Who said this: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary."

All4You

Sophomore
Mar 12, 2007
834
1,341
93
An inconvenient truth


And now, fast forward 60 years from your tired old mantra and you have this...


As a strong supporter of the 2nd and a gun owner again after not owning them for decades, I am all for responsible gun ownership regardless of what race, religion, creed, political bent or socio-economic status. I couldn't be more happy to welcome them to the fold. People who actually support the 2nd are big tent kind of folks, because ultimately we realize that something bigger lay beyond the petty superficial differences that the fringes like to use to keep us at each other's throats. We realize the more people cross over to gun ownership, the harder it will be to take them away from all of us. Whether you are well to do living in a gated community or a single parent raising children in the inner city or somewhere in between the right to arm and defend oneself, their family and their property should be sacrosanct.
 

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
20,483
7,900
113

Hoopsdoc1978

All-Big Ten
Apr 13, 2016
3,126
2,531
113
43
Epsom Indiana
And now, fast forward 60 years from your tired old mantra and you have this...


As a strong supporter of the 2nd and a gun owner again after not owning them for decades, I am all for responsible gun ownership regardless of what race, religion, creed, political bent or socio-economic status. I couldn't be more happy to welcome them to the fold. People who actually support the 2nd are big tent kind of folks, because ultimately we realize that something bigger lay beyond the petty superficial differences that the fringes like to use to keep us at each other's throats. We realize the more people cross over to gun ownership, the harder it will be to take them away from all of us. Whether you are well to do living in a gated community or a single parent raising children in the inner city or somewhere in between the right to arm and defend oneself, their family and their property should be sacrosanct.
Yes, but they were racist in the 60’s......
 

iuwclurker

All-American
Jul 6, 2015
6,108
2,296
113
They don't really exist. They are jaguars with a genetic mutation

Let me get this straight.

1. Genus panthera includes no panthers.
2. Mutant panthera don’t count.
3. What looks black, isn’t, because, well, just because.

Ok. Got it.

(j/k)
 

IU_Hickory

Senior
Aug 29, 2017
2,714
2,440
113
And now, fast forward 60 years from your tired old mantra and you have this...


As a strong supporter of the 2nd and a gun owner again after not owning them for decades, I am all for responsible gun ownership regardless of what race, religion, creed, political bent or socio-economic status. I couldn't be more happy to welcome them to the fold. People who actually support the 2nd are big tent kind of folks, because ultimately we realize that something bigger lay beyond the petty superficial differences that the fringes like to use to keep us at each other's throats. We realize the more people cross over to gun ownership, the harder it will be to take them away from all of us. Whether you are well to do living in a gated community or a single parent raising children in the inner city or somewhere in between the right to arm and defend oneself, their family and their property should be sacrosanct.

the 2nd amendment was about well regulated militia, not everyone carrying around a machine gun.

Plus, back then it was muskets and flintlock pistols. I doubt they envisioned every john dick and harry carrying around an AR-15.

I think I've only heard one democrat talk about taking guns away anyway. It's not been a major push by any party to actually take all guns away. It's mostly about keeping guns out of the hands of people that are mentally ill or dangerous felons and limiting clip size. No one needs to be machine gun eddy to protect their home.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,891
1,902
113
the 2nd amendment was about well regulated militia, not everyone carrying around a machine gun.

Plus, back then it was muskets and flintlock pistols. I doubt they envisioned every john dick and harry carrying around an AR-15.

I think I've only heard one democrat talk about taking guns away anyway. It's not been a major push by any party to actually take all guns away. It's mostly about keeping guns out of the hands of people that are mentally ill or dangerous felons and limiting clip size. No one needs to be machine gun eddy to protect their home.
The gun debate is an honest one to discuss. If there were folks who understood the situation doing the debating. One side is afraid to give an inch because they are afraid it wouldn't end there. And the other side doesn't even have a rudimentary knowledge of firearms and their uses.
 

