AR15s and High Capacity Mags
- Thread starter DeploraBill
- Start date
dadoser
Elite
You must not have watched much MSM or read much MSM. A whole lot of folks that voted against Trump (notice I did not say for Biden) voted against him for this very reason - he was an autocrat. The is a big reason a lot of establishment Republicans left the party over those 4 years. That was the whole point/motivation of the Lincoln Project.
I think many of his voters failed to know or understand his autocratic style.
(I hesitate to type any kind of political response/post on a gun forum anymore......)
Last edited:
It worries me to no end to hear any American, let alone one on a second amendment forum, speak well of autocratic tendencies. I'm not going to address any politics or my opinion of trump, but we've fought more than a few wars against autocrats. Like our war for independence. That "1776" all the "patriots" like to chant and rant about. We damn sure don't need that autocracy nonsense here. This is the land of the free, where the people are supposed to have a voice and where Congress is supposed to have primacy, not the executive branch. Autocrats can take their crap and go somewhere they fit in, like Saudi Arabia.
C. Sumpin
Custom
His lone autocratic style worked against the swampers and for the people, which is a good thing at this point.
How likes you the autocratic style of the Damnucratic Party? This is the land of the less free than it used to be. But the topic has veered. Enjoy your Government, Done with this.
How likes you the autocratic style of the Damnucratic Party? This is the land of the less free than it used to be. But the topic has veered. Enjoy your Government, Done with this.
HayesGreener
Hellcat
If you read Feinstein's bill, there is no reference to taxing or confiscating AR's or high cap magazines, and current owners are grandfathered, because they know confiscation and taxation will not pass constitutional muster. Sheila Jackson Lee (who I think is from another planet) on the other hand has submitted a bill that would outright ban AR's and high cap magazines with draconian penalties. I doubt that either of those bills will make it out of committee but it is important to read them because they inform us as to the left's aspirations on gun control. It is also important for us to read them to keep us from charging off into foil hat territory. I wrote my thoughts on the constitutional aspects of this over in the Armed With Knowledge Forum, FWIW.
Yes! Knowledge is important. I've said on here many times we need to have command of the actual facts to be effective.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
The old phrase: Knowledge is power.
its a false statement.
Applied knowledge is power.
if you dont apply your knowledge, what good was it
the obsrver
Master Class
I think everyone has just about covered everything.
I think, where my biggest thing is with a conversation about things like this is, I am deeply concerned and troubled clear down to my soul with the very notion of someone, or someones, telling me what is normal or giving me a definition of something. I do not know if that stems from a certain freedom or if it is because I am a little onery. Maybe both. I think if you really think about it, the act of doing that and being self righteous is what brings about conflict.
To me it is no different than people arguing over what shade of blue the sky is. What is high capacity to one person (including those in the government) is not high cap to another. This is the very definition and the core of freedom and what was written by our fore fathers. To be able to think what we want, believe what we want and to not infringe on others rights to do the same.
As for calling something normal, we have men using the womens bathrooms and playing womens sports. We have a staggering amount of people more in love with money and themselves than anything or anyone else. I mean come on if everything that is going on in the world is your or their or whoevers definition of normal, than I do not want any part of it. Look apparently it is "normal" for people in China to eat bats and look what that got us. In the middle east it is normal that women can not go to school. NO I will not bow and I will not subscribe to someone else's idea of normal and I will not sit and listen to people sit around and argue about what color blue the sky is. Everyone is free to think what they want, believe what they want. It's when you start trying to tell me or anyone else that I take issue. Because I have seen to much weird crap in my life to think that normal is an actual thing. I also understand that in the grand scheme of it all and in everything that is and exists, I do not know hardly anything. In that I understand neither does anyone else.
I think, where my biggest thing is with a conversation about things like this is, I am deeply concerned and troubled clear down to my soul with the very notion of someone, or someones, telling me what is normal or giving me a definition of something. I do not know if that stems from a certain freedom or if it is because I am a little onery. Maybe both. I think if you really think about it, the act of doing that and being self righteous is what brings about conflict.
To me it is no different than people arguing over what shade of blue the sky is. What is high capacity to one person (including those in the government) is not high cap to another. This is the very definition and the core of freedom and what was written by our fore fathers. To be able to think what we want, believe what we want and to not infringe on others rights to do the same.
As for calling something normal, we have men using the womens bathrooms and playing womens sports. We have a staggering amount of people more in love with money and themselves than anything or anyone else. I mean come on if everything that is going on in the world is your or their or whoevers definition of normal, than I do not want any part of it. Look apparently it is "normal" for people in China to eat bats and look what that got us. In the middle east it is normal that women can not go to school. NO I will not bow and I will not subscribe to someone else's idea of normal and I will not sit and listen to people sit around and argue about what color blue the sky is. Everyone is free to think what they want, believe what they want. It's when you start trying to tell me or anyone else that I take issue. Because I have seen to much weird crap in my life to think that normal is an actual thing. I also understand that in the grand scheme of it all and in everything that is and exists, I do not know hardly anything. In that I understand neither does anyone else.
Last edited:
lmgunner13
Elite
I read both bills, They will be difficult to enforce. A good example of why they would fail is the Canadian long-gun registry (now defunct). Canada currently has a population of 38 million people (about 1 million less than the state of California). Starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to research, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada's auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada's 34 million (at the time) residents.
The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.
Canada's experience suggests focusing on the hardware instead of the shooter is an expensive and ultimately fruitless endeavor. What do you think the costs would be to try to enforce a nationwide registry here let alone any type of ban?
the obsrver
Master Class
I mean if you want I think everyone can throw out a number of what they think is a normal capacity mag, what is a normal amount of ammo to have, what is a normal car to drive, what is normal amount of food in the fridge, what is a normal or good length for a lawn to be, what is a normal amount of gas to have in your car. You can do that with anything. Because it is just an opinion.
The problem is when people become self righteous about it and try pushing their idea of normal.
Then you could take everyone's opinions about what it is they think normal is and you could come up with a consensus of what people think the idea of normal is. You could mistakenly think that average is the definition of normal.
But again I ask do you think what is going on in the world is normal? It should be if we are going by the general consensus and definition of what people think is normal, right? What happens to the definition of exceptional in that line of thought? Participation trophies? What happens to the people who would otherwise excel then? The new normal is everyone gets a trophy? The new normal is based on avg/below avg and therefore does not like, accept nor appreciate exceptional? They no longer strive for that?
OR maybe it's because people are self righteous, and only think about themselves and what they want and are forcing that on to others. How society has wandered from what our fore fathers, in religion, in philosophy and in law clearly laid out for us.
Can we not see that a person who harms or infringes on another with a weapon in anything other than defense clearly does not think about anything or anyone other than themselves? Is that not the real problem and it is not the fault of a weapon at all? Can we not see that infringing on another with a law, a gun, a knife or anything are all one and the same thing?
The problem is when people become self righteous about it and try pushing their idea of normal.
Then you could take everyone's opinions about what it is they think normal is and you could come up with a consensus of what people think the idea of normal is. You could mistakenly think that average is the definition of normal.
But again I ask do you think what is going on in the world is normal? It should be if we are going by the general consensus and definition of what people think is normal, right? What happens to the definition of exceptional in that line of thought? Participation trophies? What happens to the people who would otherwise excel then? The new normal is everyone gets a trophy? The new normal is based on avg/below avg and therefore does not like, accept nor appreciate exceptional? They no longer strive for that?
OR maybe it's because people are self righteous, and only think about themselves and what they want and are forcing that on to others. How society has wandered from what our fore fathers, in religion, in philosophy and in law clearly laid out for us.
Can we not see that a person who harms or infringes on another with a weapon in anything other than defense clearly does not think about anything or anyone other than themselves? Is that not the real problem and it is not the fault of a weapon at all? Can we not see that infringing on another with a law, a gun, a knife or anything are all one and the same thing?
Last edited:
Unless I have my definition(s) of an autocrat messed-up, Trump was a long way from being a complete, true autocrat. An autocrat rules with complete control, no questions asked. If he (Trump) were truely an autocrat, there sure were a lot of judges legislating from the bench against him, and shutting him down a lot.
the obsrver
Master Class
This is exactly right. What he is, is a real republican. The kind that understands that opportunity is the key to a happy and healthy public, economy and country. That opportunity comes from less laws, not more. That the reason people want into this country is for opportunity. He gets his faith in people and the hope that given choices, they will make good ones and that no other person should make those choices for them. He understands that you can not pour from an empty cup and that in order for America to be good for the world, it must be good for itself first.
An autocrat is exactly what all these people in other countries are trying to escape and fighting against. Yet come here and want to vote for the same thing they just left.
Now I do not think he has a way with words and can certainly put his foot in his mouth, but I can relate to that. I understand that especially in government words mean very little. I understand that it is intention and actions that matter. It is not what a man says but what is in his heart that matters and he has america in his heart.
As you might have gathered, I am not easy to impress. I do not disrespect anyone, but that does not mean I respect them either, that has to be earned. I did not think a whole lot of him before he took office, but he earned my respect after he took office. I just read where his net worth went way way down while being in office. Can anyone name any other person EVER in office that has happened to? Because it means something!!!!!
Last edited:
Can see your points. Sometimes sounds like an overly idea goody two shoes homeowners association mentality on steroids? From experience, some narrow minded people rarely live outside of their own personal worlds and sometimes forget there are others in existence as well? Effects of too many in current government? About only perfect thing in this world is Mother Nature and humans have yet to fully understand her. Typical bratty girl?
uspatriot1960
Custom
When it comes to the Constitution, the concept of "normal" has no relevance. The 2A is a God given right, not to be infringed upon by the government. Normal, or consensus has no bearing. There are other areas such as this in which "normal" has no bearing, but I'll leave it at that since this is a gun message board.