Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill

[Amp]

A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dems-push-for-assault-weapons-ban

[Darth_Uno]

Hardly surprising. I would wager the vast majority wouldn’t rush out to hand ‘em all over, but rather wait to see just how serious they are about coming to get them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GardoneVT]

Shock value sound bytes aside, confiscation of just AR-15s alone is logistically impossible. Tracking down who owns what just to build a list of “offenders” would take a massive bureaucracy and years of work; and there’d be a lot of mistakes. You may as well try to confiscate every pencil in the country.

That said, confiscation is not the oppositions game plan. Their strategy is pretty simple- cut off new avenues of legal ownership , offer a cash / bureaucratic incentive for fence sitters to disarm and let time do the rest. When all the folks who buried their guns in basements and drywall pass on , their heirs (or heirs of the heirs) will stumble upon the buried hardware. Some will call the authorities and that will be that.

Even those who keep their guns won’t be any better off, practically speaking. There’s no taking a banned gun to a legal range, and even a furtive backwoods trip involves risk. One never knows if a bystander at the abandoned quarry may be the law or just a jealous patron who wants to make an example out of you. As we well know practice is what keeps you dangerous with any weapon- which you can’t do with an illegal gun.

About the only circumstance an illegal AR won’t matter is if society’s decayed so badly survival of you and yours is in doubt no matter what long gun you’ve got squirreled away.

[Joe in PNG]

Culture is a difficult, almost impossible thing to change.
Note the multiple centuries attempts to suppress and destroy the Polish culture by Imperial Russia, Austria-Hungary, Prussia- and later Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Didn't work, even by the forces of unbridled tyranny. Likewise Afgan culture.

The USA has a very, very robust gun culture, and it's a very easy one to convert people into because guns are awesome and fun.

Americans also feel very strongly that gun ownership is a big part of their personal liberty. That's also not going away quickly or easily.

Americans do not do the Good German thing all that well.

[Casual Friday]

Shock value sound bytes aside, confiscation of just AR-15s alone is logistically impossible. Tracking down who owns what just to build a list of “offenders” would take a massive bureaucracy and years of work; and there’d be a lot of mistakes. You may as well try to confiscate every pencil in the country.

That said, confiscation is not the oppositions game plan. Their strategy is pretty simple- cut off new avenues of legal ownership , offer a cash / bureaucratic incentive for fence sitters to disarm and let time do the rest. When all the folks who buried their guns in basements and drywall pass on , their heirs (or heirs of the heirs) will stumble upon the buried hardware. Some will call the authorities and that will be that.

Even those who keep their guns won’t be any better off, practically speaking. There’s no taking a banned gun to a legal range, and even a furtive backwoods trip involves risk. One never knows if a bystander at the abandoned quarry may be the law or just a jealous patron who wants to make an example out of you. As we well know practice is what keeps you dangerous with any weapon- which you can’t do with an illegal gun.

About the only circumstance an illegal AR won’t matter is if society’s decayed so badly survival of you and yours is in doubt no matter what long gun you’ve got squirreled away.

This reads like someone who wasn't around during the 94 AWB. People gave zero fucks about it and went on as they pleased.

[Spartan1980]

Shock value sound bytes aside, confiscation of just AR-15s alone is logistically impossible. Tracking down who owns what just to build a list of “offenders” would take a massive bureaucracy and years of work; and there’d be a lot of mistakes. You may as well try to confiscate every pencil in the country.

That said, confiscation is not the oppositions game plan. Their strategy is pretty simple- cut off new avenues of legal ownership , offer a cash / bureaucratic incentive for fence sitters to disarm and let time do the rest. When all the folks who buried their guns in basements and drywall pass on , their heirs (or heirs of the heirs) will stumble upon the buried hardware. Some will call the authorities and that will be that.

Even those who keep their guns won’t be any better off, practically speaking. There’s no taking a banned gun to a legal range, and even a furtive backwoods trip involves risk. One never knows if a bystander at the abandoned quarry may be the law or just a jealous patron who wants to make an example out of you. As we well know practice is what keeps you dangerous with any weapon- which you can’t do with an illegal gun.

About the only circumstance an illegal AR won’t matter is if society’s decayed so badly survival of you and yours is in doubt no matter what long gun you’ve got squirreled away.

Those of us that know her know it's not a shock value sound bite. I don't know her well, but I've talked with her on multiple occasions and have talked to her enough to know that she's serious and that she's far from alone.

Conneticut:
https://www.courant.com/business/hc-xpm-2014-02-10-hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210-story.html

Same thing in other states when they did theirs and even other countries. Just today I read about how NZ officials are flummoxed over the level of noncompliance.

[Lex Luthier]

Hm. Aren't there still several hundred Armalite AR-18s still unaccounted for in Ireland? If I recall correctly, there were less than 2000 to begin with.

[jetfire]

This reads like someone who wasn't around during the 94 AWB. People gave zero fucks about it and went on as they pleased.

The 94 AWB also occured before the age of social media, which has made snitching on people a lot easier.

[JodyH]

The 94 AWB also occured before the age of social media, which has made snitching on people a lot easier.
It's also made doxxing people easier.
Snitches tend to get stitches.

[Casual Friday]

The 94 AWB also occured before the age of social media, which has made snitching on people a lot easier.

We had phones, some of them even cordless, and 911 was a thing. The number of people doing illegal things and posting to social media is far less than the number of people doing illegal things and not telling Facebook.

[Caballoflaco]

This reads like someone who wasn't around during the 94 AWB. People gave zero fucks about it and went on as they pleased.

