Ukrainian War: Prelude to Worse?

[Mktavish]

 

 

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

 

Well again ... isn't that in the nature of consumer choice ... rather than personal defense and self preservation ?

Pistol grips / High capacity magazines / pump action (better than bolt action) for the consumer choice of how best to preserve your liberty ?

What about less than lethal options in still satisfying the castle doctrine core principal ?

 

IDK ... where does the luv of guns pervert what is the right of self preservation ?

 

Personally, I think banning something on the grounds of what it 'looks like', is idiotic. Restricting magazine size is rather useless as well. I can change magazines in my various mag-fed weapons in under 2 seconds. So, if you are only allowed a 10 round magazine, just carry more of 'em. But, the politicians passing these laws, have no clue.... Which I suppose, really isn't surprising either.

 

I have a couple rifles that would be classed as "assault weapons" by the left. None of them have ever fired a shot that they weren't directed to. None of them have killed anyone. They wait patiently in the gun safe, for me to come and get them..... They don't whine about being locked away in the dark either. They are very well behaved.

 

 

You are not making a very good argument for needing them to secure your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness .

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

 

Well again ... isn't that in the nature of consumer choice ... rather than personal defense and self preservation ?

Pistol grips / High capacity magazines / pump action (better than bolt action) for the consumer choice of how best to preserve your liberty ?

What about less than lethal options in still satisfying the castle doctrine core principal ?

 

IDK ... where does the luv of guns pervert what is the right of self preservation ?

 

Personally, I think banning something on the grounds of what it 'looks like', is idiotic. Restricting magazine size is rather useless as well. I can change magazines in my various mag-fed weapons in under 2 seconds. So, if you are only allowed a 10 round magazine, just carry more of 'em. But, the politicians passing these laws, have no clue.... Which I suppose, really isn't surprising either.

 

I have a couple rifles that would be classed as "assault weapons" by the left. None of them have ever fired a shot that they weren't directed to. None of them have killed anyone. They wait patiently in the gun safe, for me to come and get them..... They don't whine about being locked away in the dark either. They are very well behaved.

 

 

You are not making a very good argument for needing them to secure your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness .

 

Not so very long ago, three guys broke out of the local prison...... They stole a car, and made their way to a home not far from me. While they were there, they raped the wife, and 14 year old daughter, beat the crap out of dad, then stole their car, and left. Dad was a fine, upstanding leftist, and did not have any weapons in his home. After this particular incident, dad now has a concealed carry permit, and doesn't go ANYWHERE without his sidearm.

 

I live out in the sticks, so, police response time is at a very minimum, 30 minutes. WAY too much can happen in that 30 minutes. I will NOT be left defenseless because some idiot kid thought it would be a good idea to commit suicide by cop, and see how many little kids he could take with him.

[xrayy]

and what do you try to tell us with your "three bad guys story" and that you would be able to save the world with your weapons ? probably like the cops in the school shooting who were trained for that and who did nothing and waited for terror experts until it was too late ?

do you really believe your fairy tales of the strong cowboy you would be in case of...? how old are you ? go vote trump, be happy and play with your guns. you and all u.s. children deserve it as you say :wink: but the truth is in 99.9% of such cases you can not help, you are not present in time, or the enemy simply outperforms or stuns you. it is that simple and this is what happened during the last fatal shooting and most others before. you or any other "good guy" will simply die or come too late. accept the simple truth the nra and trump never tell you. how long will you argue with weak and stupid arguments ? just see and believe what always happens in such shootings. it will always be the the same and people have to die for nothing. in worst case you or your enemies just add even more collateral damage with your weapons. that's all about the uncontrolled use of weapons. and it has nothing to do with left or right or however you try to argue.

[HeyYou]

and what do you try to tell us with your "three bad guys story" and that you would be able to save the world with your weapons ? probably like the cops in the school shooting who were trained for that and who did nothing and waited for terror experts until it was too late ?

do you really believe your fairy tales of the strong cowboy you would be in case of...? how old are you ? go vote trump, be happy and play with your guns. you and all u.s. children deserve it as you say :wink: but the truth is in 99.9% of such cases you can not help, you are not present in time, or the enemy simply outperforms or stuns you. it is that simple and this is what happened during the last fatal shooting and most others before. you or any other "good guy" will simply die or come too late. accept the simple truth the nra and trump never tell you. how long will you argue with weak and stupid arguments ? just see and believe what always happens in such shootings. it will always be the the same and people have to die for nothing. in worst case you or your enemies just add even more collateral damage with your weapons. that's all about the uncontrolled use of weapons. and it has nothing to do with left or right or however you try to argue.

