Biden Seeks Assault Weapons Ban and Background Checks

[Uncle Nicky]

52 minutes ago, left field said:

I have an end game?

I guess, why else would a non-hunter (or a troll posing as a hunter) spend countless hours on a hunting site trying to convince the weak-minded that gun control, voting Democrat, and socialism are good ideas?

[left field]

Sorry, are you admitting to being weak-minded or are you accusing others of being so? So confused.

[Northcountryman]

2 hours ago, left field said:

I have an end game? Am I Thanos or Iron Man? Would prefer Dr Strange. My only endgame on huntingny is to shoot a couple of deer on my property this year.

The last few days of discussion have been interesting because they've moved away from Grouse's usual relentless tinfoil-crazy stuff and is a better (and what should be the only) use of this subforum. The discussions came about because of the three shootings this week. And as expected, the government is probably going to impose some limits to guns. Not because it's necessarily the right thing to do, but because they want (and been seen) to do something. 

Grouse's "master plan" is ridiculous. These people (rep and dem senators) can barely dress themselves in the morning, let alone play a long game. 

---

North, this D'Souza stuff is easy enough to look up, but let me start with Wiki for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza

 

 

 

 Cool , thank you , I’ll check it out 

[Grouse]

Lefty, you sure got bent out of shape about one incidental post that must threaten your perception that govt is your friend, or your big brother than defends you from all comers after you poke them with a stick.  I will continue to post what I want and freely express my opinions no matter how many want to dog me with hate mail.

I am who I am.  I never said you had to like me.

I don't care what you think about me.  I don't think about you at all.

[left field]

I'm hardly bent out of shape and I'm sorry your feeling were hurt.

You have taken over this subforum and post a lot of nonsense so you have to expect that once in awhile someone's going to call you on your shit. It's unfortunate, because the other stuff you post is interesting. 

 

 

[Grouse]

Nonsense?   Shit? 

Obviously you are not up on current events then.

[Grouse]

I guess she's just crazy, right?

 

 "Democrats want to do to AR-15s what they did to drugs. Which is to create black markets for them, increase crime, empower cartels/gangs & make criminals out of nonviolent people — the process of which costs our justice system billions & prevents real crime from being solved." —Hannah Cox

[Grouse]

Getting back to the original gist of this thread, more of my opinion, adopted from Josh Hammer.

The Constitution (with its Second Amendment so cherished by gun owners like me), John Adams once famously said, was “made only for a moral and religious people” and is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The paradigmatic conservative Edmund Burke similarly once argued that “men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites.” Alas, Americans in the year 2021 can be said to be neither a “moral and religious people” nor particularly well disposed to putting “moral chains upon their own appetites.”

To be sure, gun restrictions are generally still bad public policy due to reasons both intrinsic — criminals do not, by definition, abide by laws — and pragmatic — in a country with more guns than citizens, an Australia-style “buyback” program would be infeasible to the point of absurdity, even if it were not blatantly unconstitutional. But the very rhetorical and intellectual currency of our firearm policy discourse has become woefully debased over the decades. At the time of the American founding, gun ownership was not merely viewed as a check on government tyranny and a logical outflow of the natural, common-law right to self-defense. It was also viewed as virtuous: something that was, can and ought to be deployed to protect one’s family, one’s home and one’s community. In this sense, a well-armed citizenry was not simply an outgrowth of any particular natural or legal right; rather, it was viewed as fundamentally just and redounding to the common good of a well-functioning, internally harmonious society.

The reader here will conjure up images of frontiersmen and homesteaders protecting one’s remote home with a flintlock musket — and there is a lot of accuracy to the early- to mid-republic authenticity of those images. But when is the last time anyone, even a conservative, has made an affirmative argument in favor of gun ownership based not on constitutional meaning or contextual prudence but on the inherent virtue of gun ownership? The long, steady decline of this once-prevalent school of thought is certainly due, in part, to the hollowing out of America’s religiosity and temperance. But it is also due to the fact that manliness itself is increasingly viewed not as a virtue to be nourished and cherished but as a “toxic” vestige of a bygone barbarism that must be tamed and ultimately excised. A society that loses its belief in the importance of manliness qua manliness will necessarily fail to appreciate the virtue of a home- and hearth-protecting paterfamilias. There is a direct, unmistakable connection between the decline of the former and a lessened respect for the latter.

Our firearm policy discourse is hackneyed and wearisome, but if progressives continue to push for confiscatory over corrections, then conservatives must continue to trot out familiar arguments against draconian strictures. Conservatives’ job would certainly be easier, though, if our society still retained the intellectual currency of yore.

[GreeneHunter]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Getting back to the original gist of this thread, more of my opinion, adopted from Josh Hammer.

Conservatives’ job would certainly be easier, though, if our society still retained the intellectual currency of yore.

Shortened it up for ya !

[Grouse]

I never felt the Cliff Notes version of things really educated anyone though.  Besides, someone may tell you to prove it.

[Grouse]

Good video on this subject that explains exactly what the government is doing.

 

[Five Seasons]

On 3/26/2021 at 5:55 PM, Steve D said:

At this point I am not to concerned about them taking them as much as regulating things more than they need to be. This country is famous for regulating everything beyond the point of being ridiculous and they just want to regulate more. 

 The regulations in place are not working so instead of regulating more why not try a different approach.

I try explaining this too. Yeah so it may not be illegal to own a gun, but if they put in enough bureaucratic bottle necks and red tape and fees and paperwork, they can get pretty close to it.

[virgil]

On 3/28/2021 at 7:51 AM, left field said:

I'm hardly bent out of shape and I'm sorry your feeling were hurt.

You have taken over this subforum and post a lot of nonsense so you have to expect that once in awhile someone's going to call you on your shit. It's unfortunate, because the other stuff you post is interesting. 

 

 

What other stuff?

[left field]

13 minutes ago, virgil said:

What other stuff?

There are a few non-political threads every so often. 

[phantom]

12 hours ago, Belo said:

I try explaining this too. Yeah so it may not be illegal to own a gun, but if they put in enough bureaucratic bottle necks and red tape and fees and paperwork, they can get pretty close to it.

That is what they got in Mexico and the drug cartels  still have  guns . while normal people cant afford to get them because of all the red tape . 

 

[DirtTime]

Stop worrying! Pot is legal in NY now! The Government Giveth- The Government Taketh Away.