It was still legal to own, sell and use grandfathered weapons and regular capacity mags during AWB1. Hell, you could even buy magazine repair kits, including new magazine bodies.

Look at the laws that are currently being passed in places like Cali and Ct . Learning has occurred on the other side and a new ban, if it’s passed will be nothing like the ban we remember.

[Casual Friday]

It was still legal to own, sell and use grandfathered weapons and regular capacity mags during AWB1. Hell, you could even buy magazine repair kits, including new magazine bodies.

Look at the laws that are currently being passed in places like Cali and Ct . Learning has occurred on the other side and a new ban, if it’s passed will be nothing like the ban we remember.

I ain't talking about grandfathered weapons homie.

[JodyH]

Learning has occurred on the other side
Learning and preparation has occurred on this side as well.

[Guinnessman]

Learning and preparation has occurred on this side as well.

When my Dad gave me my 21st birthday present in July 2002, a Sig 229 purchased before the ban, can you believe he only had 2 magazines included.

Trifling, just trifling.🤣

[Caballoflaco]

I ain't talking about grandfathered weapons homie.

Sure, but at least you could still walk into a store or grab a shotgun news and legally get some new to you mags at inflated prices. Plus, with grandfathered weapons being a thing it meant that putting a flash hider or shoulder thing that goes up on a rifle a very low risk proposition.

New paradigm is being arrested for being found in possession of a regular capacity magazine or any AR you don’t have papers for.


Learning and preparation has occurred on this side as well.

Indeed.

[Casual Friday]

Sure, but at least you could still walk into a store or grab a shotgun news and legally get some new to you mags at inflated prices. Plus, with grandfathered weapons being a thing it meant that putting a flash hider or shoulder thing that goes up on a rifle a very low risk proposition.

New paradigm is being arrested for being found in possession of a regular capacity magazine or any AR you don’t have papers for.

If they want dead civilians, cops and federal agents, confiscation is the way to go about it. New paradigm indeed.

[jetfire]

We had phones, some of them even cordless, and 911 was a thing. The number of people doing illegal things and posting to social media is far less than the number of people doing illegal things and not telling Facebook.

Yes but the number of people using social media to snitch on other people is waaaaaaaay higher than the number of people who would call 911 back in the day. It's a cultural shift, and as long as cancel culture is here, you can expect people to use social media as a tool to expose what they consider to be bad behavior.

[GardoneVT]

Those of us that know her know it's not a shock value sound bite. I don't know her well, but I've talked with her on multiple occasions and have talked to her enough to know that she's serious and that she's far from alone..

I was referring to the incendiary (if candid) statement by O’Rourke, not the former officers testimony.

[JodyH]

Cancel culture is a knife that cuts both ways.
One of the big stories recently is how a journo (and the paper he works for) who played the cancel culture game has himself been doxxed, outed and cancelled.

The Onion was on this way back in 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2bniFJigI0

[blues]

If they want dead civilians, cops and federal agents, confiscation is the way to go about it. New paradigm indeed.

I don't even want to talk about going down that road.

[GardoneVT]

If they want dead civilians, cops and federal agents, confiscation is the way to go about it. New paradigm indeed.

For all the noise about gun confiscations and “boating accident” jokes, no first world country in normal circumstances has disarmed people by SS style door-to-door sweeps. It starts with ownership restrictions being made gradually tighter until the only next step is a total ban. At that point, it’s hand em over voluntarily or face the music.

Folks will of course keep their guns - and at first it won’t be a problem. Until the Woman in Blue knocks on your door because a neighbor saw you dry firing through the open window. Or the cops kick in the wrong door and trip over the gun collection. Or you get stopped driving back from the quarry with your outlawed gear.

Basically they just pass a ban and let time do their work for them. Who needs door to door squads when bad luck (or a vengeful ex ) will suffice?

[Casual Friday]

Yes but the number of people using social media to snitch on other people is waaaaaaaay higher than the number of people who would call 911 back in the day. It's a cultural shift, and as long as cancel culture is here, you can expect people to use social media as a tool to expose what they consider to be bad behavior.

Agreed, but someone still has to know what you're doing, what you're doing it with, and where you're doing it. Look at states like NY and CA, yes we here about people getting busted for having 30 round mags and pistol grips and flash hiders, but that number pales in comparison to the people in those states that DGAF about gun laws.

I get it though, one minute you're sharing a shotgun meme from Russell, next minute you're getting DMCA'd by some Karen named Becky .:cool:

[Joe in PNG]

For all the noise about gun confiscations and “boating accident” jokes, no first world country in normal circumstances has disarmed people by SS style door-to-door sweeps. It starts with ownership restrictions being made gradually tighter until the only next step is a total ban. At that point, it’s hand em over voluntarily or face the music.

Then again, the US isn't a first world European country. We really don't have the same tradition of "shut up and do what you are told by your betters", or even "argue, but obey!"

A point I have noticed is that tyranny has to have the cooperation of a super majority of the people to actually work. The reason that state level bans work while national ones flop is because it's a lot easier to get that cooperation on that smaller scale.

[OlongJohnson]

Americans do not do the Good German thing all that well.

So many of the real good Germans ended up in PA and TX... Kinda like a lot of vikings are in Minnesota, leaving Trollhattan full of trolls.

[HCM]

So many of the real good Germans ended up in PA and TX... Kinda like a lot of vikings are in Minnesota, leaving Trollhattan full of trolls.

The only Vikings left in Minnesota are the NFL team. You mean New Mogadishu.

[jetfire]

The only Vikings left in Minnesota are the NFL team. You mean New Mogadishu.

I go there once a month for work, and while the Somali expat community is pretty significant, there are still a lot of viking-looking motherfuckers rolling around.