I really couldn't care less about the world. Now, my little corner of it? Yep, care a great deal. The point is, if folks with ill intent broke into my house, I have the capability of defending myself, and my family, against them. Without firearms, I would be just another victim. That prospect doesn't thrill me.

[Mktavish]

 

 

 

 

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

 

Well again ... isn't that in the nature of consumer choice ... rather than personal defense and self preservation ?

Pistol grips / High capacity magazines / pump action (better than bolt action) for the consumer choice of how best to preserve your liberty ?

What about less than lethal options in still satisfying the castle doctrine core principal ?

 

IDK ... where does the luv of guns pervert what is the right of self preservation ?

 

Personally, I think banning something on the grounds of what it 'looks like', is idiotic. Restricting magazine size is rather useless as well. I can change magazines in my various mag-fed weapons in under 2 seconds. So, if you are only allowed a 10 round magazine, just carry more of 'em. But, the politicians passing these laws, have no clue.... Which I suppose, really isn't surprising either.

 

I have a couple rifles that would be classed as "assault weapons" by the left. None of them have ever fired a shot that they weren't directed to. None of them have killed anyone. They wait patiently in the gun safe, for me to come and get them..... They don't whine about being locked away in the dark either. They are very well behaved.

 

 

You are not making a very good argument for needing them to secure your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness .

 

Not so very long ago, three guys broke out of the local prison...... They stole a car, and made their way to a home not far from me. While they were there, they raped the wife, and 14 year old daughter, beat the crap out of dad, then stole their car, and left. Dad was a fine, upstanding leftist, and did not have any weapons in his home. After this particular incident, dad now has a concealed carry permit, and doesn't go ANYWHERE without his sidearm.

 

I live out in the sticks, so, police response time is at a very minimum, 30 minutes. WAY too much can happen in that 30 minutes. I will NOT be left defenseless because some idiot kid thought it would be a good idea to commit suicide by cop, and see how many little kids he could take with him.

 

 

Well to clarify ... I was talking more to the idea of guns with relation to their consumer choice status. And you were making it sound like your guns are about the same as that boat or set of golf clubs that sits in storage never getting used.

Which we keep those around in the name of capitalism and consumer choice quality of living.

But next let me start with another aspect ... which I thought I mentioned here in clarity ... but it appears not.

 

So this is my opinion on where the gun debate needs to start . First agree there is something known as "A responsible gun owner" Then by extension responsible gun culture in society.

And then beyond that ... start to try and come up with agreements on what that looks like.

 

Which I would like to point out ... you out in the sticks with only 2 guns , and kept in a gun safe. Sounds like you are well within that classification.

Then I guess to further clarify ... considering your age , and that you didn't mention any personal experiences with your weapons being a key component to guarding your liberties.

Sounds like you know how to conduct yourself , finding other avenues of problem solving.

 

But of course guns are no guarantee in any situation ... which people thinking they are ... is dangerous in it's self.

So therefore a focus on guns takes away from the brains ability to see all the other choices of protecting ones liberties.

 

Your neighbors story is a sad one ... on a few levels. But him having a gun certainly does not say he would not have ended up a victim.

Question : Did the home invaders show up with a gun ... if so , where did they get it ?

And certainly someone flush with guns could have still ended up the victim ... plus the escapees are now well armed.

In which ... knowing some people , the circles they travel in , love of guns and loose handling ... could become a target themselves instead of all those guns detracting.

So would you agree there is something within that scenario that needs looking at for what is "NOT" a responsible gun owner ?

Or do we need to keep the right to bear arms un infringed to be a smorgasbord buffet in the name of capitalism and consumer choice ?

 

The other thing about your neighbor that is sad ... is that they now as a new gun handler with an underlying vengeance streak . Have now increased the probability in being part to an un wanted death/injury .

And another thing that should be looked at in the gun debate ... is the underlying reasons & emotions people will keep and carry guns.

Which certainly fear to then wanting the security blanket feature is a common and understandable one.

