We'd better be writing our legislaturds..

Post all political posts here.

Moderators: Hobie, AmBraCol

Forum rules
The rules are simple...
- no advocation of violence to anyone
- no cursing

Violation of the rules will result in deletion of the topic.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 24872
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

We'd better be writing our legislaturds..

#1 Post by AJMD429 » Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:25 am

.... because you know they are all in a rush to "do something" so they can please their constituents.... living in gated communities and often having armed bodyguards, they don't care at all about the real impact of any legislation when it comes to mass shootings. In fact, most of them probably realize nothing at all impacts those other than the basic morality of a society (which both political parties only worsen), and the percentage of citizens who are armed in any given place (which even the Republicans don't have the integrity to increase). But since they don't care, and their survival depends on appearing to do something, rest assured they will push for useless and symbolic gun laws as usual. The problem is that ultimately they will push for bans on certain types of firearms and then many on the political right will be pressured to compromise and at least agree on 'universal background checks'. Such laws go beyond 'symbolic and useless' and are clearly 'dangerous and counterproductive', and must be adamantly opposed, NOT because they infringe on the convenience at sportsmen and their hobbies, but because they endanger innocent lives far worse than the 'easy availability' of firearms.

Although it would be quite possible to allow and encourage, or even mandate, 'background checks' when firearms are transferred, doing so without creating a firearms registry accessible to the government requires lots of finesse. Since anti-gun people are more interested in virtue signaling than improving public safety or social stability, they can't be bothered to think about anything in-depth enough to understand it, and the approach of doing background checks without registration it's too complicated for their little libtard snowflake minds.

So there are three choices for us:

1. We can do nothing other than stand around the gun store counter and do our own virtue signaling with a lot of talk and no action, which is what at least 90% of gun owners typically do.

2. We can write all of our legislators, and any newspaper or other open forum, and explain why assault weapons ban and background checks are totally useless, and actually pose a real danger to the safety of our streets and the stability of our society.

3. We can show how access to the NICS database could easily be expanded to all citizens, and a transaction approval number issued by that entity after checking the recipients background, WITHOUT the government having any information as to what firearm was purchased. That information would only be retained by whoever sold firearm. If, and only if, a particular firearm was found in possession of someone suspected of a criminal act, or found at the scene of a crime, then the firearm could be traced from manufacturer to wholesaler, to retail purchaser on down the chain. Retail purchasers would be incentivized to do a background check and record the transaction so as to protect themselves, but this information would NOT be in any centralized database.

If we are to preserve freedom and the safety and stability of our nation, all 80 million gun owners in this country need to do number two or three above. The problem is that number two is overwhelming to those with limited intelligence and the even more limited motivation of those who push anti-gun legislation, and citizens and legislators alike are really more interested in virtue signaling and doing something that makes them feel good about themselves than they are anything realistic or practical. Number three might be the best course of action, even though some would see it as going along with the enemy. My opinion is that it is far better to see that 'good' legislation is passed rather than attempting to prevent any legislation being passed when the reality is that something will in fact be passed no matter what we do. Unfortunately, once the topic gets complex, the only people motivated enough to pursue it, tend to be the zealots on both extremes, and the anti-gun zealots are far more numerous and adept at manipulating public opinion and legislation.

*********
Here's a rough draft of what I will be sending out in the morning:

You will be told by the Democrat 'leadership' and by the 'mob' of low-information voters that you need to have “courage” to do what is needed after the recent mass-murders.

Yes, you do – because the path requiring courage is NOT to pass any new 'gun control' laws. If you take that path, foolish, misinformed, but well-meaning voters will accuse you of being controlled by the NRA.

However, if you had enough sense to get elected to public office, one would assume that you already know the following (if not, I can provide solid data proving each point):

1. “Background Checks” have never been shown to reduce violent crime.

2. “Assault Weapons” are LESS lethal than ordinary 'sporting' rifles.

3. Only psychopathic criminals commit mass murder, and psychopathic criminals don't obey “gun control” laws.

4. The more “Gun-free Zones” there are, the more minutes a murderer will be killing people before he is stopped, and the more lives will be lost.

5. Creating a “Gun Registry” is the most dangerous thing imaginable because even in our own country these lists are used to confiscate guns even after government promises not to do that. Many 'background check' advocates admit that they realize such checks are useless, but also admit their real goal is a gun registry.

6. Remember that since 'assault weapons' may be used for headline-grabbing mass-murders, but are actually involved in a TINY percentage of overall murders, it is a bit odd that some politicians are obsessed with eliminating private ownership of that type firearm; is it just political laziness, self-serving virtue-signaling, or something more dangerous...? That type firearm is not only the most popular 'sporting' rifle in the U.S. now, even more importantly it is the exact type of firearm that would properly serve a 'militia', and is therefore the MOST protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is about the timeless balance of power between citizen and government – NOT about duck hunting.

7. Worldwide experience is even more ominous – genocide led to more deaths during the 20th century than criminal homicide, suicide, terrorism, and war combined, and an anonymously (no 'gun registry') and well-armed ('military-style semi-autos') citizenry is the only proven and effective deterrent to genocide. We don't think it could ever happen in the U.S., but just two generations ago the citizens of Germany thought the same thing.

'Virtue-signaling' by supporting 'gun control' does NOT take 'courage' it is the act of either a fool or a coward, and there is no 'virtue' involved.

Have the COURAGE to OPPOSE any and all 'gun control' laws.

Remember – when lives are at stake, you don't 'compromise'.


HERE is where you can find your legislaturd contact information - https://gunownersaction.org/legislator-lookup/
After you enter your zip code, the page will list your legislators.
On the far right the black button says 'contact', but just to the left are the Twitter and Facebook logos - by them is a 'globe' and that is the link to where you can email them.
Last edited by AJMD429 on Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:46 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

User avatar
BlaineG
Posting leader...
Posts: 27314
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Spanaway, Washington

Re: We'd better be writing our legislaturds..