[Casual Friday]

For all the noise about gun confiscations and “boating accident” jokes, no first world country in normal circumstances has disarmed people by SS style door-to-door sweeps. It starts with ownership restrictions being made gradually tighter until the only next step is a total ban. At that point, it’s hand em over voluntarily or face the music.

Folks will of course keep their guns - and at first it won’t be a problem. Until the Woman in Blue knocks on your door because a neighbor saw you dry firing through the open window. Or the cops kick in the wrong door and trip over the gun collection. Or you get stopped driving back from the quarry with your outlawed gear.

Basically they just pass a ban and let time do their work for them. Who needs door to door squads when bad luck (or a vengeful ex ) will suffice?

It doesn't matter if it's a door to door grab or one of the red flag scenarios you presented, especially if the cops kick down the wrong door. The country is a powder keg right now and there are people who are fed up with hearing about their rights going away every time some nutjob shoots up a Walmart.

There's a couple reasons that so many police and sheriffs depts have said they won't enforce any new gun laws, even here in WA after 1639. One reason might be that they truly believe in upholding the constitution that they swore to protect, another is that they know that they will be in serious danger if they do. I would not want to be the first guy in the stack raiding some dudes house over property that he legally purchased that is now illegal because the govt says so.

[OlongJohnson]

The only Vikings left in Minnesota are the NFL team. You mean New Mogadishu.

This was one.

42961

[HCM]

Agreed, but someone still has to know what you're doing, what you're doing it with, and where you're doing it. Look at states like NY and CA, yes we here about people getting busted for having 30 round mags and pistol grips and flash hiders, but that number pales in comparison to the people in those states that DGAF about gun laws.

I get it though, one minute you're sharing a shotgun meme from Russell, next minute you're getting DMCA'd by some Karen named Becky .:cool:

I think you seriously underestimate the number of people who out themselves on social media doing illegal things.

Regardless Enforcement via attrition is the only realistic option despite Beto’s fantasy’s.

The real effects of a new AWB are:

1) it begins the attrition process by cutting off the legitimate and wide spread supply of new guns, mags, parts etc.

2) It lets the Beto’s and Cory Bookers of the world take a shit in your soup. They know you won’t turn in the gun but you can’t take it to a public range, or otherwise use /enjoy it without risking either a felony or a life or other life altering consequences. For the purposes of their culture war the results are just as good.

[HCM]

This was one.

42961

That was a LONG time ago. NYC used to be New Amsterdam too.

In this case the past is literally another country.

[blues]

I go there once a month for work, and while the Somali expat community is pretty significant, there are still a lot of viking-looking motherfuckers rolling around.

Maybe some of them should head to the malls and go berserk on the skells preying on iPhone toters in recent videos. Put that lineage and pedigree to work.

[JodyH]

Regardless Enforcement via attrition is the only realistic option
It worked for drugs and alcohol, those were impossible to get just a few short months after prohibition...
Not like we share a multi-thousand mile land border with a 3rd world country that's chock full of guns and smugglers.
Not like there are tens of thousands of CNC milling machines and 3D printers in this country.

"Attrition"
42962

[Casual Friday]

I think you seriously underestimate the number of people who out themselves on social media doing illegal things.

I don't. I just know the number of people not outing themselves is much greater.

[Suvorov]

As someone who lived through the 94 ban right when I was seriously getting into shooting and now have been cursed to end up in the second most firearms hostile metro area of the US I have noticed a couple things about the few anti's who actually know what they are doing. They are Fabian in their tactics and know that their laws will take years to yield the desired affects. Crime control is not their intent as they are smart enough to know that the bad guy will always be able to get guns. Their intent is the destruction of the gun culture as we know it in America. They will ban our ARs and similar guns and know that we will keep them, but for most of us - they will remain at home as we do not want to risk the criminal penalties that would come with getting caught with them. We will not be able to train with them or enjoy them. Not only with our skill with them atrophy, but we will not be able to pass our passions on to the next generation. Then when we die, our children or grandchildren will not see the use in keeping them around and will happily turn them in for a pair of tickets to the Warriors game. In two generations - the "Well Regulated Militia" of the Bill of Rights will cease to be much concern.

[Lex Luthier]

MN is a funny place. Honestly, some of those Vikings answer to Hmong, Viet, Somali, Eritrean, and Hebraic names. And for all that matters, do not discount the Finns.

[blues]

MN is a funny place. Honestly, some of those Vikings answer to Hmong, Viet, Somali, Eritrean, and Hebraic names. And for all that matters, do not discount the Finns.

Beware Finns and their knives.

[JodyH]

As someone who lived through the 94 ban right when I was seriously getting into shooting and now have been cursed to end up in the second most firearms hostile metro area of the US I have noticed a couple things about the few anti's who actually know what they are doing. They are Fabian in their tactics and know that their laws will take years to yield the desired affects. Crime control is not their intent as they are smart enough to know that the bad guy will always be able to get guns. Their intent is the destruction of the gun culture as we know it in America. They will ban our ARs and similar guns and know that we will keep them, but for most of us - they will remain at home as we do not want to risk the criminal penalties that would come with getting caught with them. We will not be able to train with them or enjoy them. Not only with our skill with them atrophy, but we will not be able to pass our passions on to the next generation. Then when we die, our children or grandchildren will not see the use in keeping them around and will happily turn them in for a pair of tickets to the Warriors game. In two generations - the "Well Regulated Militia" of the Bill of Rights will cease to be much concern.

"Just say no!" destroyed the drug culture in America.
Good thing we forced all those 60's druggies underground so we wouldn't have to deal with the devils lettuce in the 2010's.

