Home Tournaments Calendar Weather Merchandise Sponsors

Go Back   Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum > The Spearboard Tavern > Politics/Religion Forum

Politics/Religion Forum This special place is for threads that are primarily on political or religious subjects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 39 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 03-11-2018, 11:37 AM   #1786
mepps1
Registered User
 
mepps1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Age: 42
Posts: 6,463
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz View Post
I am willing to cut mack d some slack and talk in a "civil" manor.
On the condition that we know what field of science your PhD is in and your IQ.
I have a side bet going and need to know.
I called at Psychology and 98 IQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Cheese n Rice, MacD...you just refuse to try and understand the crux of the argument. It's quite apparent that you have not even TRIED to consider anything we've posted here. You haven't read any of the links provided that form the substrate of our opinions...like the treatise on natural rights. You, instead, continue with your superficial regurgitated talking points like "assault rifle"....FFS, any gun can be an 'assault rifle'.
So...what physical science do you occupy? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm in for twenty bucks. 97. Gender studies. (Kidding.) But for such a clever and educated feller, he's kinda shy about his calling.

But the first liar never has a chance. I hold five doctorates. All Ivy League. Mostly in particle physics, with a smattering of medical degrees. You should listen to me, because I'm five times smarter than MacDaddy. Now you know how smart I am because I said so.
mepps1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2018, 01:14 PM   #1787
riplipper
Relax, a beer will help
 
riplipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fleming Isle/Jax
Posts: 4,469
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Wassup, RIP? Are you now implying that "AR-15' which = Armalite Rifles-15 now equals fully auto assault rifle?? THAT is the propaganda that has been foisted upon the masses.
That's why I put Assault in parenthesis....People are great at calling anything that looks unlike a traditional hunting rifle an "assault" weapon. And most of them have no idea the difference between semi and full.
Getting full auto is very possible, you just have to spend a fortune getting those permits.
__________________
If Democrats don't want foreigners involved in our elections, why do they think it's all right for illegals to vote?
riplipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2018, 01:35 PM   #1788
Wayward Son
You're Screwing Up My Chi
 
Wayward Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mobile, AL
Age: 57
Posts: 8,424
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

and then there's the dreaded full semi auto
__________________
FRA
Fishing Rights Alliance- Protecting and promoting the rights of offshore divers and anglers. Join us!

http://www.thefra.org

If god turns out to be a lobster, I am so royally screwed...
Wayward Son is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2018, 02:20 PM   #1789
Marcus
Naval gazer extraordinair
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 38,505
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

MacD,

Let's start with the basics. Natural rights. Are you ALLOWED to defend yourself?
If a man attacks your life, property, family with a stick...are you ALLOWED to use your fists? If this same man attacks you with a knife, should you be allowed to use a stick/knife?
Now carry this scenario to its logical conclusion. I know I'm asking a lot here, but please try.
__________________
When you're diving in the sea and an eel bites your knee, that's a Moray.
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 11:01 AM   #1790
mepps1
Registered User
 
mepps1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Age: 42
Posts: 6,463
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMackDaddy View Post
well i'm glad you're ready to die to play super here against the guvermunt for your your guns, personally i'd give my mother over to the government to keep living (probably b/c nothig happens when you die), but I guess you have things that are more of a priority.

like i said before, what are you waiting for? the government is currnetly doing way worse things to you than taking your guns. Poisoning you and your children for profit as a start. making fish go extinct for your offspring and maybe evne you one day.

Paging MackDaddy, er Dr. MackDaddy

Care to discuss this analysis?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...r-too-n2459833

Quote:
The Democrats lose both wars. Big time.

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

Let’s put aside a big consideration – the existence of red states that would provide for an insurgent government structure and possibly attract the loyalty of some National Guard and even federal brigades. For example, if President Hillary Clinton put down her chardonnay long enough to sign a ban on privately owned guns, it’s not unreasonable to expect the governor of Texas to reject federal authority – after all, California just taught us that this is totally cool. But in this case, look for several brigades located there to hoist the Lone Star flag.

