A discussion about gun ownership

[MuffDiver]

Guess our imposter 2nd ammendment supporter/undercover Bloomberg agent has no other suggestions or rebuttal...

[CharleyVCU1988]

He doesn't.  You all have asked him for solutions.  He's being vague.  He doesn't want to admit it.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/in-refusing-to-consider-marines-ordeal-scotus-weakens-deterrents-to-hearsay-commitments/

Because if people like him have their way, your rights are subject to whims of agents of The State.

"the Supreme Court declined to hear the Case of Brandon Raub last Monday.  That slams shut a door in the face of a Marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who was seeking justice for his unlawful detention for disapproved political speech. It also leaves other Americans in similar danger of being committed to institutions based on “experts” relying on what police tell them rather than on impartial evaluations and due process.

Raub had been sentenced to “up to 30 days in [a] psych ward for Facebook posts,” Business Insider reported in 2012   Raub’s “thought crimes” included challenging the government’s account of 9/11. He was taken away in handcuffs following a joint operation that included the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Chesterfield County Police Department, all of which distanced themselves from responsibility in news reports.

Raub was provided representation through The Rutherford Institute, which noted he “was arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page.”

“For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon,” Rutherford president John W. Whitehead explained. “This should be a wake-up call to Americans that the police state is here.”

In a follow-up prompted by SCOTUS ducking the case, reporter Bob Unruh of WND.com related that after Raub had been held against his will for a week, “Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett … ordered Raub’s immediate release, stating the government’s case was ‘so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.’”

“At issue was the behavior of the mental-health screener, Michael Campbell, who allegedly failed to exercise reasonable professional judgment in wrongly concluding Raub was mentally ill and dangerous, violating Raub’s Fourth Amendment rights,” Unruh explained. “The appellate court noted Raub never threatened violence, and he was detained on orders from Campbell after only an interview by Campbell of officers who had talked with Raub.”

That would mean Raub was committed based on hearsay as repeated by the police detaining him, and the system went along with it. It’s not difficult to imagine a different outcome had Raub been less capable and articulate at defending his rights, and had legal representation from a liberty advocacy legal firm not been forthcoming. It also makes it fair to wonder who may now be in custody that we may never know about. It also invites the question of whether the real mental health issue lies with those who would turn the coercive power of the state against  anyone challenging the government’s version of events.

But Raub pressing for justice through a lawsuit was rebuffed, first by a lower court and then by the appeals court. Now, by turning its back on him, SCOTUS has turned its back on past, current and future victims of the “mental health” blanket dragnet, including on those who may be injured or killed in the process of being unjustly incarcerated. By refusing to hold officials accountable for breaches of professional duties and for violations of rights, personal incentives for standards that safeguard individual liberty are diminished.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Help MoveOn.Org Choose a New Name for its Gun Owners’ Anti-Gun Rights Initiative

[gryphon]

I saw that earlier.  Got to come up with a deceptive name.  There's one that resembles MCRGO.  How appropriate.

Select your preferred name for our new gun control initiative:

Gun Owners for Responsible Gun Laws
Gun Owners United to End Gun Violence
Gun Owners United for Safe Communities
American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership (ACRGO)

[m.marino]

Gryphon this does not surprise me in the least as they are losing the battle in many states. So they are going to try to co-op the movement by creating groups that look like they are pro gun and use each other to create a group of "experts" which then push a "sensible" agenda for gun "rights" and "responsible", "sensible" gun usage.

This has been and is still being done by the "progressive" movement. heck even the term progressive is something they stole from another movement. They are intelligent and dishonest. Now is a time that one must be very careful, as though with an agenda to get rid of guns will do their best to appear as those who support gun rights within a "reasonable", "rational" framework. For the safety of society and the children of course will be thrown in there to add to the emotional irrational behavior as they rationalize (that act of taking that which is irrational and by false argument making it appear rational) the need for their agenda.

Take a look at the prohibition movements and other movements that have used this type of warfare to attain their goal. Some might consider the term warfare to be a bit extreme. The interesting point is that neither the US military, nor the current CIS (or old USSR), nor the Chinese, nor many others considered it anything other than warfare and crowd control when used on ones own population.

Michael

[part deux]

Gryphon this does not surprise me in the least as they are losing the battle in many states. So they are going to try to co-op the movement by creating groups that look like they are pro gun and use each other to create a group of "experts" which then push a "sensible" agenda for gun "rights" and "responsible", "sensible" gun usage.

Next thing you know, they'll start coming into gun boards with their military and civilian LEO experience searching for sensible answers.

Oh wait

[TucTom]

Next thing you know, they'll start coming into gun boards with their military and civilian LEO experience searching for sensible answers.

Oh wait

 

[Ultra]

Next thing you know, they'll start coming into gun boards with their military and civilian LEO experience searching for sensible answers.

Oh wait

This is exactly what I thought from the first post I ever read of his.  Swear to god!!!

[freediver]

Gentlemen, you appear to be suffering from a pretty horrific case of group paranoia. This might be a good time to turn off your computers, open up the drapes, and go outside and play with normal people for awhile.

[mosnar87]

It's not paranoia if there is a credible threat.

[Ultra]

Gentlemen, you appear to be suffering from a pretty horrific case of group paranoia. This might be a good time to turn off your computers, open up the drapes, and go outside and play with normal people for awhile.

He thinks he's normal.

He joins a "tip of the spear" rights group that actively pursues an agenda. All so that he can troll threads and spam the board with gun control nonsense a Fudd would be ashamed of.

And he thinks he's normal. 

No, really, he does. 

/end thread

/ban troll

/my 2 cents. Yours free of charge.

