Thread: Why is supporting gun control so unbeliebable?

I find this amusing.

I own quite a few firearms (more than just a few actually), mostly older firearms from WWII, yet still have handguns, AR's, AK's, etc. I have built AR's, I have spent about $800 in self defense courses over the past summer, I practice as often as I can. I prefer tricked out AR's and M&P 45's with 14rd magazines, light/laser, and compensator. If it were legal to use my 5.56 for deer hunting here in Colorado, I would.

However, I can post in this forum and support reasonable forms of gun control, restrictions for CCW, oppose AWB's, and deny conspiratorial views of gun control. Yet, I am accused of being anti-gun on what seems to be a regular basis. I was actually banned from AR15.com for not being a neoconservative drone, on the premise of being a "flag waving socialist".

Almost as if disallowing felons from legally acquiring firearms from legitimate firearms dealers is a bad thing, as if wishing for only competent and practiced shooters to carry concealed weapons in public, dismissing the notion "assault weapons", and the out right dismissal of any sort of conspiracy theory that connects invisible dots to make a fun picture makes me one with the Brady Campaign.

Even had an instance where someone raised as issue about my citing the Brady Campaign website for the current status of the California AWB because it made me look anti-gun. Which is nothing short of laughable.

While owning and using firearms, why is the prospect of supporting the gun control that actually protects our rights so hard to grasp for some? Extremes hardly make sense, moderation is key.

Argh. Spell check fails.

So does your post you pinko commie liberal anti-gun nut!

Just kidding. I couldn't resist feeding in to the persecution.

We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum from everything I can tell, but we agree some gun control is necessary. We may disagree on the exact AMOUNT of gun control, but not whether or not gun control should exist.

For instance, I agree with felons should not have guns. What I have a hard time dealing with is that almost everything is a felony these days. I have a friend who now has a felony because she had just over an ounce of pot. How is that fair?

Regardless, you're not anti-gun, but you are probably more gun control than most conservatives deem necessary. That is the rub. And, as usual, somewhere in the middle is where we all have to meet.

People are thick. On trying to explain the importance of an armed people to my brother i got a typical "dude.. whens the last time you saw a violent revolution? Honestly?" response.

2011!

2011 was the last year a nation of citizens rose up and overthrew there government (Libya). Thinking this freedom isn't relevant to today is just sillyness..

It is your coolest freedom america. Hold onto it.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

I find this amusing.

I own quite a few firearms (more than just a few actually), mostly older firearms from WWII, yet still have handguns, AR's, AK's, etc. I have built AR's, I have spent about $800 in self defense courses over the past summer, I practice as often as I can. I prefer tricked out AR's and M&P 45's with 14rd magazines, light/laser, and compensator. If it were legal to use my 5.56 for deer hunting here in Colorado, I would.

However, I can post in this forum and support reasonable forms of gun control, restrictions for CCW, oppose AWB's, and deny conspiratorial views of gun control. Yet, I am accused of being anti-gun on what seems to be a regular basis. I was actually banned from AR15.com for not being a neoconservative drone, on the premise of being a "flag waving socialist".

Almost as if disallowing felons from legally acquiring firearms from legitimate firearms dealers is a bad thing, as if wishing for only competent and practiced shooters to carry concealed weapons in public, dismissing the notion "assault weapons", and the out right dismissal of any sort of conspiracy theory that connects invisible dots to make a fun picture makes me one with the Brady Campaign.

Even had an instance where someone raised as issue about my citing the Brady Campaign website for the current status of the California AWB because it made me look anti-gun. Which is nothing short of laughable.

While owning and using firearms, why is the prospect of supporting the gun control that actually protects our rights so hard to grasp for some? Extremes hardly make sense, moderation is key.

I own several computers, and several "smart" devices. All of these allow me to connect to wired and wireless network interfaces. From them, I can discuss topics of interest with millions of others. Some of those topics might be dangerous, perhaps even treasonous, to governments and agents of those governments which is nothing short of terrorism. Some of those topics may lead to social upset; some people might feel offended to the point that they seek to take their own lives or to do violence to others. Of course, you and I aren't involved in treason, or bullying or inflammatory talk, but others might be, and that's irresponsible and we can't have irresponsible use of the internet, can we?

While owning and using network connected computers, why is the prospect of supporting full registration of all internet accounts with the government such a bad prospect? It's internet control that protects our rights. Obviously, I don't want us to live like they do in Cuba, where all social media is outlawed because the government fears social movements. It doesn't even have be like China where most internet sites are blocked or carefully monitored. Just registration. That's all I'm asking for. It's to keep you safe, citizen. That's why I support reasonable computer and internet registration, such as requiring that all forum accounts on any forum site contain real contact information and that information be registered with the government. All bloggers must register their blogs with the government so that anything that is written that may cause problems can be traced back to the author. That's not so bad, right?