So, now the blue states are facing unconventional and conventional forces.

Let’s ignore that problem and focus on a different challenge. Even a normal unit has about 10% non-deployable members. Now, if these troops were assigned to combat operations against other Americans, you would have significant additional losses through desertion. Many of the senior leaders would participate – the Obama generation – and there is a certain type of junior officer only too happy to curry favor by sucking up in defiance of their oath (which is to the Constitution, not to some leftist president). You can identify them because they usually have “strategist” in their Twitter bios. But a lot of key, capable officer and NCO leaders, and enlisted troops, would vanish. That is proper. It is a violation of their oath to unconstitutionally oppress fellow Americans; their duty would be to refuse such unlawful orders.

So, you have significantly understrength units going in. Now, how many of the troops in a brigade are actually even front line combat troops? About a third – the rest are support. So a brigade is really about 1500 riflemen tops before you count losses. Cut those in half for sleep, training, and refitting at any one time (which is very generous) and your brigade is really 750 troops on your best day with everyone showing up. Realistically, it’s 300.

That holds one mid-sized town. And there are hundreds of mid-sized towns. Plus there are millions of Normal Americans who would fight back. Nothing would move without their permission – a few guys shooting up big rigs along the interstate would shut down the entire trucking industry. Bottom line: there simply are not enough military forces to clear and hold red America.

What about drones and bombers? Both are useful. But the minute a bombing strike kills some red civilians the families of counter-insurgent drone operators and pilots will be knocking at the base gates to be let inside. Now you’ll need many of those brigades to protect the civilians you now need to protect from retribution.

Civil wars are harsh. That’s why you avoid them.

How about the blue insurgency scenario? That goes even worse for the Democrats. You have the federal government apparatus in the hands of red America, and the insurgents are the opposite of decentralized and armed. They are conveniently centered in gun-unfriendly blue cities. In other words, the blue civilian population is much less of a threat.

A red counter-insurgency avoids the problem of a decentralized insurgency and insecure logistical lines. In the case of California, whose secessionist antics are approaching the point where President Trump could legitimately employ his power to crush insurrections, the tactical problem is relatively simple. For example, San Francisco is a hotbed of treason, but the populace is largely unarmed and is trapped in a confined area. You put a brigade on securing the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, then put a brigade on the San Francisco Peninsula to cut off the I-280 and US-101 corridors. Next you go to the Crystal Springs Dam and cut off the water. Then you watch and wait as the tech hipsters run out of artisanal sushi rice and kombucha.

After about a week, they surrender. After all, you can’t eat and drink smugness. LA is just bigger in scope – more corridors to cut off, but in the end the population concentrations in large liberal urban areas that are their strength also make them extremely vulnerable to logistical pressure.

Then there’s another factor, an intangible but a crucial one. It’s commitment. The Democrat threat to peace is based on its policies designed to deprive Normal Americans of their right to speak freely, to worship freely, and to defend themselves and their rights with firearms. Make no mistake – millions of Normal Americans are willing to risk death to defend those rights. In fact, many swore to do so when they entered our military and law enforcement. But who is the leftist big talker willing to die to impose the fascist dream of censorship, religious oppression, and disarmament on Normal American citizens? Is the screeching SJW at Yale going to suit up in Kevlar? Is the Vox columnist going to grab a M4? Is the Hollywood poser going to switch her gyno-beanie for a helmet?