All4You

Sophomore
Mar 12, 2007
834
1,341
93
Back then
the 2nd amendment was about well regulated militia, not everyone carrying around a machine gun.

Plus, back then it was muskets and flintlock pistols. I doubt they envisioned every john dick and harry carrying around an AR-15.

I think I've only heard one democrat talk about taking guns away anyway. It's not been a major push by any party to actually take all guns away. It's mostly about keeping guns out of the hands of people that are mentally ill or dangerous felons and limiting clip size. No one needs to be machine gun eddy to protect their home.

Too many flaws and assumptions here to even begin break down and discuss, just suffice to say when one can't differentiate between machine gun and AR-15, clip size and magazine capacity, nor realize there are laws already on the books in regards to owning machine guns as well as laws and measures to prevent mentally ill and dangerous felons from owning firearms in general I really can't be bothered.

As for what the founding fathers envisioned or not, those weapons you mention were the preeminent tools for waging war of their day, and being learned men they saw the technological advancements from times past to their present day and could easily extrapolate and envision it in our present day.

Hell, cartridge based semiautomatic firearm has been around since 1885, and magazine fed repeaters have been around since the Civil War. This isn't fancy new tech, just improvements on long existing tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoopsdoc1978

IU_Hickory

Senior
Aug 29, 2017
2,714
2,440
113
Back then

Too many flaws and assumptions here to even begin break down and discuss, just suffice to say when one can't differentiate between machine gun and AR-15, clip size and magazine capacity, nor realize there are laws already on the books in regards to owning machine guns as well as laws and measures to prevent mentally ill and dangerous felons from owning firearms in general I really can't be bothered.

As for what the founding fathers envisioned or not, those weapons you mention were the preeminent tools for waging war of their day, and being learned men they saw the technological advancements from times past to their present day and could easily extrapolate and envision it.

Hell, cartridge based semiautomatic firearm has been around since 1885, and magazine fed repeaters have been around since the Civil War. This isn't fancy new tech, just improvements on long existing tech.

People can go to a gun trade show and get any gun they want without a trace.


You can't be bothered to see the holes in the law.

Btw, 2nd amendment was written in 1791. Bringing up something that was around 100 years later is immaterial to what I said.

 

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,891
1,902
113
People can go to a gun trade show and get any gun they want without a trace.


You can't be bothered to see the holes in the law.

Btw, 2nd amendment was written in 1791. Bringing up something that was around 100 years later is immaterial to what I said.

Ok, against my better judgement.
What do you want to see happen on this issue?
 

Hoopsdoc1978

All-Big Ten
Apr 13, 2016
3,126
2,531
113
43
Epsom Indiana
People can go to a gun trade show and get any gun they want without a trace.


You can't be bothered to see the holes in the law.

Btw, 2nd amendment was written in 1791. Bringing up something that was around 100 years later is immaterial to what I said.

As the article correctly notes, it’s not so much a “gun show loophole” as it is a private seller exception.

Personally, I wouldn’t be averse to requiring anyone who sells a gun at a gun show to perform a background check. As the article also notes, over 75 percent of transactions at gun shows already do. It wouldn’t be a big deal to me.
 

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,891
1,902
113
As the article correctly notes, it’s not so much a “gun show loophole” as it is a private seller exception.

Personally, I wouldn’t be averse to requiring anyone who sells a gun at a gun show to perform a background check. As the article also notes, over 75 percent of transactions at gun shows already do. It wouldn’t be a big deal to me.
I'm guessing Hickory and BHE do not want to have discussion about the issues. They just want to lob haymakers from the cheap seats. I'm not surprised.
 

IU_Hickory

Senior
Aug 29, 2017
2,714
2,440
113
Ok, against my better judgement.
What do you want to see happen on this issue?

All gun sales should require background checks (gun shows included). If a gun is used in a crime or murder, then owner of said gun has some liability. So the owner has reason to make sure that transfer of gun is official so that he isn't responsible for the gun.

Limitations on how many rounds per second can be fired and how many bullets can be fired without changing the clip.

A gun safety test to get a gun license (like people have to pass a test to drive a car) and all guns should require said license.
 

All4You

Sophomore
Mar 12, 2007
834
1,341
93
As the article correctly notes, it’s not so much a “gun show loophole” as it is a private seller exception.

Personally, I wouldn’t be averse to requiring anyone who sells a gun at a gun show to perform a background check. As the article also notes, over 75 percent of transactions at gun shows already do. It wouldn’t be a big deal to me.

If I thought that would be the end of it, that all it would take to stop further infringement on gun rights is to end the private sale exception, then I would too. Ay, but there's the rub. If past performance is any indicator of future results then when they get several years down the road and realize that gun violence doesn't magically decrease like they hoped it would then what? They are back at it, taking yet another inch that's part of a larger mile they wish to take...incrementally but all encompassing nonetheless.
 

Spartans9312

Senior
Nov 11, 2004
2,891
1,902
113
All gun sales should require background checks (gun shows included). If a gun is used in a crime or murder, then owner of said gun has some liability. So the owner has reason to make sure that transfer of gun is official so that he isn't responsible for the gun.

Limitations on how many rounds per second can be fired and how many bullets can be fired without changing the clip.

A gun safety test to get a gun license (like people have to pass a test to drive a car) and all guns should require said license.
What's the limitations?
 

Hoopsdoc1978

All-Big Ten
Apr 13, 2016
3,126
2,531
113
43
Epsom Indiana
All gun sales should require background checks (gun shows included).

No way. Sales between private citizens should remain as is except for sales AT gun shows, which I’ve already mentioned.
If a gun is used in a crime or murder, then owner of said gun has some liability. So the owner has reason to make sure that transfer of gun is official so that he isn't responsible for the gun.

Absolutely ridiculous. Illegal or illegally obtained weapons account for an insanely high percent of all gun crime. What you have here is a solution in search of a problem.

Limitations on how many rounds per second can be fired and how many bullets can be fired without changing the clip.

Again, this is a solution in search of a problem because high capacity clips are virtually never used in gun crime and true automatic weapons are already illegal.

A gun safety test to get a gun license (like people have to pass a test to drive a car) and all guns should require said license.
This doesn’t even make sense. The people who you’d be hassling with this nonsense would not be the ones using the guns illegally. So what’s the point?

None of these ideas would do anything at all to solve gun crime except help IUHickory sleep a little better. Until he realizes that nothing has changed and then he’s back with a whole new list of demands.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: All4You

Bill4411

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 24, 2001
7,338
2,620
113
It's such a canard that Hitler and Lenin confiscated guns. This article pretty much explains what actually happened in Russia and Germany. Guns were not a high priority.

Did Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin confiscate guns? - Quora

Here's an excerpt:

Hitler did initiate some gun confiscations, but it wasn’t how it’s often presented. The way people tell it, Germany had some sort of free for all gun ownership thing, and then Hitler showed up and put a lid on it. That isn’t at all true.

Gun control in Germany was established under the Weimar Republic. Gun ownership was declared illegal in 1919, and in 1920 there was an actual “Law on the disarmament of the people”. Bans were lifted in 1928, but a strict permitting system was put in place. The result of this was that by the time Hitler came to power, Germans didn’t really have a whole lot of guns due to earlier government actions, much like the Russians.

Hitler’s government passed a new gun law in 1938, which actually loosened regulations. Also in 1938, the day after Kristallnacht, they issued Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which is what people likely refer to when they talk about Hitler’s confiscation. The thing is, where the average German was unlikely to have a gun, a Jew was even less likely. The 1928 law required that permits be issued to “trustworthy” people, and lots of German policemen just couldn’t bring themselves to consider a Jew trustworthy under any circumstances. There weren’t any Jewish guns to confiscate, that was already taken care of years earlier.
 

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
20,483
7,900
113
None of these ideas would do anything at all to solve gun crime...
I hear your complaints.

Now, let's hear your solutions.

What can be done to make school shootings, office shootings, nightclub shootings, chuch shootings, public event shootings like in Las Vegas, and mass shootings in general a much more rare event?

Do you care?

Do we need this to make you feel MANLY?

180522094603-t1-us-intl-shooting-list-super-tease.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory

Mas-sa-suta

All-American
Oct 23, 2003
7,692
1,093
113
That “well regulated militia” is still around today. It’s called the national guard.
WRONG!
The Guard has been Federalized since the USA went to an all volunteer military. Many Guard members have served tours as full timers with all branches.
 

ButHerEmails

Senior
Sep 28, 2019
2,081
1,988
113
WRONG!
The Guard has been Federalized since the USA went to an all volunteer military. Many Guard members have served tours as full timers with all branches.
All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
 

larsIU

Junior
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,783
2,119
113
No way. Sales between private citizens should remain as is except for sales AT gun shows, which I’ve already mentioned.


Absolutely ridiculous. Illegal or illegally obtained weapons account for an insanely high percent of all gun crime. What you have here is a solution in search of a problem.



Again, this is a solution in search of a problem because high capacity clips are virtually never used in gun crime and true automatic weapons are already illegal.


This doesn’t even make sense. The people who you’d be hassling with this nonsense would not be the ones using the guns illegally. So what’s the point?

None of these ideas would do anything at all to solve gun crime except help IUHickory sleep a little better. Until he realizes that nothing has changed and then he’s back with a whole new list of demands.
I'm not sure there's a good way to remove guns from our society. Stricter gun laws may help but they'll punish legal gun owners in a disparate fashion. Nobody is taking anybody's guns but even if that fever dream came true, the illegal guns would still be out there.

The only real solution I see is draconian punishments for crimes committed with a gun and severe punishments for illegal gun ownership.
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,350
3,707
113
I'm not sure there's a good way to remove guns from our society. Stricter gun laws may help but they'll punish legal gun owners in a disparate fashion. Nobody is taking anybody's guns but even if that fever dream came true, the illegal guns would still be out there.

The only real solution I see is draconian punishments for crimes committed with a gun and severe punishments for illegal gun ownership.


if we made guns and ammo illegal, what's already out there would still be out there, but those holding would treat what they got much differently than they do now, once they can't replace what they got.

if guns and ammo were made illegal, we would see a dramatic drop off in gun crime the very next day, even if the quantity of guns and ammo out there were no less than they were the day before.

and over time, how much is "out there" would slowly and steadily decline, as would the number of gun related crimes.
 
Last edited:

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,350
3,707
113
Back then

Too many flaws and assumptions here to even begin break down and discuss, just suffice to say when one can't differentiate between machine gun and AR-15, clip size and magazine capacity, nor realize there are laws already on the books in regards to owning machine guns as well as laws and measures to prevent mentally ill and dangerous felons from owning firearms in general I really can't be bothered.

As for what the founding fathers envisioned or not, those weapons you mention were the preeminent tools for waging war of their day, and being learned men they saw the technological advancements from times past to their present day and could easily extrapolate and envision it in our present day.

Hell, cartridge based semiautomatic firearm has been around since 1885, and magazine fed repeaters have been around since the Civil War. This isn't fancy new tech, just improvements on long existing tech.

one could argue that an AR-15 is just a tech improvement on the sling and stone.

a hand held ground to air rocket launcher capable of bringing down a jumbo jet, just a tech improvement on the blowgun.

that doesn't mean the law shouldn't take into consideration the differences in lethality of the technical advancements.

that said, we need to stop treating the founding fathers as infallible deities, or the Constitution as carved by God onto two stone tablets, and carried down Bunker Hill by George Washington with one in each arm, as the heavens put on a show.