Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
In light of the new forum policy regarding personal attacks in off-topic threads...
"gun" is not a four-letter word.
Firearms, in a variety of configurations, hold a traditional and valued place in our society. They also have valid modern uses, including hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and competition.
While there are some idiots who own guns, and clearly there ard those who should not have them, the vast majority own them responsibly and without incident.
Tactless approaches, such as outright bans and categorically broad restrictions on certain features are, in my opinion, useless and short-sighted attempts to curb violent encounters without curing the root cause for the violent behavior that unduly restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Same people, I tend to believe, who would applaud other such sacrificial freedoms under the guise of "public safety".
Seems to me this modernly developing fear of the gun is just another indication of a deeper social spinelessness in our country, where the discordant rallying cry seems to whimper "save me from myself" and "sue somebody! It's not my fault!"
It saddens me that so often, there are sooo many self-described intellectual and educated people who, when it comes to guns, seem to just start foaming at the mouth and slobbering out such ridiculously emotion-driven negative rhetoric, I leave in disgust and a vow never to rope up with them. My loss I suppose. Many of them would be a pleasure to climb with in any other sense; but if they're going to judge my intelligence and life's motivation based on firearm ownership, then maybe it's no great loss.
So remember, next time you get tooled for 5mph over or spouting some anti-gun drivel to this thread from behind the wheel on your smartphone, those limitations aren't infringing on your constitutional rights.
Gun is not a dirty word. Intolerance is. And your bias is showing.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
So we are left with Judge Alex Kozinski's, the son of Holocaust survivors, quote: "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
I trust my fellow citizens to be armed more than most most politicians, a few of whom want that position so as to seek power and control over everything. It only takes one bad apple of a politician and all of the horrible things other citizens have done, all together in total, will pale in comparison.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees
Actually, the reality is far more subtle than this.
Our government does not "refuse to stand for reelection."
Instead, and worse, "elections" dutifully take place, voted on by a small minority of eligible voters, voting on the "best" candidates that TWO parties can puke up into the public light, "vetted" and presented to us by a corporate-owned and PAC-controlled media, "considered" by uneducated and jaded voters who "elect" their "representatives" on charisma and sound-bites ALONE, and who then don't care enough about that "representation" to follow-up and DO anything about the vast and flagrant abuses heaped upon us by those "representatives" while in office. Did I miss anything? I'm sure I did, because the FACT that our "representatives" in virtually NO way actually represent us is so sweeping that it's almost impossible to sum up all the ways that our system of "elected representatives" is utterly broken and no longer "stands for election" in ANY meaningful sense.
And the bit about the "courts" is even sadder in this country today! Totally politicized, we even have a SCOTUS judge in Roberts who can literally ask the question: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" And, regardless of what you think about the context of that question, THIS judge thought to HIMSELF that a very clear, bright line was about to be crossed, then HIMSELF voted to cross it! Whether there WAS such a line or not, ROBERTS thought to HIMSELF that there was, and HE decided that it should be crossed... throwing the door wide open to the government doing "anything" it pleases. And without even a whimper, America entered a whole new era!
First the interstate commerce clause is "read" to encompass ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, and now, post-Roberts, a "tax" is "read" to encompass ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. So, from the SCOTUS's point of view today, the constitution really has NO limitations on federal power. THAT, my friends, is tyranny, "elected" or not. At present, it's a "benevolent" one (if you ignore the out-of-control IRS and NSA). But it is tyranny nevertheless.
Tyranny has taken us, but it's done it SO slowly and subtly that it is not recognized as such, and most "Americans" literally don't care. Or, worse, they actually believe that because there are "elections," by definition this is not tyranny.
Yeah, you bet that I trust armed and AWARE citizens over "my" government!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Well, MB, after two days here with the rels just off the end of Hill AFB Runway 14 watching
the F-16's roar off I feel inclined to paraphrase Roy Scheider:
"We're gonna need a bigger boat!"
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
How did the Poles manage to overthrow the Soviets despite their lack of a second amendment?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Well, MB, after two days here with the rels just off the end of Hill AFB Runway 14 watching
the F-16's roar off I feel inclined to paraphrase Roy Scheider:
"We're gonna need a bigger boat!"