You want to exponentially increase the popularity of firearms and anti-establishment gun culture in our youth?
Ban 'em in this age of 3D printers.

btw: if we can hold out for 5 more years or so, my 16 year old sons generation is somewhere to the right of Ghenghis Khan on the conservatism scale.
These kids are freakin animals when it comers to wanting freedom and melting snowflakes.
I have faith in these kids because i'm around a whole lot of them and they are damned impressive.
They'll happily smother the Millenials in their old folks home bed.

[Caballoflaco]

One thing we actually have going for us in the culture wars is video games. While it’s not real prevalent here, go look at the comments section on a forgotten weapons video on YouTube, and you’ll get a sense of how many young people have developed an interest in shooting through that medium.

Then, on the gripping hand, look at how many gun forum posts you see from people who are afraid to ccw into a posted business or other common npe’s where there aren’t metal detectors or pat-downs.

[HCM]

It worked for drugs and alcohol, those were impossible to get just a few short months after prohibition...
Not like we share a multi-thousand mile land border with a 3rd world country that's chock full of guns and smugglers.
Not like there are tens of thousands of CNC milling machines and 3D printers in this country.

"Attrition"
42962

Compared to the current legal gun business those are a drop in the bucket.

Changes in technology are more likely to affect this that any illegal imports. If making guns illicitly on a large scale was that easy we would not see guns illegally going south to places ranging from Mexico to Australia.

[Suvorov]

"Just say no!" destroyed the drug culture in America.
Good thing we forced all those 60's druggies underground so we wouldn't have to deal with the devils lettuce in the 2010's.

You want to exponentially increase the popularity of firearms and anti-establishment gun culture in our youth?
Ban 'em in this age of 3D printers.

btw: if we can hold out for 5 more years or so, my 16 year old sons generation is somewhere to the right of Ghenghis Khan on the conservatism scale.
These kids are freakin animals when it comers to wanting freedom and melting snowflakes.
I have faith in these kids because i'm around a whole lot of them and they are damned impressive.
They'll happily smother the Millenials in their old folks home bed.

I hope you are right.

I see what you are saying but I do see a difference in the demographic of the people who are into the drug culture and the gun culture although I admit there is some overlap. Also it is a lot easier to do a line of coke, a pipe of crack, or smoke a joint than it is to train to proficiency on a rifle.

One thing for sure - we are going to find out first hand one way or the other.

[Cypher]

This reads like someone who wasn't around during the 94 AWB. People gave zero fucks about it and went on as they pleased.

The 94 AWB didn't make simple possesion illegal.

[Cypher]

I've said this before but I believe that the Left has already won the culture war. We willingly send our kids to their indoctrination centers everyday and they spend 8 hours teaching them globalist social values. The Globalists aren't going to bother trying to take our guns. They'll just wait a generation or so and ask our kids to turn them in and they will.

[Joe in PNG]

I've said this before but I believe that the Left has already won the culture war. We willingly send our kids to their indoctrination centers everyday and they spend 8 hours teaching them globalist social values. The Globalists aren't going to bother trying to take our guns. They'll just wait a generation or so and ask our kids to turn them in and they will.

Should work about as well as the Soviet war against religion.
Look at Poland- its like 100% atheist.

[Joe in PNG]

Should work about as well as the Soviet war against religion.
Look at Poland- its like 100% atheist.

(eta) if indoctrinating children worked, the 60's would have never happened.

[Cypher]

Should work about as well as the Soviet war against religion.
Look at Poland- its like 100% atheist.


Get on Facebeast and see how many people think Greta Thuneberg is the new Messiah

[Joe in PNG]

Get on Facebeast and see how many people think Greta Thuneberg is the new Messiah

The ones I see think she's a brainwashed victim.

(edit) How many people go to religious revivals, get all weepy over their sins, make vows to change their lives- and then go and do pretty much nothing?
How many people make resolutions to diet, exercise, shoot more, run more, and do all sorts of improving activities, and then go do pretty much nothing?

Sharing a FB post is easy. Doing something is hard. Especially if it is uncomfortable.

[AKDoug]

Should work about as well as the Soviet war against religion.
Look at Poland- its like 100% atheist. Are they? I've only met a couple people from modern Poland and they both went to Sunday mass when visiting my town..

and there's this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fr0t5GygV0

[Joe in PNG]

Are they? I've only met a couple people from modern Poland and they both went to Sunday mass when visiting my town..

and there's this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fr0t5GygV0

I forgot to add the sarcasm tag :)

[AKDoug]

I forgot to add the sarcasm tag :)

I read your post a dozen times looking for the sarcasm font and could find it. Well played.

[Yung]

Very glad to have been able to see Mrs. Muller's practice run of her testimony last weekend.

You guys should have been there.


One thing we actually have going for us in the culture wars is video games. While it’s not real prevalent here, go look at the comments section on a forgotten weapons video on YouTube, and you’ll get a sense of how many young people have developed an interest in shooting through that medium.

You'll be pleased to know that Andrew Gottlieb has started a project called 2A Gaming which aims to take advantage of that.

[willie]

If the assault weapons controversy is not disrupting our solidarity, it is lessening resolve of gun owners. Not all of us agree that so called civilians should own them. At the same time, more and more citizens are assigning stigma to them.
By hastening cultural shift, the other side is accomplishing its aims even if legislation does not restrict. Schools and churches transmit cultural values. Expect to see more drum beating from education and religious organizations. Expect to see all the alphabet organizations join in. Groups like Planned Parenthood, United Way, the Scouts, Mother's Against Drunk Drivers, PTO, teacher organizations, unions, medical associations, and many more who wish to exhibit social posturing will adopt campaigns against assault rifles.

