Keane: The Firearm Industry Wants Serious Discussions, Not Political Theater

1. Just my opinion, but I think they ought to stop with this nonsense of calling AR-15’s “Modern Sporting Rifles.” That plays into the mindset of the Gun Controllers that the RKBA is only about sport. The AR is a weapon of war, i.e. an arm, and as such exactly what the Second Amendment was written to protect.

   • Indeed.

     • Either the Second Amendment means what it says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” or it does not.

       It does not matter if those arms are called MSR’s or AR-15’s.

       At the same time, you are worried about “play(ing) into the mindset of the Gun Controllers” with MSR, yet you want POG to embrace the emotionally charged, manipulative, divisive, and incendiary term “weapons of war” after a school shooting?

       I could write a book on what you said, (and I am curious how the counter point of “All firearms have at one time been ‘weapons of war’ ” plays out) but the short answer is… Not good strategy Kyle.

       • I am not saying go around calling them weapons of war, but don’t call them sporting rifles either, because it isn’t hard for a gun controller to point out that the design of the weapon had nothing to do with sport.

       • There is nothing incendiary about “weapons of war”. What is incendiary is the way such ideas are used by Democrats to tell everyone “if you don’t keep us in power, Republicans will kill you”. Lol, if you don’t vote for me you ain’t black.

         Being after a school shooting doesn’t mean anything. You might not realize it but we live in a time ‘after’ Lincoln was shot and ‘after’ two world wars.

       • how about “weapons of war look-alikes”…which is really what they are…and a main selling point…..

       • ‘…..how about “weapons of war look-alikes”…which is really what they are…and a main selling point…..’

         Oh, profiling.

         I wonder if those who uses the term ‘weapons of war’ agree with things like stop and frisk policies.🤔

     • Here is some **** I just posted at Crooksandliars.com, the ultimate progressive bubble. https://crooksandliars.com/2022/06/lesson-uvalde
       They did NOT like it.

       There are SO many holes in this woman’s screed – let’s unpack them:

       A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun
       She claims bullshit. But it’s not! It’s just a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun 77 minutes later. A good guy (Bortac agent, hero, and husband of Robb elementary school teacher) busted in and stopped the bad guy. Probably used an AR15 or similar too. Good guy stops bad guy with gun. Readily observable – self evident.

       Mandatory waiting periods, expanded background checks, and raising the minimum age for firearms won’t work. She claims bullshit, but Ramos waited 7 days after he purchased these firearms before this shooting. Something tells me he would have waited on a waiting period. Ramos had no criminal background, at all. What background check would you like to implement that would have stopped him? By definition, Ramos waited until the minimum age to buy firearms to commit this crime. If you make it 21, then some of them will wait until 21. Some of them will find some other means to get guns. Adam Lanza was just 4 months shy of his 21st bday, so I don’t see it would make a big impact here.

       Guns don’t kill people. People Kill people. But people with guns kill people faster and more efficiently. Sure. But gun’s still don’t kill people. People kill people. In other words, the problem is the decision, the motive, the perp’s conclusion that murder + suicide (usually) was the proper way forward in life. That is the problem.

       How many children can this disturbed individual could have killed with knife, or a hammer, or a bat, or a rock, before he was taken down by someone in that classroom. Not very many! But, he could have used a large truck, like in Nice, France, where 86 people were killed in a truck attack. 86, with a truck. Or a pressure cooker, and some fireworks, like the marathon bomber. Or an empty shotgun shell with intact primer, a cell phone, an electric match, and a 5 gallon bucket of binary target powder mixed with diesel fuel. Or even 1080 poison, mixed in with a pump weed pesticide sprayer. The methods are endless. That is the problem, with going after the gun, but not the monster.

       The AR15 is super special, makes cops scared, and has no business in the hands of untrained civilians. So? Is she advocating for training him now too? Does she think that him receiving training, is going to stop him from deciding to shoot up a school? Further, the AR15 is not special. A 9mm self defense round, like a gold dot HP, is going to do a lot more damage, than a FMJ, 5.56mm round coming out of the ar15. It all depends on what ammo he is using. The AR15 is used often in school shootings, not because it looks super tacticool and is black and scary. No, I don’t think so. School shooters are looking to make you and me suffer, because their life sucked and was nothing but suffering. They selected the AR15 because it is America’s favorite rifle, and is effective. He could have selected a simple Glock 19, with standard sized magazines. The Virginia tech shooter used nothing but a Glock 19, and killed 37, yes 37! with a pistol.

       My second amendment right says – who cares! It was written over 200 years ago.
       Well, the 1st amendment was written over 200 years ago and you still respect that right? So it’s not about the age really, is it?

       You want to tailor our laws to originalism, to what the founding fathers were thinking at the time?
       If you read the statements made by the founding fathers in the federalist papers and letters at the time, it’s obvious it was NOT their intention to limit militia (all of the people of the USA) to muskets, but to weapons common in use at any time. And that means weapons of the future too. Did they envision nuclear bombs? No. Which is why the Heller decision calls for “firearms in common use” and that doesn’t mean people are entitled to any type of weapon per the 2A, per the supreme court decision, anyways.

       They put in “well regulated” for a reason.
       Regardless of what you think “well regulated” means, it doesn’t matter at all, when you understand that the author of the 2nd amendment once said that of the militia- that it was the whole body of the people (except a few politicians). It was obvious, that means every American. All citizens ARE the militia. Now maybe you think they need more training, because well regulated back then, meant in good working order, functional, able, well maintained. It didn’t mean “gun control.” LOL.

       Ban Assault Rifles
       What is an assault rifle? You mean an assault weapon? Is an AR15 one? Because if it is, it’s been “in common use” for 60 years. And that meets the requirement of the Supreme court Heller decision, thus it is protected.

       Raise the legal buying age.
       Also likely to be struck down the courts. 18 is legally an adult. 18 year olds are suitable for draft into the military. If you think 18 year olds are not stable enough to own and use guns, then you must also believe 18 year olds are not stable enough to be drafted. Likely the only way to raise the buying age of a firearm, is also to raise the age to be drafted.

       Instill a mandatory waiting period.
       Honestly, I don’t think this is going to stop mass shootings at all. It might affect women trying to buy a gun right away, when they are informed their domestic violence ex husband was recently released, or people competing in firearms competitions who had a firearm become defective and they need a replacement ASAP, or the periodic hunter whose rifle went kaput, and isn’t going to make his scheduled hunt with his buddies because of a waiting period. In other words, everyone except mass shooters really.

       Insist on insurance and training.
       Now this just sounds like gun owner bigotry. I could see the argument for insurance for people with carry licenses. But insurance for a gun owner, simply to own a gun in their home, will likely not pass court muster. Training, requires tax dollars. Last I checked with my local democrats in my area, they did not want to spend a penny on training republicans to use guns better. LOL. But if you want to, maybe it is a good idea.

       Pass laws for safe storage.
       What is safe storage? Most people keep their guns in their locked homes. Passing mandatory safely laws within peoples homes, will be difficult if not impossible and likely stuck down by the courts. Simply because it isn’t part of the public purview. It is on private property. And residential property at that. Straight from the SCOTUS Heller decision: Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. “ In other words, a law at the federal level isn’t going to happen, and if it did, the court would strike it down.

       Our rights trump yours.
       No they don’t. LOL. Indefensible position. Utterly ridiculous.

       • One thought….
         “weapons common in use at any time. And that means weapons of the future too. Did they envision nuclear bombs? No. Which is why the Heller decision calls for “firearms in common use” and that doesn’t mean people are entitled to any type of weapon per the 2A, per the supreme court decision, anyways.”

         The Heller Decision (“common use”) is not, not based on what the founders intended. Replete in the writings of the framers is the intent to not let government military outnumber, or “out gun” the people. Restricting weapons to “common use” allows government to put certain weapons out of use (machine guns). Thus rendering the public inferior in weaponry should government require the people to put it in its place (again). “Common use” is derived from the perverse method of constitutional review, “history and tradition”. Such reasoning lets government make certain weapons “history”; over time not traditionally recognized. At bottom, “history and tradition” are grounds for determining constitutionally protected rights of the people invalid due to traditional and historical lack of exercise.

         Nuclear weapons are not in “common use” (other than storage) for the US military, but the military certainly has access to nuclear weapons.

         The Second Amendment may not be absolute (cough, cough), but the words do not allow for all the political twisting of meaning based on the current emotions of the voters, or their elected officials and the judiciary. Heller was/is nothing more than a speed bump trying to slow the acceleration of the anti-gun mob.

       • Sam,

         While I agree with pretty much everything you said, we as a people, have given our authority to the supreme court to determine what are “rights” are. Unfortunately.

   • The problem with the term “weapons of war” is that every firearm that exists, or at least their reloading and firing mechanisms were incorporated into weapons that were utilized in war at sometime in mankind’s history all of the way back to the flintlock. I suspect this is purposefully inserted by gun grabbers to create a future slippery slope. “Modern Sporting Rifles” in contrast is a less loaded term as that is reality. I like the old stuff made of wood and steel that gets progressively harder to find, while the gun shop walls are covered with “modern sporting rifles.”

     • What is needed is for gun rights proponents to start diffusing the phrase “weapon of war,” and get the public to understand that the issue isn’t whether it’s a weapon of war, but rather what kind of weapon of war. When you get Democrats saying, “Weapons of war have no place on our streets!” Gun rights proponents need to immediately take a pin to that balloon and point out that weapons of war very much have a place, as that is the whole basis of the right, i.e. the right of the people to possess tools of combat, both for self defense and to check a tyranny. The issue is more what kind of weapons of war, for example obviously nuclear weapons aren’t covered.

       • “…obviously nuclear weapons aren’t covered.”

         Interesting. How did you derive that exception? (Note: if you put forward any variety of “common sense”, you lose all your credibility)

       • Nuclear weapons are simply beyond the scope. There are those that can break in to a home to take a pistol but if you can steal a nuclear weapon then you are a completely different class of criminal. Not only would no law the libs want to create prevent that but it’s also not something to worry about from a common street thug. This is not something for any cop to take off the streets. So I’m not concerned with that at all. Certainly not with a president that keeps poking the Russian bear.

         As to the rest, the weapon used doesn’t even matter if the left refuses to deal with it anyway. The McCloskys get into serious trouble just pointing guns at people but a prosecutor does the same thing ‘in court’ and nothing is done.

       • Because nukes are a destructive device capable of destruction to the point that they couldn’t be trusted to a single individual. And not even in terms of whether they’d intentionally use it for harm, but that they just could have an accident with it. Same with biological weapons.

       • I’d say the Russians are poking NATO, not the other way around. The Biden administration’s policy of standing up to Russia is what keeps such an aggressor in check. If anything, they haven’t “poked” it enough. Showing weakness “not poking” incentives further aggression. This is a basic principle gun people of all should know.

       • @Kyle
         Biden is NOT standing up to Putin. Biden is helping him. If/when Ukraine falls, all those weapons Biden sent will belong to Putin.

         If Biden had not declared war on the energy industry, we likely would not even be talking about a Russia/Ukraine war.

   • All weapons are weapons of war.

     • Weapons of War, Assault Weapons, etc. are labels used to denigrate gun owners and firearms like Jim Crow democRats used the N-Word to denigrate Black Americans.

       Unfortunately once you discuss solutions with Gun Control zealots you provide standing for their Gun Control and standing of any kind is the last thing Gun Control deserves…The history of Gun Control confirms that. After all would you discuss the safety of Black Americans with the Gun Control military wing of the democRat Party known as the kkk or the safety of Jews with Gun Control nazi brown shirts?

       Furthermore…Nothing new can be said about securing schools and arming school personnel, etc. The democRat Party barked at viable solutions and continued to supply soft targets for criminals and when something happens they blame everyone but themselves. After all the chatter and the day is done it boils down to the following…

       1) The Second Amendment is one thing.

       2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.

       3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

     • interesting that during the AWB you could still get guns that functioned the same…but they no longer looked military…and sales went down…apparently image counts for something….

     • got a feeling this war may not have even happened if Trump were president…we’ll never know…does seem as if the dems wanted this to happen…many calling for us to do even more in a reckless fashion…

       • “…does seem as if the dems wanted this to happen…many calling for us to do even more in a reckless fashion…”

         Dug up a blast from the past:
         https://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/War-is-Not-Healthy-the-60s-666930_198_200.jpg

   • Technically speaking…maybe if you follow the actual history of the AR15, it might not have actually been used by the US military but THAT does NOT mean it isn’t a ‘weapon of war’. I don’t recall EVER hearing anything about the US military being issues blow guns as standard issue. That does not mean that the blow gun was never regularly used as a designated weapon between two groups at war.

     We ARE at war. The fact that Congress has not officially labeled it as such does not change what it is. The enemy does not always wear uniforms and carry guns.

     We hold on to these guns precisely BECAUSE they are weapons of war. Even the weak .22lr is often used in training for preparing someone for more proficient arms. THIS is the very heart of the 2nd Amendment.

     They each have their place in the bigger picture. I would never want to be in the jungles of Cambodia with a .380 pistol but if that was all I could get then I would run with it. Some calibers are better for practice, some are better for short range, and some work well for thousand yard snipers.

     • Even the lowly 22lr, that is, as I recall the oldest cartridge in continuous production, is used in war, although sometimes starting or ending them with silenced assassinations.

     • Air Force likes to use the .22 inserts to train their people…guess it’s a lot cheaper…

   • Kyle, I’ve said the same thing. The terms MSR and weapons of war are recently contrived expressions. In the golden days of yesteryear everyone called them assault rifles. I know they were not assault rifles in the strictest sense of the word, but that’s what everyone called them. Everyone. Of course, the true definition of these rifles is a “semi-automatic version of a fully-automatic military assault rifle.” But that’s a mouthful. Doesn’t fit in the sound bite and confuses the sheep.

     • AR15 is pretty easy to say. AR is even easier.

       • People tend to say AR in casual conversation, and everyone knows what they mean.

     • What a surprise you never went into Marketing, Gadsden. (Sarc.)

       I’m not sure you want to join us, but here is an invite, it’s 2022.

       “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” ~Stephen Hawking
       “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” ~Albert Einstein

       And I know yesteryear was the “golden days”, however we have no time machine, and therefore we march on.

       • During military service including two tours in the infantry in Vietnam i never heard my M-16 called an assault weapon. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention.

   • Well if you insist. How about Evil Black Rifle (or EBR)?

     • Mark N., in reply to Kyle:
       “Well if you insist. How about Evil Black Rifle (or EBR)?”

       Now, that’s something I could get behind.

       • the army was big on letting the Vietnamese know what this gun could do to them…all that talk about “tumbling” and such…don’t hear much about that these days…except from the left….

   • well,..they better stop marketing to children or using them in their ads…you got burned once…want to see it happen again?

2. The people who keep parroting “Common sense” reform have NO intention of using common sense! It’s all theater and agenda driven bans!!

   • “The people who keep parroting “Common sense” reform have NO intention of using common sense! It’s all theater and agenda driven bans!!”

     The gun-grabbers actually want mass shootings outside “da ‘hood) to continue. A problem solved doesn’t bring in the votes.

     • Hell!,..they’ve even been advocating for open caskets…ghoulish bunch….

       • “Hell!,..they’ve even been advocating for open caskets…ghoulish bunch….”

         “They” are at war with the nation; any weapon is legitimate. “We”, on the other hand, constantly clamor for good manners, and polite discourse.

3. ‘……a rally of Students Demand Action leaders…..’ 🤔

   Translation; A group of students given an ‘excused absence’, extra credit A+ grade, a tee shirt, a free lunch, and a bus ride. All for the privilege of getting to listen to reps from the party of failed policies groom them as the next wave of useful idiots.

   They may want to ask why Brandon refuses to find any security for their schools. 🤪

   https://youtu.be/ymyhODfTu_c

   • stuff never seems to happen in urban schools…they know better what security is required….

4. Lol
   They might have ‘passed’ FIX-NICS but if it were actually fixed then many of these atrocities NVEVER would have happened in the first place.

   NICS IS NOT FIXED!

   Now, if they actually ‘want’ if deal with anything ‘meaningful’ then they do NOT need to pass any more legislation. They would fix most of this by simply enforcing existing law. Lock up these animals and keep them in their cages. You cannot fix any of this if your going to be perfectly willing to allow lawlessness. Stop this defund the police BS and put criminals behind bars and keep them there.

   EVERYTHING that Democrat left politicians do is making it worse.

   • I hate the way the term “FIX NICS” keeps popping up in politico-speak. NICS is unconstitutional on its face and should be abolished forthwith. I grind my teeth at the thought of those who state their support for our Natural and 2A right to bear arms also support a process by which we’re assumed as potentially guilty and must prove our innocence before being allowed to exercise a clearly enumerated right.

     Abolish NICS. Period. A BGC – just like ERPO laws – is based upon assumption of guilt before due process and evidence are shown.

     • I agree. It absolutely should be abolished.

       But, if it isn’t going to be then it needs to be actually fixed. If we are to be forced through this then it’s obvious failings need attention.

       • Forced?

         No one’s forcing shit. You’re putting up with it, in advance I might add.

         That’s not a judgement from me, it’s a simple statement of fact. You’ve decided that this isn’t a hill to die on. That’s fine but let’s stop playing like there’s a gun to our heads before anything even happens.

         “BuT wHaT cAn I’z dO?” is a cop out and always has been. Just like the people whining that they’ll lose their jobs for standing up to their local school board. A choice was made. The current job is more important than the kid.

         It’s not my place to make that judgement for other people, or to judge them for making it, but I’m getting tired of hearing how everyone is forced to do this or that when it’s clearly a voluntary decision on their part. No, you’re not being forced. You’re engaging in anticipatory obedience because you don’t think the fight is worth having. That’s a judgement call that some will agree with and some will not.

         Everyone makes judgement calls like this, some more extreme than others. It’s not new and it’s to be expected but we need to stop using language like “we are being forced” when we’re clearly not. No one’s pressed the barrel of a gun against your head or a knife against your carotid and told you to take this before Congress Critters have even stopped privately chittering away at each other.

       • strich9, I believe the more appropriate word is ‘coerced’. We often use ‘forced’ when we mean ‘coerced’. Pass a NICS or ‘no guns for you’ is coercive just as is ‘go along with the school board or you’re fired’. We are not ‘forced’ to pay taxes but we are ‘coerced’ into doing so.

       • The point still stands.

         You have the option to say “Fuck you, no”. If they persist with coercion, defined as using threats and force, you have the option to make them stop, permanently.

         You choose not to do that. As I said, apparently that’s not a hill to die on.

         In history this kind of behavior has often led to some very disturbing outcomes when it’s been taken too far. Something to ponder.

   • the only way to curtail this…[in the cities]…is to set-up checkpoints…same as ballgames and concerts…then see who turns away…or runs away….

     • “…then see who turns away…or runs away…”

       Close, but no seegar.

       Then arrest “who turns away…or runs away”.

       • “detain for questioning” has a better ring to it….hard to sue you for that…

5. I do not believe the Elf Bee Eyes didnt know about the Ulvade shooters social media threats.
   And if you think the Powers That Be care about saving children think Branch Davidian.
   Paddock is alive and well living on a resort island.

   • It has been reported that a former FBI agent was in online contact with the Buffalo shooter prior to the event. That means one of two things: either the former agent was a racist communicating with like minded individuals, or he was a plant prodding a lunatic to carry out his plans. I’m guessing we’ll never know.

     • I will add that it would be highly unusual for a former FBI agent to be interested in hanging around 18 year-olds, much less crazy ones, unless it was part of an operation.

   • FBI CERT team is a bunch of cowboys…often out of control…

     • …and ATF is like your little brother…often starting fights you have to finish…

6. “Some politicians in Washington, D.C., are trying to pass meaningful legislation that would help prevent future [mass murder attacks] …”

   “NSSF … will work with those in Congress who are dedicated to serious, sober, thoughtful and deliberate discussions to address measures to prevent [mass murder attacks].”

   I am not aware of any proposed legislation which would truly help prevent future mass murder attacks. That being the case, the NSSF statement about working with Congress does not make any sense. Furthermore, government has demonstrated countless times that it will infringe on our rights in a heartbeat.

   Thus, I am at a loss to understand what NSSF hopes to accomplish. Their statement that they will work with Congress is equivalent to saying that you will work with your neighborhood rapist to achieve a “sensible” path going forward.

   • “I am at a loss to understand what NSSF hopes to accomplish.”

     National Shooting Sports Foundation. Not sure self-defense and defense against tyranny are generally considered “sports”.

     • SEE: My comment in the last post! Except dealers don’t sell to wild eyed 18 year olds!!!

       • I’ve seen this at several FFLs in Texas.

         Late teens/early 20s shown the door and told NOT to return. Caused by total disregard of basic firearm handling rules and/or disconcerning questions/statements.
         Saw a trio in a Dallas FFL, one picked up an AR-10 off the display counter, pointed it at another’s head, the third took a camera phone pic while laughing.🤪

         I ripped the gun from the idiots hands (was standing behind him), and helped the FFL manager escort the trio to the curb.

       • apparently some do…..

       • “apparently some do…..”

         Citation to one of the shooters acting in an irrational manner while at the FFL please.

   • “Thus, I am at a loss to understand what NSSF hopes to accomplish.”

     A couple things of note here.

     1. The NSSF bills itself as “The Firearm Industry Trade Association”. According to the NSSF’s blurb about itself it’s number one goal is “NSSF leads the way in advocating for the industry and its business and jobs”.

     So they don’t give a fuck about the RTKBA. They care about their members making money.

     IOW: This is a trade association engaged in political ass-covering while decrying political theater.

     2. Their language backs this up. They hit a ton of buzzwords here that I won’t bother repeating. Again, engaging in what they decry; political theater.

     3. Due to #1 and #2, what they hope to accomplish is to try to limit the damage done by anything that might pass. They wouldn’t be releasing this statements if the GOP had told the Democrats to fuck off but that didn’t happen.

     Oh, no, the Troubled Turtle caved in advance for negotiations. Sensing danger the NSSF swings into gear to protect the industry it represents and limit any damage that might be done. They’ll fight bans and tell you it’s because they love your rights. Bullshit, they love the money they get from their members who sell whatever might be banned.

     Once again, none of these people at the NSSF, NRA or in the GOP give a fuck about you or your rights.

     • strych9,

       Well said.

7. Thoughts are prayers do nothing.
   Prohibition and “(object) free” zones do nothing.

   What would do something is getting people to realize despite appearances reality is anarchy and the only reason any person doesn’t flip shit and torch a barn full of townspeople is because it is a greater benefit to that person to get along with the townspeople. Occasionally we encounter folks who either don’t/can’t/won’t understand this or folks who do understand this yet decide torching the barn is worth it to them.

   The rest of us must accept that the barn may be torched at any time for any reason or no reason at all and act accordingly to protect ourselves and our barns.

   Sitting the lunatic down, taking away his matches and shouting “NO!” doesn’t cut it. Never has it and never will it.

   Reality is anarchy. Be thankful nobody is trying to slit your throat right now. Understand there is nothing at all preventing somebody from slitting your throat right now save yourself and your willingness not to have your throat slit.

   • “Reality is anarchy. Be thankful nobody is trying to slit your throat right now.”

     You have this completely wrong. People are good at their core. It is the influence of a society of good people that is responsible for bad acts of good people.

     • “People are good at their core.”

       I’ve never really understood either side of this argument. Intrinsically good or bad… seems like a fake binary choice created by simple people grasping for simple solutions so that they don’t have to bother doing any thinking.

       • “I’ve never really understood either side of this argument.”

         You may have missed on this one. The theme is absurdity.

       • The argument may be absurd from both sides but it’s quite real. It happens right here on TTAG from time to time.

         I simply don’t understand if it reflects stupidity, laziness, a form of brainwashing or some combination thereof.

       • “You have this completely wrong. People are good at their core.”

         I really hope this is classic Samuel chain-yanking for a reaction.

         Anyone banking on “the basic goodness of people” is at best, delusional, or at worst, in on the scam.

         The wise prepare accordingly… 🙁

   • I would only add that this barn is not a place to consider putting your most valuable possessions. But at the same time, there might be good reasons to establish an armed presence to keep the barn burners away.

     These are not exactly new ideas.

8. https://youtu.be/NuB06VczRxc

9. “The Firearm Industry Wants Serious Discussions, Not Political Theater”

   I prefer political theater. “Serious discussions” lead to being sold down the river again and again. I’ve had enough of that bvllsh1t.

10. @strych9
    “The argument may be absurd from both sides….”

    The absurdity is…
    “It is the influence of a society of good people that is responsible for bad acts of good people.”

    • I’d say this adds to the absurdity of the original argument by adding in a dash of communal guilt.

      The original dichotomy was bad enough. This puts a commie flair on it.

      • “The original dichotomy was bad enough. This puts a commie flair on it.”

        Hhhhmmmm. Curiously, you seem to be really over-thinking the comment. It was simply a play on one word “good”; satire, ridicule, snark, lampoon, parody, spoof, derision, mockery.

        • I’m quite well aware of what you are doing.

          I’m talking about the original arguments which you are discussing acerbically. I’m simply musing about the fact that the argument exists in the first place, providing you a foil for your pasquinade.

11. My response to lawmakers attempting to pass any gun control:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnMdI_NiZvA

    • 🤣
      Need someone to remake that with James C saying “REPEAL THE NFA OF ’34 A$$HOLE”!

      • even the republicans wouldn’t support that…what party was in power in ’86?

        • Moot point.

          The era of a watered down GOP is quickly vanishing.
          Thank the Dems for going full socialist woketarded.

          Most Rep voters have seen enough, and no longer wish to compromise or frog boil.

12. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
    “I really hope this is classic Samuel chain-yanking…”

    Don’t speed read.

    • remember driving up to a local base…and seeing a bunch of youngsters running around in the parking lot pointing their M-16’s at each other, hiding behind cars while laughing and giggling…and not a sgt. or officer in sight…tell me again about 18 yr olds….

13. @Kyle in Upstate NY June 7, 2022 At 17:41
    “Because nukes are a destructive device capable of destruction to the point that they couldn’t be trusted to a single individual.”

    You do realize the above puts you in the, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but….” camp, right?

    The lethality, complication of use, and potential of error in the use of firearms were not included in the 27 words of the Second Amendment. Nor are they to be found in the writings of the framers of the constitution.

    Think about it. We have already been threatened with the use of nuclear weapons against non-Dims, by the US government. The framers would never tolerate such lack of parity in the weapons “permitted” use by “the people”, in defending self and state against tyranny. Telling an enemy that you will not use certain weapons in defense of your life, or country, simply hands ultimate victory to that enemy.

    • check-out “Special Bulletin” on you tube….

      • “check-out “Special Bulletin” on you tube….”

        We, of the nuclear Chair Force, would spend hours on 7-day alert, inventing scenarios for provocations that might result in either a nuclear accident, or unexpected nuclear attack from a hostile group/nation. We understood the difficulty of producing a full yield nuclear detonation*, so “two guys in a garage” scenarios were seldom extended conversations.

        *even a badly initiated nuclear weapon is not something to invite your family to watch.

14. @Geoff. No, I think Sam either a) has lost it or b) is a pretentious jack ass. I’ve been here a long time, but those of you who pre-date me keep insisting that he is just doing his thing, and whatever comments are being questioned are just him being facetious or provocative. Well, what say you now, after he’s basically calling you an idiot?

    • “Well, what say you now, after he’s basically calling you an idiot?”

      When/where did Sam do that?

      Never mind. To save you time, simply scroll past anything coming from Sam I Am (or delete the emails by the same).

      Surely you have better things to do.

    • Nah, Sam’s alright as long as you don’t leave him alone with your smaller livestock or larger pets.

      He needles people’s arguments with a sort of parody. A sort of Devil’s Advocate type of role that sometimes comes with a sarcastic edge, which is a milder form of how anti’s really do argue. Trying to get under your skin and deflect with nonsense or ad hominem (the latter being something which Sam doesn’t tend to use unless he knows the person can take it and even then it’s pretty damned mild).

      You, Mr. Death, simply have a more direct communication style which is more amenable to the text format where Sam uses something that may take some getting used to if it’s not used in person.

      He’s certainly sent a few people into a tizzy over the years. One or two may have gotten a case of the vapors and required a fainting couch. But then, those people were, uh… well, kinda like Joe R, but more… collected.

      • “Sam’s alright”

        Careful there, Cowboy. Yer gittin’ right close to sneaking up on a compliment. Could gitcher self cancelled here.

15. @frank speak
    “how about “weapons of war look-alikes”…which is really what they are…and a main selling point…..”

    it don’t mean a thing, if it ain’t got that swing. WWL-A just don’t got it.

16. @frank speak
    “the army was big on letting the Vietnamese know what this gun could do to them…all that talk about “tumbling” and such…”

    If I have to be infantry, if I have to be restricted to a rifle, then…

    I want my bullets to do as much damage as possible when it hits human flesh; spin, twist, tumble, explode, whatever works.

    And I want my enemies (foreign and domestic) to know it.

17. could see the psychological advantage…but it violated the spirit of the Hague Compact which outlawed un-jacketed big lead rounds because of the unnecessary damage they caused…the idea was to make warfare as humane as possible in the theory a wounded soldier was better than a dead one…for both sides…

18. @frank speak
    “detain for questioning” has a better ring to it….”

    True, but “arrest” implies force (which is good).

    You’ve been on quite a roll today; fun to watch.

19. @strych9
    “I’m simply musing about the fact that the argument exists in the first place…”

    Then, it is I who misread. The goof was simply that, so I had no other thoughts. Trying to catch up….

    The idea that people are “good”* at the core is merely a means of self-validation, and a wrench by which we can absolve ourselves of our misdeeds. The idea also helps us believe we can live in a world that is overall benign, and safe. The concept allows us to lie to ourselves…even while we internally realize we are lying to ourselves. In the end, the mantra is used to avoid severe punishment, as we postulate that since we are “good”, whatever “ungood” we commit should be mitigated by our inherent “goodness”.

    The proof that people are not “good” at the core is after 6,000 (or however many one desires) years of humanity, the evil that people do lives long after them. By any rational measure, our inherent “goodness” should have all but eradicated “ungood”. Yet here we are. At the core, humans are evil/corrupt/selfish/vicious/power hungry/exploitative. We have to be taught to contain (if not control) our base instincts and behaviors.

    So, maybe we actually do end up in a condition where the influences of all the “good” people in society are the source of all the bad acts/actors.

    • I’d suggest that the simple answer is “it’s complicated”.

      First, one has to define good and evil which is a tougher nut to crack than one might think. We like to treat that situation like it’s binary but there’s actually a lot of grey between the black and the white on this. Most people realize this upon reflection and then tend to forget it pretty quickly.

      Second, one has to decide if these definitions make sense to apply to individual people and, if so, how.

      Then one has to decide if such notions even make sense to apply to people in the meta-sense of things, from a 30,000 foot view of our overall species’ position on the planet and within the universe. If they do, indeed, apply then one needs to explain why. If one believes in Natural Rights then one wants to pick this little path quite carefully.

      Having accomplished these tasks (which so far as I can tell none of the people involved in the modern day debate have even considered) then we need to come up with a set of rules that actually make sense.

      Finally, those rules have to be applied evenly and fairly in determining what is and what is not good or evil and where within the grey an action falls based on the totality of circumstances.

      Now, having done all that we can start to examine the “core nature” of humans in relation to the schema we’ve created.

      Doing this, it’s likely that even if one sits back and ponders the previous issues to the point of rock-solid answers one finds that the answer to this latest question is that humans really don’t have much core nature beyond species bonds, adaptiveness and the incentive structures built around the individual and the group(s) in which they reside. This might lead one to believe that evolutionary biologists know a thing or two which would mean we have another rabbit hole to go down and map out… but let’s leave that be for now.

      This problem is further complicated by the myriad of ways in which different cultures interpret different behaviors. So, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer was evil in Wisconsin but kinda normal in some South Pacific tribes.

      But interestingly, such a guy might not have been considered that bad as a member of the Donner Party (depending on who’s accounts you want to believe).

      Further, Dahmer was mostly considered mentally ill so does he even reflect something about the core nature of our species or is he an aberration that we can generally write off? Were we to do this, what does that say of us and our nature?

      Do we have to limit our scope of an inquire into the core nature of people to “normies” and, if so, how do we define them?

      Personally, I’m of the belief that “good” and “evil” are what you might call a “metaphorical truth”. They’re not actually true in the concrete sense we usually think because we can almost always find confounders and exceptions. BUT it serves a very useful purpose to treat them as if they are real so long as you are capable of doing so in a manner where you can keep the delineation between truth and metaphorical truth clear to yourself so that you don’t fall into dogmatic thinking, thereby allowing yourself some room to deal with those confounders and exceptions.

      Ultimately, when you come right down to it, like most things this is easy until it gets hard. Under most people’s definition living is “good” and death is suboptimal, but maybe not evil. Much can be justified in pursuit of continued life, this is true of all major philosophies. The question is where to draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable in any given situation.

      People love to deal with the black and the white. The easy shit. It’s the grey area that will really put your thinking to the test. And often, you need to experience things most people in the modern world never have experienced before you can even start to think about these things.

      • Determining “Good” or “Evil”, without a universally accepted, immutable set of standards is impossible, as you note. The terms are situationally defined and applied. Given such, “good and evil” are determined by human power; dictatorship, or “majority”. Human history is the record of this. Actually, things aren’t real complicated when one has absolute power over others. Things can get tedious, but in a human system of “right and wrong”, “might makes right” in all circumstances.

        Intellectually/academically, free of internal/external coercion, determining “right and wrong” is complicated. That is because humans can always invent a condition where they believe favorable exceptions to “right and wrong” apply.

        Which takes us back to core human nature which can only understood as selfish, self-centered, self-serving. From that foundation, eternal, universal and immutable standards of “right and wrong” cannot flow.

20. Enforce the rules we have first.

21. @anonymous
    “…we as a people, have given our authority to the supreme court to determine what are “rights” are.”

    Always the conundrum. Under the constitution, where should alleged violations of “rights” be determined? Congress (including the Senate), under the founders, declined to directly answer the question, instead allowing the SC to assert non-delegated power to do so. Congress itself has no judicial authority to determine if it violates the Constitution.

    If not to the judicial system must one bring disputes over violations of constitutionally protected rights, where should such determinations be made? Even “rights” disputes before the SC carry the liability that there is no check on the SC violating the constitution.

    It is possible, though risky, the voters could demand of elected representatives that legislation be the final arbiter of what is, is not, “constitutional”, via the legislative process (even to putting a dispute beyond the federal court system jurisdiction). However, when someone wants to resolve a restriction on their “rights”, they want the matter settled at the earliest moment. Legislative action cannot provide such expeditious resolutions.

22. ใช้ oppo ก็เล่น pg slot ได้ ใช้มือถือราคาไม่เเรงอย่าง oppo ก็เล่น Pg Slot ได้ เพราะเว็บของเราไม่ว่าจะใช้มือถืออะไรก็เว็บ คุณภาพดี เกมสนุกเล่นแล้วได้เงินเเน่นอน มีโบนัส

Comments are closed.