Huge part of the problem... We can't maintain a massive militarized empire like we have now and claim anyone is truly free.
Historically though such overreaching empires don't fare too well under their own weight.
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
montana
|
|
I have a quick question for a person that knows more than me. How come some tracers work well and others do not? My 9mm,308's and 762x39's leave a bright streak even in daylight, but my 556's(223) don't do jack and cost me alot. Is it a FPS thing or only can be seen at night?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
We're gonna need a bigger boat Huge part of the problem
So true. The very fact that people laugh now about any thought of revolution, saying, "Yeah, right! Like you could have a hope against the US military," indicates how far astray we have drifted. Our government should perpetually be afraid of us, not the other way around.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
I have a quick question for a person that knows more than me. How come some tracers work well and others do not? My 9mm,308's and 762x39's leave a bright streak even in daylight, but my 556's(223) don't do jack and cost me alot. Is it a FPS thing or only can be seen at night?
If it's the American Eagle red-box variants they seem to light about 50% of the time.
The theory I heard is that some are not supposed to ignite until they're a couple hundred yards out anyway. I don't know if that's true since we're limited to 2-300 yards here. The ones that do ignite are at least 100 yards out... You can easily see them on overcast days. In bright sunlight against a light background they are tough to see.
|
|
perswig
climber
|
|
"We're gonna need a bigger boat!"
Pretty sure the Second Amendment guarantees our rights to F-16 ownership if the gubmint is gonna use F-16s to take our guns.
Right?
Dale
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
rinse and repeat. Bold text for those who think firearms are only owned by those who fear.
Apr 7, 2015 - 09:33pm PT
In light of the new forum policy regarding personal attacks in off-topic threads...
"gun" is not a four-letter word.
Firearms, in a variety of configurations, hold a traditional and valued place in our society. They also have valid modern uses, including hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and competition.
While there are some idiots who own guns, and clearly there are those who should not have them, the vast majority own them responsibly and without incident.
Tactless approaches, such as outright bans and categorically broad restrictions on certain features are, in my opinion, useless and short-sighted attempts to curb violent encounters without curing the root cause for the violent behavior that unduly restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Same people, I tend to believe, who would applaud other such sacrificial freedoms under the guise of "public safety".
Seems to me this modernly developing fear of the gun is just another indication of a deeper social spinelessness in our country, where the discordant rallying cry seems to whimper "save me from myself" and "sue somebody! It's not my fault!"
It saddens me that so often, there are sooo many self-described intellectual and educated people who, when it comes to guns, seem to just start foaming at the mouth and slobbering out such ridiculously emotion-driven negative rhetoric, I leave in disgust and a vow never to rope up with them. My loss I suppose. Many of them would be a pleasure to climb with in any other sense; but if they're going to judge my intelligence and life's motivation based on firearm ownership, then maybe it's no great loss.
So remember, next time you get tooled for 5mph over or spouting some anti-gun drivel to this thread from behind the wheel on your smartphone, those limitations aren't infringing on your constitutional rights.
Gun is not a dirty word. Intolerance is. And your bias is showing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
No, I've gone around the Federalist Papers. Apparently you haven't.
These are the same federalists that would be on the "Yankee" side you are apparently talking about. Perhaps you should read what these "Yanks" had to say about standing armies.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
If the public is too stupid to accomplish changing their government by voting (which they can still do) then they are WAAAAAY to stupid to accomplish an armed revolution that actually makes anything better.
Right now most of the folks who are crying beware the government do not have the first idea what a government is or should be. They couldn't organize an effective squad let alone an army.
Guns don't help stupid.
Most of the folks I know who like guns and worry about government and "Barry" are too stupid not to point a gun at a person accidentally while doing anything with it.
I enjoy shooting.. I don't like many gun owners.. a lot of em are dangerous and don't follow even basic safety.
Not talking about you johnnyrig :)
Gun of the week THe Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum, 4" barrel.