In answer to your questions, if the government controls who and who may not have access to the means of self defense, then there is no right to it. It's simply a grant of privilege.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

While owning and using network connected computers, why is the prospect of supporting full registration of all internet accounts with the government such a bad prospect? It's internet control that protects our rights. Obviously, I don't want us to live like they do in Cuba, where all social media is outlawed because the government fears social movements. It doesn't even have be like China where most internet sites are blocked or carefully monitored. Just registration. That's all I'm asking for. It's to keep you safe, citizen. That's why I support reasonable computer and internet registration, such as requiring that all forum accounts on any forum site contain real contact information and that information be registered with the government. All bloggers must register their blogs with the government so that anything that is written that may cause problems can be traced back to the author. That's not so bad, right?


In answer to your questions, if the government controls who and who may not have access to the means of self defense, then there is no right to it. It's simply a grant of privilege.

Refusing gun sales to known criminals is hardly stripping people of there rights.. Registration in america is useless as i understand it anyway. It's the illegal guns. The ones in circulation. That lead to an immense amount of power and freedom in the hands of americans. As long as johnny do-good can still buy a pistol i hardly consider it refusing a right..

The internet takes precedence anyway. If you can successfully unregulate it all over the globe. It would be a million times more powerful than a gun anyway.. (for inciting political change that is..)

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

I own several computers, and several "smart" devices. All of these allow me to connect to wired and wireless network interfaces. From them, I can discuss topics of interest with millions of others. Some of those topics might be dangerous, perhaps even treasonous, to governments and agents of those governments which is nothing short of terrorism. Some of those topics may lead to social upset; some people might feel offended to the point that they seek to take their own lives or to do violence to others. Of course, you and I aren't involved in treason, or bullying or inflammatory talk, but others might be, and that's irresponsible and we can't have irresponsible use of the internet, can we?

While owning and using network connected computers, why is the prospect of supporting full registration of all internet accounts with the government such a bad prospect? It's internet control that protects our rights. Obviously, I don't want us to live like they do in Cuba, where all social media is outlawed because the government fears social movements. It doesn't even have be like China where most internet sites are blocked or carefully monitored. Just registration. That's all I'm asking for. It's to keep you safe, citizen. That's why I support reasonable computer and internet registration, such as requiring that all forum accounts on any forum site contain real contact information and that information be registered with the government. All bloggers must register their blogs with the government so that anything that is written that may cause problems can be traced back to the author. That's not so bad, right?


In answer to your questions, if the government controls who and who may not have access to the means of self defense, then there is no right to it. It's simply a grant of privilege.

You are referring to internet forum accounts, I am referring to deadly weapons.

There is a difference.

Originally Posted by Patriot911

So does your post you pinko commie liberal anti-gun nut!

Just kidding. I couldn't resist feeding in to the persecution.

We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum from everything I can tell, but we agree some gun control is necessary. We may disagree on the exact AMOUNT of gun control, but not whether or not gun control should exist.

For instance, I agree with felons should not have guns. What I have a hard time dealing with is that almost everything is a felony these days. I have a friend who now has a felony because she had just over an ounce of pot. How is that fair?

Regardless, you're not anti-gun, but you are probably more gun control than most conservatives deem necessary. That is the rub. And, as usual, somewhere in the middle is where we all have to meet.

By felons I mean violent persons..... weed? Pfft.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

I was actually banned from AR15.com for not being a neoconservative drone, on the premise of being a "flag waving socialist".

Really? Amazing bit of authoritarianism, eh? Interesting how they (neocons) always ralk about "freedoms" on the one hand while trying to take them away from some individuals with the other.

Originally Posted by TheChief

Refusing gun sales to known criminals is hardly stripping people of there rights.

If they are criminals, what are doing outside of prison? Or do you mean former criminals who have served their time? In which case, I can't see why they don't also have the right to defend themselves and their family with whatever reasonable means of doing so are necessary.

. Registration in america is useless as i understand it anyway. It's the illegal guns.

There wouldn't be any illegal guns if there weren't registration.

The ones in circulation. That lead to an immense amount of power and freedom in the hands of americans. As long as johnny do-good can still buy a pistol i hardly consider it refusing a right..

Until Johnny-Do-Good, a black man living in a poor neighborhood, is arrested for his "illegal" saturday night special which was banned in the early 90's because it's bad for poor people to have weapons. Now Johnny-Do-Good, who has hurt no one, has a criminal record, and according to the gun-haters, has "lost" his right to the means of self defense.

The internet takes precedence anyway. If you can successfully unregulate it all over the globe. It would be a million times more powerful than a gun anyway.. (for inciting political change that is..)

We are one significant terrorist attack away from a DHS controlled internet firewall and mandatory registration of all internet accounts. I may not even take that, considering the veritable whimper of an outcry over NDAA and the "National Defense Preparedness" Executive Order. At this point, the President has effectively nationalized the internet and asserted the right and the power to take it over (along with anything else) at any time for any reason he deems appropriate.