+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: The Threat is Real, very real. (/showthread.php?tid=13951)
The Threat is Real, very real. - usmcm16a2 - 08-27-2017
Folks,
As a citizen of the US and a resident of California, do not take anything for granted from your politicians. If you citizens of free states, think "that cannnot happen here" my answer to you is oh yes it can.
30 years ago in California, pick out a long gun, fill out the 4473, take it home. 2017 10 day waits, 5-8 pages of paperwork. Thumb prints when you purchase, thumb prints when you pick up. A safe affidavit, make model of safe. Safe handling demonstration showing you know how handle your firearm. Before it gets released to you.
Folks, this is coming to a neighborhood near you, UNLESS, you fight tooth and nail. A2
The Threat is Real, very real. - newb - 08-31-2017
CA is one of the leaders for what is going to happen to the rest of the nation....
The Threat is Real, very real. - CCW - 09-29-2017
Except for common sense...then they re trailing the pack.
The Threat is Real, very real. - Kswhitetails - 09-30-2017
I saw a sig line somewhere - maybe even here, that said: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
The Threat is Real, very real. - bj139 - 09-30-2017
I need to contact my politicians at least monthly about all kinds of pro freedom issues.
Add this to my To Do list.
The Threat is Real, very real. - Kilco - 09-30-2017
For the longest time I had my head in the sand believing we are untouchable here in Maine... Now I have my kids and their future and heritage in mind. I try to stay updated and be a voice to other sportsman of the issues other states are facing.
The Threat is Real, very real. - HowaGrendel - 09-30-2017
build your own.....80% AR15's, AK47's, 1911's and Glock clones....no more 4473's or S/N's......and leave California.....
The Threat is Real, very real. - TomSawyerNW - 09-30-2017
Bloomberg has given $130 million so far to outlaw guns, or make them so difficult to obtain that most people would give up. The NRA is the only organization I've ever made donations for political purposes. I agree that we are under heavy attack, and this issue should not be taken lightly.
The Threat is Real, very real. - bj139 - 10-02-2017
What happened yesterday can't help us retain our rights.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/10/02/breaking-at-least-two-dead-following-shooting-in-las-vegas-n2389395?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
The Threat is Real, very real. - mdram - 10-02-2017
what happened yesterday should be used as a reason we need our 2a rights
The Threat is Real, very real. - Double Naught Spy - 10-02-2017
mdram Wrote:what happened yesterday should be used as a reason we need our 2a rights
Well, lots of people in Nevada with guns. They didn't stop the shooting. How come? None of the visitors to the hotel grabbed their guns and ran to the 32nd floor and kicked in the door and engaged the shooter. Local residents didn't retrieve rifles from their vehicles, load them, and engage the shooter. Residents didn't fire at the shooter from their homes. The shooter was not engaged by people from other hotels or buildings in the area, parking garages, etc.
I can't think of any venue such as a concert that is going to allow guns and I don't see Jimmy or Janie concealed carry whipping out their Kel-Tec P32 or Glock 27 and firing 350 yards up 32 floors at a hotel to engage the shooter without any sort of real risk of killing non-combatants on other floors. If anything, this sounds like one of the worst sort of examples to claim this is why we need our 2a rights. We do need more of them, no doubt, but nothing would have changed in this situation. Plenty of folks already have guns in NV and in Las Vegas, so a change in our rights would not have changed this situation. If what happened yesterday should be used as a reason why we need our 2a rights (bearing in mind the SC court has ruled they are not absolute already), please explain how yesterday would have been changed if they were in place.
While on the notion of reality of urban combatics, let's also keep in mind that the vast majority of people with permits to carry don't carry on a regular basis, or people who have the right to carry in permitless states don't carry despite not requiring a permit to do so. Far too many people who already can carry simply do not do so, be it a pistol on their person or a long gun in their vehicle (and in some cases, long guns in public). This goes way beyond just more of our 2nd amendment rights, but full scale attitude changes in people about taking an active role in their personal security and the security of others, which if you screw up, can subject you to significant civil and potentially criminal ramifications in most states.
The Threat is Real, very real. - stanc - 10-02-2017
Double Naught Spy Wrote:Well, lots of people in Nevada with guns. They didn't stop the shooting. How come? None of the visitors to the hotel grabbed their guns and ran to the 32nd floor and kicked in the door and engaged the shooter. Local residents didn't retrieve rifles from their vehicles, load them, and engage the shooter. Residents didn't fire at the shooter from their homes. The shooter was not engaged by people from other hotels or buildings in the area, parking garages, etc.Yup.
Double Naught Spy Wrote:I can't think of any venue such as a concert that is going to allow guns and I don't see Jimmy or Janie concealed carry whipping out their Kel-Tec P32 or Glock 27 and firing 350 yards up 32 floors at a hotel to engage the shooter without any sort of real risk of killing non-combatants on other floors. If anything, this sounds like one of the worst sort of examples to claim this is why we need our 2a rights.I fully agree.
The Threat is Real, very real. - Drift - 10-03-2017
T'was an atrocity. No doubt about that. I think every man here would have prevented it if he could. And I doubt that any man here will give up his guns either. What we can do is avoid large crowds of people when we are unarmed. Large crowds = easy targets. I don't like being an easy target. So "Don't bunch up".
The Threat is Real, very real. - Klem - 10-03-2017
mdram Wrote:what happened yesterday should be used as a reason we need our 2a rights
Um, no.