No. Hell, we just heard our liberal opponents explaining why a cop shouldn’t be expected to go fight a scumbag murdering kids because it’s scary. America might split apart, but it’s highly unlikely Team Kale n’ Vinyl would fight should their big talk finally push Normal America too far.
This author seems to think that your prejudice against the odds of Insurgent America having any chance if forced into a fight is a touch hasty. Possible?
mepps1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 11:34 AM   #1791
Wayward Son
You're Screwing Up My Chi
 
Wayward Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mobile, AL
Age: 57
Posts: 8,424
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

__________________
FRA
Fishing Rights Alliance- Protecting and promoting the rights of offshore divers and anglers. Join us!

http://www.thefra.org

If god turns out to be a lobster, I am so royally screwed...
Wayward Son is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 03:06 PM   #1792
fitz
Registered User
 
fitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SD
Posts: 2,763
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mepps1 View Post
Paging MackDaddy, er Dr. MackDaddy

Care to discuss this analysis?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurt...r-too-n2459833



This author seems to think that your prejudice against the odds of Insurgent America having any chance if forced into a fight is a touch hasty. Possible?
Good stuff!
Even I can put a 308 out to 500 meters no prob.
Mac d wants gov to provide protection for everyone. You don't have a right to protect yourself in his mind. It is no different than asking for a guarantee monthly fed provided income. Demanding single payer healthcare. Claiming all people should be citizens. Thinking CA is solvent and doing great.
Mac d is a commie in training.
There is a nation wide list of gun owners (NICS) locals around here have commie in training lists also.

fitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 03:18 PM   #1793
Wayward Son
You're Screwing Up My Chi
 
Wayward Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mobile, AL
Age: 57
Posts: 8,424
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

sure the govt will protect you.

see the coward county sheriff's dept for an example.
__________________
FRA
Fishing Rights Alliance- Protecting and promoting the rights of offshore divers and anglers. Join us!

http://www.thefra.org

If god turns out to be a lobster, I am so royally screwed...
Wayward Son is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 03:31 PM   #1794
fitz
Registered User
 
fitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SD
Posts: 2,763
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?



Could be a new revived slogan.

Sat-Kommiefornians
fitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 08:54 PM   #1795
fitz
Registered User
 
fitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SD
Posts: 2,763
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

"Let's have a round of applause for Governor Rick Scott, and House Speaker Richard Corcoran for all their marvelous efforts in sending Florida into an anti-gun frenzy. Both, are primarily responsible for getting some of the most severe anti-gun provisions in twenty years passed in Florida. Remember them kindly when they run for their next office. (not) And by the way, I warned you all about Gov. Scott way back during the Zimmerman case -- that he was really not pro-gun, but just a very clever politician who went whatever way he thought it would do his career the most good. Well . . . he just did it again, aided in large part by the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Richard Corcoran, who is likely looking to run for Florida Attorney General -- with eventual sights on the governor's spot. Remember their names -- do everything you can to destroy their careers. They are your enemy, and the enemy of the Second Amendment".

http://orlandocriminallawyer.blogspo...tocks.html?m=1
fitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 02:07 PM   #1796
Gary Schulte
Registered User
 
Gary Schulte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego
Age: 61
Posts: 1,307
Send a message via AIM to Gary Schulte
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

I found this on another forum and thought I'd share:

Why I think the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important

Firstly I'd like to address why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is so important to me, and to Americans like me. I think it is important I talk about this first, because many gun control advocates feel that even if a specific gun control law is truly pointless, petty or useless, it is still worth it "just in case it saves one life", because to them there is no downside, there is no negative to enacting as many guns laws as possible. There is no cost to the gun control side because these laws infringe upon a right they do not themselves exercise. However I want to illustrate why I believe there is a dreadful cost, and unless there is actual benefit, then the laws are not worth the cost to eroding the RKBA.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do about hunting, or even home defense. It is about civil defense. The Founding Fathers did not risk their lives to secure our right to hunt delicious deer. My family originally comes from China. My grandparents fought on the side of the Nationalists against the Communists and lost, having to flee to Taiwan afterwards. They've seen first-hand what oppression and tyranny looks like. Did you know that the Communist Chinese Constitution purports to grant many of the same nice-sounding rights as the American Constitution, such as the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to a fair and speedy trial? Of course, we all know after the Tiananmen Massacre that the Chinese Constitution is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Unlike the Chinese government, the U.S. government is built carefully, purposefully, and precariously upon a system of delicate checks and balances. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the final check, a "doomsday provision", a check when all other checks have failed. It serves to defend the "security of the free state", from threats both within and without. The U.S. is very unlikely to become tyrannical or to face invasion today, but it is critical to have a failsafe. Tyrannies happen, and on the day when democracy dies, it will be to thunderous applause. Not every country that bans guns is a tyranny. However, every tyranny has banned civilian ownership of arms since antiquity. Whether it is Iran, North Korea, or Communist China, no authoritarian regime has ever tolerated the civilian ownership of arms. Those regimes fear guns in the hands of citizens with good reason. In the end, the person with the gun does the talking and makes the decisions. If the State wants to oppress and you are armed, they are forced to treat with you, attempt to disarm you, or kill you. If you are already disarmed, you have no say. Disarmament is a necessary precursor to the government doing things like forced sharing, also known as communism.