Hell thats gun of the last 3 decades in my opinion. Cept I'd go with the 7 1/2 barrel to take advantage of such a high powered accurate round. I've kinda wanted one for decades. Very popular in Alaska, great pistol hunting sidearm.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
No, I've gone around the Federalist Papers. Apparently you haven't.
These are the same federalists that would be on the "Yankee" side you are apparently talking about. Perhaps you should read what these "Yanks" had to say about standing armies.
The same Yankees who argued against a bill of rights, then voted in favor of it? Or the ones who argued against slavery, then voted to allow it to continue?
It wasn't clean and simple then, it still isn't.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The same Yankees who argued against a bill of rights, then voted in favor of it?
Oh, you must be talking about the ones that had principled reasons for opposing the inclusion of the bill of rights... principled reasons that now have proven to be surprisingly prescient: namely, that people would start to argue that the bill of right GRANTS the rights it was designed to PROTECT, and that people would argue that the bill of rights expresses the ONLY real limits on federal power.
Or are you talking about the ones that, despite such principled reasons (that were surprisingly prescient), were faced with such stupid and short-sighted opposition that they were forced to abandon their principled reasoning in the hope (that has proved to be vain) that the compromise with the stupid to get a constitution passed AT ALL would not ultimately result in the very distortions that have indeed resulted from the bill of rights.
Oh, ooops... same guys. Turns out that they were right about why not to include it! And at least their compromise got us a constitution at all, although now it could well be argued that what we got was so compromised that the stupid of today can make of it any nutty thing that crosses their "minds," and they do.
Or the ones who argued against slavery, then voted to allow it to continue?
Oh, you must mean the same guys who were trying desperately to reach some sort of compromise with the stupid in order to get a constitution at all.
If anything, you are making a strong case AGAINST compromising one's well-reasoned principles. The compromises have resulted in horrendous confusions and problems, and it could well be argued that having two nations here instead of one would have been much better for both. If the only way you can "come to terms" is by compromising core principles, then it's better to not "come to terms" at all.
The very fact that some of you float the idea that managing to do away with the second amendment would then make it legal for the feds to engage in sweeping gun control MAKES Madison's points about why to not have a bill of rights.
The federalists' compromises to get a constitution at all have proved to be our undoing, as they could only hope that they were not sowing the seeds of that undoing into the constitution they did get. They hung their hope on the idea that Americans would never tolerate the slide into tyranny that we have actually embraced.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Meh..China is probably the best government going these days. They might just save civilization... unlikely though.
Whatever.. the human race will continue anyway.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
madbolter posted Oh, you must be talking about the ones that had principled reasons for opposing the inclusion of the bill of rights... principled reasons that now have proven to be surprisingly prescient: namely, that people would start to argue that the bill of right GRANTS the rights it was designed to PROTECT, and that people would argue that the bill of rights expresses the ONLY real limits on federal power.
This is utter horsesh#t. Those guys were some rights depriving motherf*#kers and Jefferson knew damn well that without things being spelled out it was going to be tyranny straight up and down. Somehow I don't think the slave owning guys who only allowed landowning white men vote shared the same principles as you. In fact, the rights that you take for granted as "given" largely only exist BECAUSE OF judicial interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Lay off the looney toons propaganda wesbites. They are hurting your brain.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
I vividly recall, during my outdoor industry days, the reps, mostly from the Southeast, who bragged about the iron they were carrying on roadtrips. Not one of them could have fought their way out of a paper bag with a Bear Grylls signature Bowie Knife.
The more a guy talks about his guns the less I think about their ability to deal with tough situations.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
In fact, the rights that you take for granted as "given" largely only exist BECAUSE OF judicial interpretations of the Bill of Rights.
Ahh, another of the sheep that (wrongly) believes that the Bill of Rights GRANTED the rights to which it refers.
Honestly, it really is sad HOW far down the toilet we've spiraled since the founders were solid about the basis of rights and legitimate government.
At this point, it's really over, because the sweeping educational project it would take to get the majority of "Americans" back in touch with the founding principles is too daunting to ever be accomplished.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!