[wvincent]

If the assault weapons controversy is not disrupting our solidarity, it is lessening resolve of gun owners. Not all of us agree that so called civilians should own them. At the same time, more and more citizens are assigning stigma to them.
By hastening cultural shift, the other side is accomplishing its aims even if legislation does not restrict. Schools and churches transmit cultural values. Expect to see more drum beating from education and religious organizations. Expect to see all the alphabet organizations join in. Groups like Planned Parenthood, United Way, the Scouts, Mother's Against Drunk Drivers, PTO, teacher organizations, unions, medical associations, and many more who wish to exhibit social posturing will adopt campaigns against assault rifles.

And we as parents and grandparents, bad uncles and aunts, and good neighbors, will tell the children: "Listen not, to those stupid motherfuckers, as they do not know of what they speak". It's our sacred duty to override the anti's message.

What the Beto's and the Booker's don't understand is that if you make the average guy a felon overnight due anti gun legislation, a few will comply, but quite a few will say "fuck it, I'm all in"
And that will be the beginning of the end.

[willie]

Beto and Booker don't care about creating felons. The legislation if passed will restrict buying and selling these firearms and may even prohibit their transfer after the original owners die. You will see the government subsidizing deactivation programs to convert assault rifles into non-functional wall hangers. Some children and other family members will pressure Dad and Grandad to destroy these guns. Game departments could prohibit their use for hunting. Some gun ranges might ban them. All these negative outcomes are possible examples of direction cultural shift will take. Sadly 2a rights will erode as this shift occurs. A mechanism will have been set up to bring about these these terrible outcomes.

[JRB]

....
What the Beto's and the Booker's don't understand is that if you make the average guy a felon overnight due anti gun legislation, a few will comply, but quite a few will say "fuck it, I'm all in"
And that will be the beginning of the end.

I don't pray for much these days. I'm not even particularly religious. Even out here in sandbox land I find myself praying for only three things:
Wisdom and calm for my leadership
Wisdom, calm, and a willingess to discuss peace for our adversaries
Wisdom and sanity for our political system at home - and in particular, that they are unsucessful in pushing for gun bans.
There's a LOT of people, likely tens of millions, in the 'not one more inch' category. What's sobering is the thought of a 6 or 7-digit population of folks with a significant percentage of vets, LE, and current mil that will organize and happily stack bodies if that comes to pass, because they are absolutely fucking fed the fuck up and will feel like they have nothing left to lose.

Most of the lives lost in that initial wave will not be the lawmakers or elite that caused the problem; it'll be decent men and women, mostly in uniforms, that have far more in common than they do differences.
When I think about that, I lose sleep. A lot of sleep. Nothing scares me more these days, honestly.

[ralph]

I don't pray for much these days. I'm not even particularly religious. Even out here in sandbox land I find myself praying for only three things:
Wisdom and calm for my leadership
Wisdom, calm, and a willingess to discuss peace for our adversaries
Wisdom and sanity for our political system at home - and in particular, that they are unsucessful in pushing for gun bans.
There's a LOT of people, likely tens of millions, in the 'not one more inch' category. What's sobering is the thought of a 6 or 7-digit population of folks with a significant percentage of vets, LE, and current mil that will organize and happily stack bodies if that comes to pass, because they are absolutely fucking fed the fuck up and will feel like they have nothing left to lose.

Most of the lives lost in that initial wave will not be the lawmakers or elite that caused the problem; it'll be decent men and women, mostly in uniforms, that have far more in common than they do differences.
When I think about that, I lose sleep. A lot of sleep. Nothing scares me more these days, honestly.

Those decent men and women have a choice..Obey an illegal order, or say no, I’m not doing it..The Nuremberg trials were filled with people who were just simply “following orders”....

[olstyn]

What's sobering is the thought of a 6 or 7-digit population of folks with a significant percentage of vets, LE, and current mil that will organize and happily stack bodies if that comes to pass, because they are absolutely fucking fed the fuck up and will feel like they have nothing left to lose.

Well, maybe not "happily," but yeah, if we get to that point, things will likely be VERY ugly.

[JodyH]

Get on Facebeast and see how many people think Greta Thuneberg is the new Messiah

Facebook and Twitter are dominated by screeching white female SJW harpies and does not represent the opinion of anyone except Millenial snowflakes and aging, out of touch Boomers.

None of the kids in my boys generation use either one of them.
They are too busy sharing snowflake melting memes and laughing at the Jitterbug phone using Boomers on other platforms.

[JodyH]

I've said this before but I believe that the Left has already won the culture war. We willingly send our kids to their indoctrination centers everyday and they spend 8 hours teaching them globalist social values. The Globalists aren't going to bother trying to take our guns. They'll just wait a generation or so and ask our kids to turn them in and they will.

Ha...
The upcoming generation will be the ones to save the US from out of touch Boomers and hand wringing Millinials.
I'm right in the middle of all kinds of activities in the largest High School in New Mexico.
These kids of all races, ethnicities and social strata are quite conservative, aggressively pro freedom and fanatically anti-snowflake.

Teenagers have always done exactly what old "authority figures" tell them to do. They have always been in lockstep with their parents, teachers and elders when it comes to social "norms".
Yea right.
Fuck you old man!
:p

[Amp]

Former police officer Dianna Muller, fresh off her explosive testimony to the House Judiciary Committee hearing on assault weapons, said Thursday that gun owners need to “get involved and engaged” because the Second Amendment is at stake.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-tulsa-police-officer-on-assault-weapons-ban-push-what-were-up-against-is-a-very-well-organized-and-well-funded

Her website: https://www.pro3gunner.com/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This reads like someone who wasn't around during the 94 AWB. People gave zero fucks about it and went on as they pleased.

