Site

Categories

Discover and discuss the manliest content on the Web

19 comments

  • OmecD

    OmecD 7 years, 8 months ago

    Why enforce the current laws on the books that would send a clear and sound message to criminals, when we can allow those laws to fail, so we can make more laws to further restrict law abiding individuals.

    Reply

  • High_Binder 7 years, 8 months ago

    They're not "ignoring" facts. They know the facts. Gun control IS NOT and NEVER has been about "safety".

    Gun control is about control and this is why crime facts don't factor into a gun-grabber's logic. The bottom line is that guns = power and that's why they want the populace disarmed (history shows us this over and over and over).

    Reply

    • Chet_Manly

      Chet_Manly 7 years, 8 months ago

      There should be a like/thumbs up/positive reaction button for comments.

      Reply

      • OmecD
      • High_Binder 7 years, 8 months ago

        +1, that would be a helpful feature.

        Reply

      • OmecD

        OmecD 7 years, 8 months ago

        Chet, I have several thoughts on this topic. Unfortunately I think civil disobedience followed by government trying to back up their draconian laws is what we have to wait for.

        I'd like to hear your thoughts.

        Reply

        • Chet_Manly

          Chet_Manly 7 years, 8 months ago

          On the topic of that law... Were I in CT, I would not comply. Civil disobedience here would work as long as there is a high level of self-control on the part of citizen gun owners. This would work best if there were leadership and a network of gun owners communicating and acting in one accord. I have seen little in the news that such an organization exists but I wouldn't expect that information to be covered in the major media outlets. CT gun owners need to community organize, record all interactions/activities, and have good optics. Then they will easily overcome this law.
          Just the same I don't expect law enforcement to come knocking down doors and creating any martyrs to enforce this. What they might do is pick out either a few high profile individuals and go after them to "make an example of" for the rest of us. But any conflict would be swift and happen in the shadows to prevent inciting the public. That being typical of their approach. Examples: Ben Carson or Dinesh D'Souza or Wayne Allen Root (and many others) and their experience with the IRS. They are progressives and move in small incremental steps. These are not brave men of principal who shaped these laws.
          I wouldn't be surprised though, if they do absolutely nothing to enforce this law. The people who are anti-gun would rather avoid a direct conflict unless they are assured a favorable outcome and or favorable optics.
          I think they will wait to see what occurs at the next election before deciding. I might be wrong though. I don't know enough about that state to know if it was hasty emotional reactions pushing this bill or if the politicians in CT had a plan ready and merely needed an excuse to legislate it; "because you can't let a good crisis go to waste" one might say. I believe the motivation for why the law was passed would strongly influence how it will be enforced...and I just don't know enough about the individual politicians involved. Although from what I know of CT gun laws, they had absolutely no respect for the gun owning citizens before this law.
          If elections don't work, I just like to remember that the men who created this country chose not to obey laws they believed to be illegal either.

          Reply

        • Chet_Manly

          Chet_Manly 7 years, 8 months ago

          What is your take on this, Sir?

          Reply

          • OmecD

            OmecD 7 years, 8 months ago

            My take on Ct is one of Civil Disobedience. I feel if our government is going to implement laws making criminals of us overnight because of a item we own, that would make the government tyrannical. Would it not?

            Oh they jest and say that there was ample opportunity to register your firearms. No doubt for future confiscation. Those who were trying to follow the law and register but made mistakes on their paperwork are now receiving letters making it mandatory to dispose of their firearms in one form or another.

            Their is no quicker way to make enemies of a population than to give them no recourse. If a will is imposed that makes my father, siblings, children, or friends enemies of the state overnight, then have you not made a enemy of me?

            With that said, I think law enforcement would be making a grave mistake going in with force and confiscating. I think once word spreads of that type of action they will not find the weapons they are looking for. I think they will find nothing but harm and a well armed populace. Only 3% of the population needs to stand and fight to make a statement that makes nations free and constitutions born.

            You are right about the polticians who made and passed the law though. Its one thing to use a pen and paper to write laws and entirely another to back those laws up with life and limb. They feel that they have done their part and expect another who most likely opposes that law to shed blood for it.

            The question is when do they start asking us to turn in our neighbors to the state for being Jews....... I mean law abiding citizens who own a firearm? We are treading on very thin ice and we are at a precipice that has a familiar tone of 1930's Germany.

            We have mid term elections coming up. I hope the people are starting to wake and take notice of the fact that our polticians have grown fat with power and feel that we serve them as royalty. We have people taking a vocal organized stand. Will it be enough?

            Yes. Our forefathers of this country were considered criminals to the king of england. My family members were among those who stood a fought the British and the king. I take pride in saying that. I too took a oath to protect the constitution of the United States, not dismantle it.

            Unfortunately if trouble comes, it will now be in the time of my children.

            Reply

            • Chet_Manly

              Chet_Manly 7 years, 8 months ago

              Our parallel with 1930's Germany is most disturbing, I agree. I brought that up in a discussion in a masters level class once and I thought heads were going to explode. I elaborated and there was no push back. Hopefully these type discussions are going on other places as well.
              Also, I agree completely about the midterms and I am not optimistic about the future if there isn't a significant shift in policy as a result. However, I know we have the 3% covered and then some.
              Finally, Thank you for your service.

              Reply

  • OmecD

    OmecD 7 years, 8 months ago

    So the question is, how do we hold these people accountable? It seems as though they can lie, throw out false claims and numbers, make excuses for not enforcing the law, yet make more unenforceable laws. Its apparent most news agencies will not report the facts by blatantly ignoring them or worse pandering to them. Voting them out of office doesn't seem to work. they just return with more doom and gloom. Can we give them as state or area to live in where they can impose all of their useless laws, and the sheepeople that approve can live?

    Reply