But what about when it changes into malice ? Where is the line that you would say they are no longer a responsible gun owner ?

 

And then I guess last mention ... what about the Idea in needing the guns to protect yourself from government oppression ?

That imo is a ridiculous one , and actually corrosive to the US having a shared future. Because then the Idea of being part of the USA and protected by rights it grants ... would be over for said individual.

And since the theory that armament for criminals/terrorists are not effected by what is available to law abiding citizens. Then they should have no problems tooling up for their endeavor to be a separatist.

[xrayy]

 

blah, blah...

I really couldn't care less about the world. Now, my little corner of it? Yep, care a great deal. The point is, if folks with ill intent broke into my house, I have the capability of defending myself, and my family, against them. Without firearms, I would be just another victim. That prospect doesn't thrill me.

 

it is nothing personal and i even understand some people like you living in the wilderness. but that is a special case. nobody says - including me - you should not own a weapon. but why uncontrolled and with 18 and without any checks ? and why blocking blindly all weapon laws even if they help for more security for all - democrats and republicans ? nobody with a brain - including all legal weapon owners - should block transparent weapon law. why? they should support it and everybody does - excluding the u.s..

weapon owners in the u.s. even vote for nra and some stupid and dangerous politicians. how scary is that ? i will never get why - while their own children or some they know get shot in the next mass shooting due to not existing weapon control and a mighty, short sighted weapon lobby.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

 

 

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

 

Well again ... isn't that in the nature of consumer choice ... rather than personal defense and self preservation ?

Pistol grips / High capacity magazines / pump action (better than bolt action) for the consumer choice of how best to preserve your liberty ?

What about less than lethal options in still satisfying the castle doctrine core principal ?

 

IDK ... where does the luv of guns pervert what is the right of self preservation ?

 

Personally, I think banning something on the grounds of what it 'looks like', is idiotic. Restricting magazine size is rather useless as well. I can change magazines in my various mag-fed weapons in under 2 seconds. So, if you are only allowed a 10 round magazine, just carry more of 'em. But, the politicians passing these laws, have no clue.... Which I suppose, really isn't surprising either.

 

I have a couple rifles that would be classed as "assault weapons" by the left. None of them have ever fired a shot that they weren't directed to. None of them have killed anyone. They wait patiently in the gun safe, for me to come and get them..... They don't whine about being locked away in the dark either. They are very well behaved.

 

 

You are not making a very good argument for needing them to secure your life liberty and the pursuit of happiness .

 

Not so very long ago, three guys broke out of the local prison...... They stole a car, and made their way to a home not far from me. While they were there, they raped the wife, and 14 year old daughter, beat the crap out of dad, then stole their car, and left. Dad was a fine, upstanding leftist, and did not have any weapons in his home. After this particular incident, dad now has a concealed carry permit, and doesn't go ANYWHERE without his sidearm.

 

I live out in the sticks, so, police response time is at a very minimum, 30 minutes. WAY too much can happen in that 30 minutes. I will NOT be left defenseless because some idiot kid thought it would be a good idea to commit suicide by cop, and see how many little kids he could take with him.

 

 

Well to clarify ... I was talking more to the idea of guns with relation to their consumer choice status. And you were making it sound like your guns are about the same as that boat or set of golf clubs that sits in storage never getting used.

Which we keep those around in the name of capitalism and consumer choice quality of living.

But next let me start with another aspect ... which I thought I mentioned here in clarity ... but it appears not.

 

So this is my opinion on where the gun debate needs to start . First agree there is something known as "A responsible gun owner" Then by extension responsible gun culture in society.

And then beyond that ... start to try and come up with agreements on what that looks like.

 

Which I would like to point out ... you out in the sticks with only 2 guns , and kept in a gun safe. Sounds like you are well within that classification.

Then I guess to further clarify ... considering your age , and that you didn't mention any personal experiences with your weapons being a key component to guarding your liberties.

Sounds like you know how to conduct yourself , finding other avenues of problem solving.

 

But of course guns are no guarantee in any situation ... which people thinking they are ... is dangerous in it's self.

So therefore a focus on guns takes away from the brains ability to see all the other choices of protecting ones liberties.

 

Your neighbors story is a sad one ... on a few levels. But him having a gun certainly does not say he would not have ended up a victim.

Question : Did the home invaders show up with a gun ... if so , where did they get it ?