I was there. The quote is irrelevant today. As pointed out, you could keep the old guns and new ones without the cosmetic features were readily available. I read somewhere that 730K of compliant AR were immediately sold. I've said this so many times to get the point across to the gun bury crowd:

1. You can't compete in any organized fashion. I'm not going to take out an illegal gun in front of my informal squad that has police and Federal officers in it. Besides them, Federal officers (some from p-f) do show up. SWAT from local departments show up. Shooting a rock at some remote ranch - whoopee!
2. You can't use them in self-defense without adding a terrible complication to your defense. It may influence the jury and you may take on gun charges in addition to the SD (which are independent of the SD verdict).
3. You may be turned in by your EX, your babbling kid, neighbor, your internet postings (if some DA wants to make an example).
4. You can't hunt with them legally.
5. The accessories industries is damaged economically.
6. You leave a large legality problem to heirs, spouses and kids, if you croak. Time and death will be an attrition threat to the guns.

The gun is useless except for the 'revolution'. If you think the country will support a civil war for modern sporting rifles, you are delusional. If you attempt a revolution over Medicare for All - you will get crickets for support.

We'd better hope that SCOTUS gets off its butt and wipes out the state restrictions or a Fed ban if it comes around.

Burying guns is either virtue signaling that is useless for practical usage of the guns except in the ultimate extreme. The Green New Deal is not that. Goddam it, Martha - them kids got free college from President Bernie. I'm digging up the AR and heading for the sin filled big city in the truck!

Bury your guns and support anthropological dissertations in 3000 AD about these strange artifacts. My point, fight the legislative and judicial fight and stop chortling that if you lose these, you can be the Smaug of Modern Sporting Rifles.

[JodyH]

Just throwing this out there.
Our public range and the PD range basically share a single fenced in facility.
All local, state and fed LE drives right past the firing line to get to their section.
All I've ever seen is "smile and wave" as bump stock (maybe actual FA, I don't really look at them either) dirt clod shooters burn through cases of ammunition.
Same with suppressors and SBR's even before the proliferation of braced AR pistols.
I've never seen a single concerned inquiry as to their legality.

In free parts of the country nobody gives a shit about what guns you own (and openly shoot) unless they're used in an actual criminal act.

[OlongJohnson]

As someone who lived through the 94 ban right when I was seriously getting into shooting and now have been cursed to end up in the second most firearms hostile metro area of the US I have noticed a couple things about the few anti's who actually know what they are doing. They are Fabian in their tactics and know that their laws will take years to yield the desired affects. Crime control is not their intent as they are smart enough to know that the bad guy will always be able to get guns. Their intent is the destruction of the gun culture as we know it in America. They will ban our ARs and similar guns and know that we will keep them, but for most of us - they will remain at home as we do not want to risk the criminal penalties that would come with getting caught with them. We will not be able to train with them or enjoy them. Not only with our skill with them atrophy, but we will not be able to pass our passions on to the next generation. Then when we die, our children or grandchildren will not see the use in keeping them around and will happily turn them in for a pair of tickets to the Warriors game. In two generations - the "Well Regulated Militia" of the Bill of Rights will cease to be much concern.

Funny you make this point. I live in TX, but I'm a refugee from CA and pay attention to what happens there as if it matters to me. Your post is what doing that has taught me.

The real target is conservatism generally. The Venn overlap between gun culture and conservative culture just makes guns a convenient proxy - a back door attack against conservatism generally.

Not saying classic Liberals can't be interested in guns or see the value of self defense or 2A, but statistically, that's not where the numbers are.

[HCM]

Just throwing this out there.
Our public range and the PD range basically share a single fenced in facility.
All local, state and fed LE drives right past the firing line to get to their section.
All I've ever seen is "smile and wave" as bump stock (maybe actual FA, I don't really look at them either) dirt clod shooters burn through cases of ammunition.
Same with suppressors and SBR's even before the proliferation of braced AR pistols.
I've never seen a single concerned inquiry as to their legality.

In free parts of the country nobody gives a shit about what guns you own (and openly shoot) unless they're used in an actual criminal act.

Yeah but all that stuff is (or in the case of bumpstocks was legal) even if some was NFA regulated. Plus binary triggers, while dumb are still legal. So no one has predication to go out of their way to look into it at the range. If an Australia style AWB went into effect things would be different.

Also just because YOU are not aware of inquiries doesn’t mean they don’t occur.

Myself and other LE members of PF get those inquiries all the time. Often they are AR pistols or shockwaves rather than SBS/SBR but not always. In the last month I’ve had an unregistered sawed off shotgun discovered during an eviction and a full auto Glock with one of the Wish.com back plates recovered in a search warrant. Things come up during house fires, car accidents, medical calls etc. Had an ambulance crew on a medical call discover an elderly gentleman with several Korean and Vietnam war frag grenades. Stuff happens.

Not to mention even on private land you shouldn’t piss off your neighbors and fire your bump stock equipped rifle in the middle of the night.....

[willie]

I grew up in a house with two WW2 era sub machine guns brought home from the war. A friend had a belt fed German machine gun under his bed. These guns were not uncommon. In my world nobody cared. In the amnesty of 1968 I registered mine. Knowing the law, I chose not to continue violating it. Today these toys without paperwork would place me in a federal pen.

I am rabidly 2A. However, I don't buy into the they made me a criminal mindset. We make choices. I can't tell another what to decide but will say this. If you are doing time in a federal lockup while your family faces financial hardship at home, perhaps you made the wrong choice.