It is truly rare and humbling to me that the United States government trusts its citizens enough to have guns, and I would not want to live in a country whose government did not. It is unique, special, and makes me very proud to be an American. I am awestruck by the courage and humility of our Founding Fathers. I would keep this thing that makes our country special and unique. It truly infuriates and bewilders me that so many my our own citizens do not treasure and hold dear this rare trust, and are so eager to throw it away for free, all for an illusory promise of safety. This is a right that our Founders risked their lives to secure for posterity, and people are selling it off too cheaply. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security will find themselves with neither".

If a person does not like our Second Amendment, literally almost every other country in the world does not share this view and theory of social compact, and a person is welcome to emigrate to one of those other countries. However, there is only one United States with its Second Amendment, and if it is destroyed, I have nowhere else to go to replicate it. Thus, I would defend it and defend it vigorously. I and others firmly believe the right to keep and bear arms ultimately defends all other rights. It is what gives the U.S. Constitution "teeth". It separates the U.S. Constitution from the Chinese Constitution and while functioning, prevents it from ever becoming "just a piece of paper". It is a constant reminder to our government that they govern at our pleasure. The government does well to remember they serve the People. The People do not serve them. Unlike the UK Commonwealth, we Americans are not subjects, and we do not kneel.
Gary Schulte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 02:08 PM   #1797
Gary Schulte
Registered User
 
Gary Schulte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego
Age: 61
Posts: 1,307
Send a message via AIM to Gary Schulte
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

continued:

Why Gun Control Doesn't Prevent School Violence

1.) You can't legislate evil: Criminals and "bad guys" by definition do not obey laws. A person who commits mass shootings has already committed murder. Someone who has no regard for human life, and no concern for breaking the law against murder, will have no compunction against breaking any existing laws against owning guns. Or, if they cannot get their hands on guns, they will use some other method. According to the FBI's own statistics, hands, fists, and feet killed more people than the rifles that anti gun people want to ban so much.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...-data-table-11

Out of all murders, or even gun deaths, semiautomatic rifles such as the much-maligned AR-15 constitute a tiny, tiny percentage of murders. School mass shootings are horrific and sensational, but in statistical terms the deaths they cause are rare compared to other cases of death.

Terrorists in France proved that you can kill a large number of people with trucks, or obtain fully automatic rifles (which are already largely illegal in the U.S. and obviously France) if they want to (November 2015 Paris attacks). People in South Korea, which has strict gun control but the world's highest suicide rate, proves that you can find a way to kill yourself if you really want to. People who are serious about suicide will find a serious method. If guns are not available, they choose the serious method available in their area. People who want to do harm to others or themselves can always find a way. If a crazed person ran my child over with a car, is that any better than if they were shot?

2. Making guns illegal does not make them disappear, it just makes me less safe: You can't un-invent guns, just like you can't un-invent drugs. In the 1971, the United States declared a "war on drugs" that ended in disaster and failure. Almost 50 years later, in 2017 over 64,000 people died of opioid overdose. That's just one class of drugs, not including meth or alcohol. It is almost double the number of all firearms deaths that year (38,000), for just one class of drugs. America tried making drugs illegal, it tried to punish and crack down on dealers and users. It didn't work, because you didn't fix the core issue: the demand. If there is a demand for drugs, the drugs will find a way to appear no matter how illegal you make them. If society has a disregard for life, and a penchant for violence, then bad guys will always somehow get them, while good law-biding citizens will be defenseless. FYI, medical errors killed 250,000 in 2014.

California already has some of the strictest (and I would say most draconian, useless, and onerous) gun laws in the country. For instance, it bans the owning of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. I have never encountered a criminal or mass shooter who decides they will obey the 10 round magazine law, after deciding to commit murder. "I want to kill a bunch of people, but I don't want to get into any MORE trouble!" The only effect this law has, is to give me a disadvantage against a criminal if I ever had to defend the lives of myself and my family.

Making it more difficult for law-biding citizens like me to own guns and protect ourselves will NOT make you or your children safer. It is the equivalent of trying to solve drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to drive. "How many more drunk drivers have to die before you give up your keys?" Or "how many more women have to be raped until you castrate yourself?" It is an absolutely nonsensical argument to me. The laws make me less safe, because I am less able to defend myself against criminals who don't need to bend over backwards obeying these laws. You make it less safe for the 90 lb woman who needs to defend herself from a 250 lbs abusive ex-husband who has sworn to kill her. No matter how hard you wave that restraining order in his face, it will not be as effective as a gun. You make it less safe for the rural person for whom police response is an hour away. You make it less safe for the underprivileged minority person living in a gang-infested inner city area who needs to defend himself from criminals but cannot afford onerous gun control feels and hurdles.

4.) Gun control has racist roots. It was originally a means to prevent slaves from rising up, and later to prevent blacks from defending themselves against whites.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...135904199.html

5.) America is not Australia, UK, Canada, France, Japan, or Germany: The U.S. has very different demographics, culture, and history than those countries. Yes, it is true those countries have very strict gun laws, and low levels of violence. They also have a homogenous population with a high level of socioeconomic development, and they did not start their gun bans with 300 million guns already in circulation. There are countries like Mexico, Venezuela, and any number of other Latin American countries with very strict gun control, yet horrific gun violence.

All these countries have strict gun control (UK, Japan, Mexico, Venezuela), yet the latter two have horrific gun violence. The variable is thus not gun control laws, it is the socioeconomic development of the region. Poverty and hopelessness breeds violence. Disregard for human life breeds violence. If you have an imaginary town made up of 10,000 psychiatrists and forced them all to have a gun, I bet you no one will get shot after even 10 years. If you have the same town made up of 10,000 felons from San Quentin and you had even 1 knife among them, someone will get stabbed by sundown. It is the people, not the laws.

6.) Inanimate Objects do not Kill people: You ask how I would feel if a "crazed gunman" killed my children at their school. I would be extremely upset at the killer, the same if he had killed my children with a knife, a car, a bomb, or their bare hands. For every other murder weapon we blame the person, yet for guns it's the gun's fault somehow. The moment my gun loads itself and kills someone I will be the first one to turn it into the police department.

7.) Sometimes it's NOT worth it to save one life: Should we ban all motorcycles because they are so dangerous? Sky-diving? Rock climbing? Scuba Diving? Sugary sodas? Where does it end? You can protect someone from cradle to grave by exercising maximum control but it's not a life worth living. Claiming that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to die from a gun is specious, disingenuous reasoning. You are more likely to die from any object if you own that object. Owning an antique Ming vase will make it much more likely that you die from it, because it'd be difficult to die from one, if it is not lying around. It does not make the Ming vase inherently dangerous to have.
Gary Schulte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2018, 02:09 PM   #1798
Gary Schulte
Registered User
 
Gary Schulte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego
Age: 61
Posts: 1,307
Send a message via AIM to Gary Schulte
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

Continued and end:

1.) Enforce Current laws and improve Law Enforcement: The Parkland Shooting did NOT demonstrate the failure of gun laws. It did demonstrate the spectacular failure of law enforcement on every level. The Broward County Sheriff and the FBI ignored at least 45 calls for service related to the killer Nicholas Cruz.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/us/pa...nvs/index.html

There were then at least 4 police officers who stood outside the school during the carnage, instead of rushing in to kill the attacker as has been standard police doctrine since the Columbine shootings. Whether it was out of cowardice or if they were ordered to stand down, this is unacceptable. 45 calls ignored, and 4 officers stood outside like cowards, and somehow the NRA is the one with blood on their hands?

When I was working at the Psych Emergency Room at Olive View Medical Center in Sylmar, CA, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department routinely brought in patients on 5150 and told me they did not have the manpower to confiscate weapons from patients even if they admitted to having them. When I was in residency, one of my patients at the VA was on a hold, but no effort was made to confiscate his firearms pursuant to California's 5 year psych hold prohibition. He later killed two people. Had the law been enforced, his gun would have been gone. What is the point of all these laws? How about we work on enforcing the laws we have already, before spewing a litany of new laws? How about we finish our green beans before going for ice cream? What is the purpose of spewing out 100 new gun control laws when you can't even enforce the 10 you already have? The only people who will be inconvenienced in any manner and bending over backwards to obey those increasingly convoluted and draconian laws are people like me, who were never going to murder anyone. They only serve to strip our rights for the illusion of safety while only eroding our rights.

2.) Acknowledge it is society that is broken, not gun laws: In the 1940s and 1950s, there were fewer gun laws, and more guns per capita than there were today, yet no mass shootings. Kids took their rifles to school, onto the NYC subway, and to their afterschool shooting clubs. Children were acclimated to firearms early, and taught the proper rules of gun safety, and instilled a proper respect for firearms, and more importantly a respect for human life.

What changed between the 1940s and today? It's not guns. There are fewer guns per capita than ever before. It's the society. In the 1940s, TV and movies were sanitized and free of controversial or objectionable material. Today, children are absolutely inundated and swimming in violent media and entertainment since birth. TV, movies, music, and video games today glorify, normalize, and desensitize children to violence. In the 1940s, a boy may have had a rifle on his back on the way to school, but it would not have even occurred to him to use the gun in violence. The thought would have never crossed his mind.

oday, you can crash a car into people and shoot up police officers in video games like Grand Theft Auto. You can see massive gun violence glorified by the same Hollywood that claims to hate it. Of course kids (and adults) know fantasy from reality, but they see these things and it gives them the idea. "That looks so cool, I wish I could do that to vent my anger at society...wait why don't I?" I am not saying we necessarily need to go back to the sanitized version of TV in the 1940s, but we need to acknowledge that this is a side effect of the "gritty television" we crave, and either change it, or accept the cost.

In addition, the nuclear family has been destroyed in America. The divorce rate is over 50% in American, with upwards of 70% of black children being raised by single mothers. Numerous studies have shown that fatherlessness significantly increases risk for violence. Nicholas Cruz was an orphan. Adam Lanza had no father in his life. Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista shooter, again had a broken family. I'm beginning to detect a pattern.

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/ar...-crime/265860/

Again as with media, I am not suggesting we return to the 1940s when women had no ability to divorce themselves from abusive husbands. I ask that we acknowledge this reality as one of the side effects, one of the consequences of our evolving society.

3.) Fix Mental Health: We know that de-institutionalization of America's mentally ill was made with good intentions, due to genuine abuses of human rights in "insane asylums". However the pendulum has swung too far to the side of patient's rights, and there was not a sufficient outpatient system in place to care for the mental health of all these de-institutionalized patients. In addition, we are quick to blame guns and the NRA but there is silence and a reluctance to study and acknowledge the link between mental illness and violence, and between autism and violence, borne out of politically correctness. I empathize with NAMI and Autism Speaks, they don't want to be stigmatized. However, it is patently false to say that mental illness does not correlate with violence. Just ask any inpatient psychiatric RN. It is patently false to say that autism has no link with violence. My clinic is full of autistic patients on antipsychotics for aggression and violence. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), Elliot Rogers (Isla Vista), and Nicholas Cruz (Parkland) were all diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. James Holmes (Aurora, CO) and Jared Lee Loughner (Gabrielle Giffords shooting) were clearly psychotic.