And certainly someone flush with guns could have still ended up the victim ... plus the escapees are now well armed.

In which ... knowing some people , the circles they travel in , love of guns and loose handling ... could become a target themselves instead of all those guns detracting.

So would you agree there is something within that scenario that needs looking at for what is "NOT" a responsible gun owner ?

Or do we need to keep the right to bear arms un infringed to be a smorgasbord buffet in the name of capitalism and consumer choice ?

 

The other thing about your neighbor that is sad ... is that they now as a new gun handler with an underlying vengeance streak . Have now increased the probability in being part to an un wanted death/injury .

And another thing that should be looked at in the gun debate ... is the underlying reasons & emotions people will keep and carry guns.

Which certainly fear to then wanting the security blanket feature is a common and understandable one.

But what about when it changes into malice ? Where is the line that you would say they are no longer a responsible gun owner ?

 

And then I guess last mention ... what about the Idea in needing the guns to protect yourself from government oppression ?

That imo is a ridiculous one , and actually corrosive to the US having a shared future. Because then the Idea of being part of the USA and protected by rights it grants ... would be over for said individual.

And since the theory that armament for criminals/terrorists are not effected by what is available to law abiding citizens. Then they should have no problems tooling up for their endeavor to be a separatist.

 

 

The bad guys had knives, which they got from the victims kitchen. Had the homeowner been armed (as he constantly is now), the situation would have turned out dramatically differently. There would be three dead bad guys, two women wouldn't have been raped, and one car wouldn't have been stolen. These guys were already in prison for violent crime, (at least, they were supposed to be....) they didn't knock politely, they broke in, while the family was home, awake, and sitting in the living room watching TV...... Homeowner would have had plenty of warning, and the bad guys wouldn't have stood a chance. So far as I am concerned, a MUCH better outcome for the folks I even remotely care about. (and that AIN'T the prisoners. Them getting dead would have been perfectly acceptable so far as I am concerned.) Could the bad guys have overpowered the homeowner and taken his gun? Sure, that's possible, however, as it was, the homeowner, and his family, had NO chance of coming out of this without harm. At least with the gun, he may not have even had to fire it. Just point, and issue orders, if they don't obey, pull the trigger, if they do, call the cops.

 

 

 

 

blah, blah...

I really couldn't care less about the world. Now, my little corner of it? Yep, care a great deal. The point is, if folks with ill intent broke into my house, I have the capability of defending myself, and my family, against them. Without firearms, I would be just another victim. That prospect doesn't thrill me.

 

it is nothing personal and i even understand some people like you living in the wilderness. but that is a special case. nobody says - including me - you should not own a weapon. but why uncontrolled and with 18 and without any checks ? and why blocking blindly all weapon laws even if they help for more security for all - democrats and republicans ? nobody with a brain - including all legal weapon owners - should block transparent weapon law. why? they should support it and everybody does - excluding the u.s..

weapon owners in the u.s. even vote for nra and some stupid and dangerous politicians. how scary is that ? i will never get why - while their own children or some they know get shot in the next mass shooting due to not existing weapon control and a mighty, short sighted weapon lobby.

 

But you have to remember, the US of A is a BIG country. A significant percentage of population lives 'out in the sticks'. :smile:

 

The problem with the laws the dems want to pass is, they DON'T increase anyones security. Sure, if you ban so-called 'assault weapon', you will see fewer of them in mass shooting incidents, but, will you see fewer mass shooting incidents? Nope. The shooters will just choose a different weapon. ANY magazine fed weapon can lay down a lot of fire in a short time, regardless of magazine size. Can't use your "AR" with a 30 round mag any more? Fine, use a pistol with a 10 round mag, and carry more mags. Or, carry more than one weapon. Shotguns are GREAT in close quarters, when you really don't care whom you kill. Firing a 12 gauge into a crowd is going to hit at LEAST one, and very likely more. And they have a VERY 'scary' presence. Fire one round, and everyone runs away from you. Fire a couple more, they run faster, giving you plenty of time to reload. Even a pump shotgun can be reloaded fairly quickly, if no one is shooting back, or actively interfering with you, and all you need to do is get ONE round into it to discourage ANYONE from wanting to approach and attempt to disarm you. Lord knows the cops sure gave the last guy plenty of time...... But, that was a perfect example of how NOT to handle an active shooter scenario. Cops should have been rushing the doors as soon as there were more than two of them there.