So we had best get busy and counteract this push. We need competent leadership. We need to enlist help where we can--from those who don't look like us and from those with different preferences. We need to educate those from the duck and skeet crowd if they are ambivalent.

I have heard that some gun forums have members who say that 5 is enough. I have not seen this. If someone can pm me about this website, then I will join with the purpose of educating. Perhaps we should spread out and join such forums.

[Sal Picante]

...
btw: if we can hold out for 5 more years or so, my 16 year old sons generation is somewhere to the right of Ghenghis Khan on the conservatism scale.
These kids are freakin animals when it comers to wanting freedom and melting snowflakes.


This. I see this so much now.



I hope you are right.

I see what you are saying but I do see a difference in the demographic of the people who are into the drug culture and the gun culture although I admit there is some overlap. Also it is a lot easier to do a line of coke, a pipe of crack, or smoke a joint than it is to train to proficiency on a rifle.

One thing for sure - we are going to find out first hand one way or the other.

I see a lot of kids doing things: programming, jits, shooting, more than I ever have. Some of the ~16 demographic is pretty different than the 20-somethings now...

[Suvorov]

The real target is conservatism generally. The Venn overlap between gun culture and conservative culture just makes guns a convenient proxy - a back door attack against conservatism generally.

If the forum will allow me to place my tin foil hat on and recall the stories I grew up hearing from my grandparents about the Bolshevik takeover of the old country - it is all for the advance of Globalism/Internationalism/SoftMarksism/Neo-Communism/Neo-Feudalism/Statism (whatever you want to call it). Traditional American values are the real target, semi-automatic, military style rifles are simply the canary in the mine shaft.

[Suvorov]

I have heard that some gun forums have members who say that 5 is enough. I have not seen this. If someone can pm me about this website, then I will join with the purpose of educating. Perhaps we should spread out and join such forums.

Realistically - 5 AR pattern rifles, 5 AK pattern rifles, 5 AR-10/M14/FAL/HK91 pattern rifles, 5 various shotguns, 5 various .22s for training, and 5 each of your preferred self defense pistol, probably is enough. :D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have seen 5 is enough - here's one: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139801

Here's another nuance. I've shot with HCM at a class and in matches. Do I put him at employment risk by breaking the law in front of him?

I agree that opposition to gun ownership has a totemic value for those not conservative. Some conservatives feed into that by demanding conservative ideology purity from all gun owners.

[mtnbkr]

I have seen 5 is enough - here's one: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139801


First, nobody in that thread is saying you shouldn't carry more. They're offering their opinion that 5 is enough to them. I know at least one of the posters personally (he's a frequent guest at my house and will be here this weekend). I know for a fact he supports your right to carry whatever you want in whatever quantities you desire. For him, the answer is a 5-shot snub, not a limit on your right to carry whatever you want.

Also, that thread is 17 years old and was started during the AWB when high/standard cap magazines were "problematic", putting many folks in a situation of carrying revolvers or single-stack autos. The political and social situation is different now.

BTW, I was actively carrying either a 5-shot j-frame or a KT P32 and an active member at TFL, so when I saw that thread I was thinking "please don't let there be a post by a much younger mtnbkr there..." :o

Chris

[RevolverRob]

Five is enough?

I mean I guess five of the same model is enough...for some people.

Right now my target number is 49 (wife said if I had 50 before we bought a house, we’re getting a divorce. But 49 is GTG). I’m eh...halfway’ish there?

I don’t really know, because I’ve never counted.

[RoyGBiv]

I grew up in a house with two WW2 era sub machine guns brought home from the war. A friend had a belt fed German machine gun under his bed. These guns were not uncommon. In my world nobody cared. In the amnesty of 1968 I registered mine. Knowing the law, I chose not to continue violating it. Today these toys without paperwork would place me in a federal pen.

I am rabidly 2A. However, I don't buy into the they made me a criminal mindset. We make choices. I can't tell another what to decide but will say this. If you are doing time in a federal lockup while your family faces financial hardship at home, perhaps you made the wrong choice.

So we had best get busy and counteract this push. We need competent leadership. We need to enlist help where we can--from those who don't look like us and from those with different preferences. We need to educate those from the duck and skeet crowd if they are ambivalent.

I have heard that some gun forums have members who say that 5 is enough. I have not seen this. If someone can pm me about this website, then I will join with the purpose of educating. Perhaps we should spread out and join such forums.
I would argue that the distance between tyranny and freedom was much greater then. Giving up "reasonable" ground is far less perilous when your heels aren't already hanging over the cliff.

Then and now are Apples and Oranges.

Respectfully.

[willie]

When registering class 3 weapons during the amnesty, my concern did not pertain to freedom or tyranny. Instead my concern was not getting caught with items that would send me to prison if I were prosecuted. Felons are second class citizens at best. Most view them as pariahs. I choose not to be one. I do hope that the government does not restrict what I can own. If it does, I have zero intention of electing to be a felon. Having worked in corrections, I want no part of being incarcerated.

Protection against tyranny is one argument that I do not make. One reason is that if carried out, the activity in theory would require shooting cops and military persons. In a discussion, that possibility would permit being trapped when certain questions were asked. Another reason is that I wish not to be associated with tyranny fearing tinfoil hat people calling themselves militia members. I hear that many cops would not participate in gun grabs. Cops, if they wish to keep their jobs, do what they are told. I think that military members would obey these orders as well.

I do not predict gun grabs but agree that unless we get busy and start fighting, then we will be 2nd place winners--losers.