[freediver]

Mr mosnar87: Therein lies some of the meat of the discussion: credible threat. If we are living in one of the safest societies on the planet (completely  unfactual) as some of this forum's contributors have claimed, then what threat are you countering if you want to open or conceal carry? If we have a problem with gun violence in our society (very true), then shouldn't we be addressing the root causes of that violence (unfettered access to firearms, lack of training, lack of effective regulation, etc) rather than existing in denial and saying NO to every bit of change?

We should be having a reason-based discussion on how best to combat the problem. Instead we only have shouting points and "doctrinal 2A purity" with no sense of reason or reality.

[part deux]

No ban,

It's fascinating reading and looking into the mind of someone who hasn't experienced the upcoming cognitive dissonance... yet.

[freediver]

Mr part deux: cognitive dissonance isn't upcoming, it's been alive and well for millennia. It is the ability to hold conflicting beliefs. I don't. I think we can FIX our regulatory environment without truly affecting second amendment rights. It's a matter of seeking balance, of finding compromise between different citizen groups. Everyone has to be able to give a little. More importantly, we need to find solutions that actually work.

[bigt8261]

Mr mosnar87: Therein lies some of the meat of the discussion: credible threat. If we are living in one of the safest societies on the planet (completely  unfactual) as some of this forum's contributors have claimed, then what threat are you countering if you want to open or conceal carry? If we have a problem with gun violence in our society (very true), then shouldn't we be addressing the root causes of that violence (unfettered access to firearms, lack of training, lack of effective regulation, etc) rather than existing in denial and saying NO to every bit of change?

One trend when debating people on this topic that I've noticed many times is what happens when they begin to acknowledge society is SAFER today than a few decades ago. Once they open their eyes and begin to do at least a smidgen of basic research, they begin to understand that both firearm and non-firearm related violence is way down, which pulls the rug out from the very foundation of their argument. At this time, things generally turn towards, 'well if things are so good, then why do you need a gun?' First, that question ignores why people generally carry a firearm (to protect themselves), and second, it also ignores cause and effect. What they don't understand is that question is a defacto admission that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem.

Before I go:
- unfettered access to firearms - only for criminals who don't care about the law.
- lack of training - you have yet to show how this in any way has lead to any measurable increase in harm. You have also yet to show that it even exists.
- lack of effective regulation - Well, at least we agree on something, though I maintain that more ineffective regulation is not the answer and the notion of effective regulation is a pipe dream.

[freediver]

My bigT: at last, a point of agreement. I'm not talking about more INEFFECTIVE regulation. I'm talking about changing our regulations to make them MORE effective. Gun bans don't work. Magazine bans don't work. So quit saying NO to everything and start thinking about what will work. And unfettered access to firearms will not work and has never been demonstrated to do so.

If you talk to the people who study such things, the reason crime and violence are down has NOTHING to do with the plethora of guns. It has to do with demographic and other societal factors.

[bigt8261]

My bigT: at last, a point of agreement. I'm not talking about more INEFFECTIVE regulation. I'm talking about changing our regulations to make them MORE effective. Gun bans don't work. Magazine bans don't work. So quit saying NO to everything and start thinking about what will work. And unfettered access to firearms will not work and has never been demonstrated to do so.

If you talk to the people who study such things, the reason crime and violence are down has NOTHING to do with the plethora of guns. It has to do with demographic and other societal factors.

Consider this - the reason we've said no to everything you have talked about thus far is that you have suggested nothing that departs from the category of ineffective. Many of the responses to you have been well detailed and supported. To suggest people are saying no simply say no is a severe mischaracterization, and one I believe to be intentional. See, by mischaracterizing responses to you in such a manner it frees you from having to properly acknowledge that response.

To your last point, as has been offered to you on many occasions, the most peer reviewed research on the topic by any economist or criminologist has shown a link between more guns = less crime. If you are not going to read what is presented to you, then again I suggest that we cannot engage in a proper conversation.

[freediver]

Mr bigt: I have yet to see a peer-reviewed paper presented here or anywhere else that shows a direct correlation between more guns = less crime. I've seen articles written by gun-favorable entities, I've seen a lot of speculation and wishful thinking. But not one article by a non-biased reputable research agency, a criminologist, a sociologist, a reputable government agency, or anyone else. If you have such articles I would love to see them to educate myself. As far as I know, the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, the BofJ, the CDC, and the AMA consider the unfettered access to firearms is a health and law enforcement crisis that needs addressing.

When I think more guns and more access, I think our wild wild west, Somalia and other parts of Africa, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, Siberia, and redneck stupidity. hardly the models for a successful society.

[gryphon]

I didn't get that from the video. He's not an idiot. He's an intelligent, concerned firearms owner.

If you want I can go on some more about how this guy is an idiot.  He says the the founders created the Second Amendment to arm the militia, and the militia is what today we call the National Guard.

Wrong on both counts.  The 2A was written so the government could NOT take the means of self-protection--guns--away from citizens, to defend primarily from a rogue federal government.  Read the founders' contemporaneous writings.  They are very clear on this.  Second of all, the National Guard is not the same thing as the militia.  The National Guard is a government force.  The militia is a citizen force that can be assembled and disbanded as required to repel aggression.  In the 1700's the militia, which had been established for 140 years already, fought against the government.

Also each of the provisions in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, all twenty-seven of them.  To say that 26 are individual rights but 1 is not, that it is a collective right of the militia, is both ludicrous and dishonest.  SCOTUS agrees.

“Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” — U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008

[gryphon]

I've seen articles written by gun-favorable entities...but not one article by a non-biased reputable research agency, a criminologist...

Gary Kleck is a Florida State University criminologist.  Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is, by his own admission, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic Party candidates.  He's hardly in the pocket of firearms manufacturers or the GOP.