 

Wanna reduce mass shootings? You need to address the PERSON that is doing the shooting, not the tools they are using. There is always an alternative tool to use...... Granted, there isn't always any indication some guy is going to go off on a nut, and see how many folks he can kill..... But, in a fair few of these cases, there WAS advanced warning, and it was ignored......

 

Another good step would be to get rid of the 'gun free zone' thing. I think we have already more than adequately shown that having that sign outside, doesn't make anyone safer.... Quite the opposite, might just as well put up a sign that says "No one here to shoot back." More than one mass shooter has flatly stated they chose the location they did, BECAUSE it was a 'gun free zone'..... The majority of mass-shooters, when confronted by armed resistance, either surrender, or blow their own brains out. Very few of them seem willing to engage in a gun fight with armed opponents. Even when they do, it doesn't last long. They generally get dead fairly quickly.

 

 

And a quick edit to add a final thought.

 

Being armed does not always guarantee a good outcome for the potential victim. If you are going to carry a weapon for self defense, you BETTER be prepared to actually USE IT. If you pull a gun, and hesitate to pull the trigger when threatened, chances are very good you are going to be killed by your own weapon. So, folks should consider that before deciding to carry. If you aren't willing to take someone elses life to save your own, or someone elses, do NOT carry a gun.

Edited May 31, 2022 by HeyYou

[xrayy]

the biggest mistake in my opinion is to address the problems always to others who will or can never solve them. what about you and me. we are both allowed to carry weapons. the first thing we probably both do is to store our weapons securely, not available for anyone else. but that helps nobody except us. learn that guns are for war and to keep peace but nothing to play with like too many americans even with their children do. if this crazy and out of date u.s. cowboy attitude doesn`t change in the 21th century a whole generation will have to live with more and more mass shootings and weapon related suicide. please think about it and compare for example with your canadian neighbors. the difference is extremely obvious.

[HeyYou]

the biggest mistake in my opinion is to address the problems always to others who will or can never solve them. what about you and me. we are both allowed to carry weapons. the first thing we probably both do is to store our weapons securely, not available for anyone else. but that helps nobody except us. learn that guns are for war and to keep peace but nothing to play with like too many americans even with their children do. if this crazy and out of date u.s. cowboy attitude doesn`t change in the 21th century a whole generation will have to live with more and more mass shootings and weapon related suicide. please think about it and compare for example with your canadian neighbors. the difference is extremely obvious.

Our Canadian neighbors also have universal health care, which includes.... wait for it..... Mental Health. Something sadly lacking here in the states. They also don't have that pesky little thing known as the 2nd Amendment..... Canada also has a bit over 10% of the population of the US. (right about 38 million, by 2020 numbers. Yeah, that surprised the heck out of me too, we have STATES with more population than that.....)

 

Politicians aren't in the business of solving problems. If they solved a problem, they wouldn't be able to use it as a plank in their platform..... It is better for them to treat symptoms, rather than the disease itself. Get to milk it for my votes that way. (and campaign contributions.....)

 

A fair few of the gun owners I know, and hang out with.... don't hunt. Live in a relatively safe environment, and simply use their guns for pleasure. Target shooting is a GREAT way to relieve stress. :D Makes for a great parent/child bonding experience as well. (more fun than trying to teach them to drive..... :) Although, I taught my son to drive when he was 7, and a manual transmission at that. :D He LOVED it. :) ) I waited till he was 11, or so... to teach him to shoot. He knew from a young age NOT to touch ANY of the firearms.

[Mktavish]

 

The problem with the laws the dems want to pass is, they DON'T increase anyones security.

 

 

So is that pretty much the end of the debate as far as you are concerned ? No opinions about what "Responsible Gun Ownership" means ? And would be 3 times as worthless as banning assault rifles ?

Which if mental health is the real issue ... then of course the toxic public conversation is probably a large factor to that.

Especially for young new gun owners ... which I would like to point out ... are probably motivated by malice , being a learned opinion from people such as your self . Well at least from the many who ping farther right on the spectrum with this particular subject.

 

But that's actually fine if the right wants to just focus on mental health as the key issue here. Because we can certainly find some mental health red flagging issues amongst the gunnuttery crowd.

Then just get err done that way in less of these status symbol guns getting circulated into private hands.