4.) Make Schools a "hardened target": There is a reason no mass shooter has ever attacked a police station, a gun store, a gun show, or an NRA convention. It is because people in those places shoot back. Gun Free Zones are a ostrich head in the sand solution. Like with magazine capacity bans, I have never heard of a criminal voluntarily disarming due to a gun free zone sign. Provide our schools with armed guards. Provide more frequently police patrols. Allow teachers with the interest and motivation to obtain an CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons permit) to protect their students. Bad guys wanting to kill people will carry a gun without a permit. Statistics have shown that CCW holders are involved in less crime statistically than even police officers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2814691

Even if you could magically ban guns and repeal the Second Amendment, if a mass murder still manages to get into the school with a gun, you are going to pray for someone with a gun to show up to kill that bad guy. If the guy already has a gun and is in the school, the only thing that will stop him is someone else with a gun. No one has ever been threatened with a gun and said, "I wish I didn't have a gun of my own (to fight back)".

In California, most counties including Santa Clara County do not issue CCW permits to normal citizens. They require you to show "good cause", in other words explain why the police is insufficient to protect you. "Self defence" is not accepted as good cause. Yet, if you are friends of the County Sheriff, or if you donated to her campaign, she may choose to sign your application, and wealthy, important celebrities are usually able to obtain one. This is deeply corrupt and arbitrary. We should be equal before the law, and have the equal right to self defense. Again, this only serves to disarm the law biding. Across the Colorado River in Republican-controlled Arizona, they have something called "Constitutional Carry". The state of Arizona recognizes the Second Amendment of the United States as the Carry Permit of law-biding non-felon citizens. Anyone over the age of 21 with no criminal history may carry a gun open or concealed in the Grand Canyon State. Yet the streets of Phoenix is not red with blood, the sky did not fall down.
_______________________

I am sorry this became so long Dr. F, but I am hoping you got a chance to see some of my perspective. I hope you got to the end of it. Hopefully you can see that some of your colleagues, who are just as intelligent as you, have studied the issue in depth, and have come up with a vastly different conclusion. I think people who want gun control have their hearts in the right place, but with respect you don't know what you are truly asking for, and you understand what you are giving up. You want an easy, feel-good solution to an incredibly complex problem. But we all agree that we want to feel safe and reduce violence. I hope if people stop screaming at each other, and instead debate the merits of their stance, hopefully we can come to true solutions and true compromises, instead of compromises where one side wants something and in return gives up nothing.
Gary Schulte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 09:27 AM   #1799
Wayward Son
You're Screwing Up My Chi
 
Wayward Son's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mobile, AL
Age: 57
Posts: 8,424
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

an hour long, so short attention spans won't find this interesting

__________________
FRA
Fishing Rights Alliance- Protecting and promoting the rights of offshore divers and anglers. Join us!

http://www.thefra.org

If god turns out to be a lobster, I am so royally screwed...
Wayward Son is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 11:53 PM   #1800
North Star
Max
 
North Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Age: 63
Posts: 5,832
Re: what will happen to our gun rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Schulte View Post
I found this on another forum and thought I'd share:

Why I think the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important
Great article Gary, and well worth reading and passing along. Thanks. He nailed it. His answers and analysis are irrefutable. Wish every newspaper would print this.

The Left told us we needed to change the way we raised our children in the 50's and 60's, and now they want to take away our rights in order to deal with the monsters they created.
__________________
nec timor nec temeritas (neither fear nor foolhardiness.)
North Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 PM.


The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Social Media Forum Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2014 Spearboard.com