I appreciate you are worried this might lead to further restrictions and you feel the need to push back but look at the scenario and tell me how more guns could have prevented that? He only took a minute or so to pump full-auto into a compressed mass of people. People in the vicinity in that hotel with guns would have taken at least a minute to figure out what was going on and bash their way into his locked (and maybe even barricaded) room. Probably would have taken them longer to figure out where the fire was coming from.
No, unfortunately this is the cost of 2A. You live in a place where this sort of weaponry is accessible then this is the cost. Or you can live more safely in a society with no civilian access to firearms. Personally I am comfortable paying the cost for access to firearms. It's a risk I take that I might be on the receiving end of a fruit cake with a gun and for that I want access to my shooting sports. I wish there were no fruit cakes out there, but with populations in the millions it only takes one.
Like the old saying, 'There's always a cost.'
The Threat is Real, very real. - Kilco - 10-03-2017
Klem Wrote:Um, no.
I appreciate you are worried this might lead to further restrictions and you feel the need to push back but look at the scenario and tell me how more guns could have prevented that? He only took a minute or so to pump full-auto into a compressed mass of people. People in the vicinity in that hotel with guns would have taken at least a minute to figure out what was going on and bash their way into his locked (and maybe even barricaded) room. Probably would have taken them longer to figure out where the fire was coming from.
No, unfortunately this is the cost of 2A. You live in a place where this sort of weaponry is accessible then this is the cost. Or you can live more safely in a society with no civilian access to firearms. Personally I am comfortable paying the cost for access to firearms. It's a risk I take that I might be on the receiving end of a fruit cake with a gun and for that I want access to my shooting sports. I wish there were no fruit cakes out there, but with populations in the millions it only takes one.
Like the old saying, 'There's always a cost.'
Truth dart.
The ugly truth, but spot on.
The Threat is Real, very real. - ThunderStick - 10-03-2017
Spot on Klem!
Look to places where is very difficult for the citizens to possess firearms, and you'll see they arn't immune from mass shootings either!
The Threat is Real, very real. - Troutguide - 10-03-2017
Klem your thinking is in line with mine. You can't make laws for the crazy or criminal you make laws to provide order for all and a way to prosecute or detain the crazy or criminal. Crazy or Criminal don't care about laws and every country has guns that can be accessed by the unscrupulous.
TG
The Threat is Real, very real. - howl - 10-03-2017
It isn't a gun issue. It is a criminal issue. The man had the intelligence and resources to have done it with other weapons. The body count could have easily been higher had he chosen other means.
The Threat is Real, very real. - Kilco - 10-03-2017
Look at the 80+ killed in Europe using a vehicle...
That concert had 22,000+ attending. If this piece if s*** mad mowed through there in a vehichle, or god forbid a vehicle with explosives then only 50 would have been a maricle. Don't get me wrong 1 person killed is a tragedy, but regardless of firearms, what kind of firearms or how many firearms, as Klem indirectly put it, piece of filth fruitcakes are going to do what fruitcakes do. No logic, laws or rules are going to prevent that.
The Threat is Real, very real. - Klem - 10-03-2017
howl Wrote:It isn't a gun issue. It is a criminal issue. The man had the intelligence and resources to have done it with other weapons. The body count could have easily been higher had he chosen other means.
True, but you cannot deny limiting civilian access to guns makes this sort of atrocity more difficult to commit. Also suggesting that if you do restrict guns then criminals will just find another way like a truck, and therefore it's pointless limiting guns in the first place is a non sequitur.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the politicians who for the most part do not share our affinity for firearms. Charged with preventing these things politicians look at all the possible solutions and go with the easiest and least expensive options. Lock up all those known to be abled bodied yet have psychological problems, and related autism. Limit the influx of migrants with known inconsistencies with your way of life. Deny those with a criminal record, especially if it includes violence. Limit the tools available to commit efficient murder like guns... What is the cost of doing each of these and to what extent do we restrict each one. All those with mental illness or only those with violent tendencies? Do we restrict truck ownership or is the cost too high to society? All criminals forever or only those with violent crimes, or with records in the past ten years? For democracies that valorise individual freedoms tackling this problem necessarily comes at a cost. And like you say, there will always be some nutter who slips through the cracks and that is the harsh reality of firearm access. You want access to full auto weapons, well someone eventually will misuse their gun on full-auto. Semi-auto, someone will eventually misuse their gun on semi-auto. Restrict both and someone eventually will smuggle one in (although you have to admit restricting these at least mitigates the likelihood and lessens the damage if it occurs, if not eliminating it entirely).
Sure, that guy could have used another means. They found a bag of ammonium nitrate at his house and also Tannerite. Unlikely that Tannerite can set off ANFO but with some effort he could access a detonator and booster from somewhere. Or just used a lot of Tannerite to propel shrapnel. He could have been in the Philippines with his Mrs when the thing went off and lived to fight another day (e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Brighton bombing in 1884. The IRA used a long timer). Heck, he could have rigged it to a mobile phone and rung it from overseas while watching the concert on Facebook. Instead he tied himself to the scene by using firearms and felt the need to commit suicide - A fruit cake that slipped through the very wide cracks.
I am a responsible firearm aficionado and I don't want these murders to happen just like everyone else. I also prefer the Gov't not restrict my lifestyle so I will argue that I am prepared to put up with the risk for access to firearms. I hope everyone else in this democracy is ready to bear the risk also, for everyone's freedom, regardless if they want to exercise it or not. It's just the painful cost of freedom in a democracy.