#2 Post by BlaineG » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:59 pm

2. We can write all of our legislators, and any newspaper or other open forum, and explain why assault weapons ban and background checks are totally useless, and actually pose a real danger to the safety of our streets and the stability of our society.
Arrrrgh...you fell for it, too. :wink:
DON'T use their definitions.
Everyone did in the liberal 2/3s of Washington, and NOW every single semi-auto is an ASSAULT WEAPON.
Heels-Up-Harris is probably going to be annointed The Queen, and she will use a completely unconstitutional EO to ban all guns. Her words not mine. The communists will steal the election, then steal the constitution/Bill of Rights and letters to GOD will not help us. I'm not even sure Trump will be totally on board with us.
I also think that it's no coincidence that the communists started in with the Racist/White Nationalist labels, and now, this piece of pelosi in El Paso is labeled Racist/White Nationalist. I never give up hope, but I think this deadly, coordinated, Oct Surprise came in August, and this time might be fatal.
If You Back Me Into A Corner There Will Not Be Enough Room For Both Of Us. :evil:

User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 24872
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: We'd better be writing our legislaturds..

#3 Post by AJMD429 » Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:06 pm

The Republic may indeed fall, but if it falls despite heroic efforts on the part of the citizens, so be it. I'm afraid it will fall because 20,000 Libertarians, 40,000 Republican votets, and 80,000 gun owners never seem to yield more than about 2,000 vocal activists between them....the rest are too busy watching television or having cookouts or moaning that they work 60 hour weeks and "don't have time" to participate as a citizen... :roll:

I pray that we still care enough to do even a little bit of our duty as citizens to preserve what our ancestors died for. From what I saw when I used to have a "write your legislator" table at gun shows, 99% of gun owners don't care at all if guns are banned; they live in some Red Dawn fantasy-land where they restore the republic through guerilla warfare. That worked 240 years ago, but logistics, population, citizen's political literacy, and technology were WAY different then; the balance is no longer in favor of a 'militia'. FAR better we use the soap box and ballot box aggressively, rather than just sit in the sidelines and let things deteriorate and assume the cartridge box would do anything more than delay transition to a police-state.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 24872
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: We'd better be writing our legislaturds..

#4 Post by AJMD429 » Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:31 pm

As far as "background checks" - which have been proven useless time and again, you can bet a 'background check' law will be shoved down our throats by the legislaturds whether we like it or not.

PERHAPS we could get them to do like they did with the Brady Bill, which if you remember, was really a 'federal gun registry' disguised as a 'background check' which was so poorly written that it didn't even require a 'background check', even though that was the alleged purpose of the bill. The NRA and GOA and SAF wound up forcing the issue so at least a 'background check' actually had to be done, and managed to put in language prohibiting the maintenance of a 'gun registry'.

Unfortunately, there were flaws in the Brady language (aside from the fact that the whole premise of a 'background check' is pretty worthless), and the registration information WAS obtained, and was NOT destroyed as the law required, to prevent the creation of a 'permanent gun registry'. Of course the government agency violating the law faced no penalty.

However, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY 'REGISTRATION' DATA TO BE GATHERED AT ALL.

Remember - the only claimed purpose of the 'background check' is to make it less likely that a prohibited person will purchase a firearm through legitimate channels - i.e. an FFL dealer, or an individual who isn't intentionally selling stolen guns (that obviously will happen regardless of any laws), so it isn't about an officer stopping someone to see if the gun they have was sold to them with a background check - the officer would simply do a check and if the person is a prohibited possessor, take the gun and arrest the person, regardless. It also isn't about 'tracing' guns, which is mostly useless from a criminology standpoint anyway.

1. Give EVERYONE the ability to access NICS, so everyone can indeed do a 'background check' to see if it is ok to sell a gun to a given purchaser.

2. When a person calls for a background check, the name, birth date, and whatever other identifying information is required would be the ONLY information given to NICS. They either say "ok" or "not ok" to sell that individual a firearm.

3. If they say "ok" they issue an Approval Number, and that number would indicate that on that date, the purchaser was deemed "ok". The seller and purchaser would both have that number, serving as proof that on that date a background check was done.

4. If there is ever a problem with that firearm turning up at a crime scene, the gun could be traced just like it is now, from manufacturer, to wholesaler, to retail, and then through the various individuals IF they participated in the NICS system, but would require each individual be contacted sequentially and that they have the information. Participation would be voluntary, but people selling firearms would be incentivized to get the approval because nobody wants to be the last owner of record of a crime-gun. Critics would say it isn't 100%, but it would be close - people wouldn't be hesitant to do the checks IF there were no registration involved. Besides, criminally-intent people will STILL evade any legal purchase requirements and use the black-market, just as they have always done.

Proposing THIS would sort out the legitimate believers who only want 'background checks' from the ones with the ulterior motive, who won't settle for anything less than a federal gun registry.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6872
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: We'd better be writing our legislaturds..

#5 Post by Grizz » Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:56 pm

Sorry Doc,

You seem to be under a delusion about the mental and moral capacity of legislators. You appear to be laboring under a cloud of a misconception that tricks you into believing that legislators can read with comprehension, think critically, and discern the difference between right and wrong. Further, you seem to think that legislators know and care about Truth, and have the skills to differentiate between Truth and lies.. While there could be some who care, they do not have the lung power to shout down the legion of liars known as legislators.

Prescription: read through the book of Revelation in one sitting, and compare the legislators to the miscreants in scripture to apply the script.. if you get the drift...

Regards,

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest