every summer, loaned you his ladder when you asked, was generally a good dude and citizen but lover of his 2nd Amendment right...if Joe declined to surrender his 'arms' when demanded by a tyrannical government and was murdered by them, don't you think that'd sway the opinions of his neighbors who previously may not have given a shit?

Sure some family members at Ruby Ridge are dead, and David Koresh is dead, but the dudes from the Oregon wildlife refuge aren't, and probably because of the shit storm caused by those predecessors.

You have enough scrape ups with dudes like Joe, and sooner or later the citizenry will vote those policies out of power, or worse.

Robert LaVoy Finicum was shot and killed by FBI agents and a State Trooper during the Malheur Wildlife Refuge debacle (in Oregon).

Certainly a lower body count than Waco or Ruby Ridge, just important to note that the incident didn't pass without loss of life.

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't think you're thinking very creatively. You're completely ignoring deterrence value, optics, politics, etc.

If your neighbor Joe who cooked BBQ for the HOA every summer, loaned you his ladder when you asked, was generally a good dude and citizen but lover of his 2nd Amendment right...if Joe declined to surrender his 'arms' when demanded by a tyrannical government and was murdered by them, don't you think that'd sway the opinions of his neighbors who previously may not have given a shit?

Sure some family members at Ruby Ridge are dead, and David Koresh is dead, but the dudes from the Oregon wildlife refuge aren't, and probably because of the shit storm caused by those predecessors.

You have enough scrape ups with dudes like Joe, and sooner or later the citizenry will vote those policies out of power, or worse.

No, I have considered deterrence value. It's a real thing. But if you're truly fighting a "tyrannical government" they aren't going to be deterred by a bunch of guys with AR's when they have blackhawks and tanks and nukes. I mean, with a push of a button (or a few joysticks on a drone) it's over. That quick.

A truly tyrannical government would have dropped a bomb on the compound in Waco or the wildlife refuge headquarters and been done with it.

I sometimes wonder if people really stop and think about what it would mean to fight a true modern-day "tyrannical government." Especially considering the tools the U.S. military has at it's disposal. Your AR is pretty worthless by comparison. That ship sailed 150 years ago.

 

[Dos Perros]

No, I have considered deterrence value. It's a real thing. But if you're truly fighting a "tyrannical government" they aren't going to be deterred by a bunch of guys with AR's when they have blackhawks and tanks and nukes. I mean, with a push of a button (or a few joysticks on a drone) it's over. That quick.

So your conclusion, because attempting to defend oneself from the government holds an unfavorable and foregone conclusion, is that the 2nd Amendment is therefore meaningless?

 

[Huntinaz]

Yeah nuking the whole country where they live and their comrades live would be the way they would do it alright. That’s how North Korea is doing it. I am certain there are a bunch of North Koreans right now today that are glad they don’t have access to AR-15’s

Thats what the army is for!

 

[Newtosavage]

So you're saying gun owners or AR owners, should just throw in the towel? "yep, they'll nuke us, we'd all dead so we might as well just give up now". That doesn't seem very American. I see where you're coming from, and in some scenarios you might be right. But now all scenarios....and I'd still like the opportunity to fight and protect my family....or die trying. I truly hope it never comes to that. I can't emphasize that last sentence enough.

Why do you make that leap? I said nothing of the sort.

 

[Newtosavage]

So your conclusion, because attempting to defend oneself from the government holds an unfavorable and foregone conclusion, is that the 2nd Amendment is therefore meaningless?

sigh.. of course not. But IMO the winning argument today is defense of ones person and home. The "tyrannical government" ship sailed long ago.

Just imagine sitting in front of 9 supreme court justices and arguing that you need your AR to defend yourself against a "tyrannical government." How would you make that argument? I'm just not seeing it.

However if you are sitting there in front of those 9 justices and you are arguing that we have a right to defend our homes and families, and a right to gather food with the use of firearms, I think that's an argument you can win, and connecting those dots to the 2A, in today's terms, seems much more likely both in that court and the court of public opinion.

 

[Dos Perros]

sigh.. of course not. But IMO the winning argument today is defense of ones person and home. The "tyrannical government" ship sailed long ago.

I don't get that at all.

The 2nd Amendment was put in there for a well documented reason. I don't give two shits if someone thinks it's now an antiquated (or at least not currently relevant) reason. It's the law, it's a right, it's there. If you want to change it there is a clearly defined process to do that. Go get the votes and do it.

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't get that at all.

The 2nd Amendment was put in there for a well documented reason. I don't give two shits if someone thinks it's now an antiquated (or at least not currently relevant) reason. It's the law, it's a right, it's there. If you want to change it there is a clearly defined process to do that. Go get the votes and do it.

Every law has to be interpreted by human beings. The 2A has been examined and re-examined for 200+ years. And it will be re-examined again, most likely to determine what the current definition of "arms," is.

My point about the ship sailing is specifically about defending oneself from a "tyrannical government." That was possible in the 1700's when tyrannical governments had men with muskets and at best, cannons. But now they have nukes, and aircraft and chemicals and tanks, etc, etc, etc. So yea, that ship has sailed.

 

[Huntinaz]

Every law has to be interpreted by human beings. The 2A has been examined and re-examined for 200+ years. And it will be re-examined again, most likely to determine what the current definition of "arms," is.

My point about the ship sailing is specifically about defending oneself from a "tyrannical government." That was possible in the 1700's when tyrannical governments had men with muskets and at best, cannons. But now they have nukes, and aircraft and chemicals and tanks, etc, etc, etc. So yea, that ship has sailed.

Speaking of chemicals. If those God damned Kurds didn’t have weapons in the first place then that one guy wouldn’t have had to use chemicals to carry out that genocide. Chemical Ali... what a bad ass name. And that was in what, the late 80’s? I don’t think Saddam had much trouble from the Kurds after that