[TC215]

When registering class 3 weapons during the amnesty, my concern did not pertain to freedom or tyranny. Instead my concern was not getting caught with items that would send me to prison if I were prosecuted. Felons are second class citizens at best. Most view them as pariahs. I choose not to be one. I do hope that the government does not restrict what I can own. If it does, I have zero intention of electing to be a felon. Having worked in corrections, I want no part of being incarcerated.

Protection against tyranny is one argument that I do not make. One reason is that if carried out, the activity in theory would require shooting cops and military persons. In a discussion, that possibility would permit being trapped when certain questions were asked. Another reason is that I wish not to be associated with tyranny fearing tinfoil hat people calling themselves militia members. I hear that many cops would not participate in gun grabs. Cops, if they wish to keep their jobs, do what they are told. I think that military members would obey these orders as well.

I do not predict gun grabs but agree that unless we get busy and start fighting, then we will be 2nd place winners--losers.

Anyone that works in LE knows that police don’t always do what we’re told. Just like any other job. Sometimes you pay for it, sometimes you don’t.

[RevolverRob]

The cops that lose their jobs by refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws, can come hang out at my house. I’d rather feed a hundred, hungry, unemployed, but righteous men and women, then have a thousand perfectly willing to follow orders pay me.

[Ed L]

I have seen 5 is enough - here's one: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139801



That forum makes my head hurt. Many of the threads read like a bunch of barflies dispensing bad advice at their favorite watering hole. Look at the number of threads that are locked in their tactics and training section.

The thread linked had some gems like "I carry a Taurus 650 CIA with a speed strip in a pouch." Taurus CIA revolvers? Really?

I think that thread reads like people trying to rationalize a 5 or 6 shot gun because that is all that they can conveniently carry. I understand their situation and there is nothing wrong with that, and it may be enough. But don't pretend because that is all you can carry that it is all you might ever need.

Here is a good link that explains why 5-6 roundsare not a safe margin from the first hand experience of an LEO may have been posted elsewhere on the board: [ur]https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/01/28/seven-rounds/[/url

[GardoneVT]

That forum makes my head hurt. Many of the threads read like a bunch of barflies dispensing bad advice at their favorite watering hole. Look at the number of threads that are locked in their tactics and training section.

The thread linked had some gems like "I carry a Taurus 650 CIA with a speed strip in a pouch." Taurus CIA revolvers? Really?

I think that thread reads like people trying to rationalize a 5 or 6 shot gun because that is all that they can conveniently carry. I understand their situation and there is nothing wrong with that, and it may be enough. But don't pretend because that is all you can carry that it is all you might ever need.

Here is a good link that explains why 5-6 roundsare not a safe margin from the first hand experience of an LEO may have been posted elsewhere on the board: [ur]https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/01/28/seven-rounds/[/url

Those points made, there is no equivocal standard to determine rounds to carry. A Skokie IL Officer armed with a Glock 21 and three mags ended the fight with two rounds left. 37 rounds is no more insurance then 7 in terms of dodging the risk of running dry.

[Ed L]

Those points made, there is no equivocal standard to determine rounds to carry. A Skokie IL Officer armed with a Glock 21 and three mags ended the fight with two rounds left. 37 rounds is no more insurance then 7 in terms of dodging the risk of running dry.

In the example above, 37 rounds gives you 30 more rounds to use on your attacker(s) and 30 more rounds before you run out of ammo.

The officer in the above example would have been dead if he only had been dead if he only had 7 rounds.

As I previously wrote, I understand civilian limitations on what they can effectively conceal due to various factors. But several of Tom Givens' students had to fire more than 7 rounds to defend themselves. So my thought is to try to do the best you can within the limitations of your situation. This includes carrying a gun that is easier to shoot accurately, is a standard sidearm caliber, and one that carries more rounds.

[jc000]

btw: if we can hold out for 5 more years or so, my 16 year old sons generation is somewhere to the right of Ghenghis Khan on the conservatism scale.
These kids are freakin animals when it comers to wanting freedom and melting snowflakes.
I have faith in these kids because i'm around a whole lot of them and they are damned impressive.
They'll happily smother the Millenials in their old folks home bed.

Wish that was the case.

My kids are total fire breathers but all you have to do is look around to see that their numbers are at least matched by equally fervent and radical lefties in their generation.

We've simply lost the demographic battle. The historical foundation of our culture, based on individual human rights, has been eroded beyond repair. There is no way these zoomers can compete against three generations (boomer / Gen X / millennial) who prefer safety to freedom, compliance to independence, equity to ability.

[JRB]

Wish that was the case.

My kids are total fire breathers but all you have to do is look around to see that their numbers are at least matched by equally fervent and radical lefties in their generation.

We've simply lost the demographic battle. The historical foundation of our culture, based on individual human rights, has been eroded beyond repair. There is no way these zoomers can compete against three generations (boomer / Gen X / millennial) who prefer safety to freedom, compliance to independence, equity to ability.

Speak for yourself. I haven't quit yet, and I'm doing my damndest to talk my wife into 3 or 4 kids instead of just two. I take everyone shooting I possibly can; especially young, left leaning sorts.

We haven't lost until we quit trying.

[Yung]

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

[Medusa]

I have seen 5 is enough -
I agree that opposition to gun ownership has a totemic value for those not conservative. Some conservatives feed into that by demanding conservative ideology purity from all gun owners.

Yeah, and these “Genghis Khan” conservative kids and their parents are gonna find some on the left are well-educated, well-armed where that is lawfully relevant, and aren’t gonna comply with their assaults on freedom in the name of conservatism, either.

Turns out freedom, like guns, isn’t partisan.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well said.

Here's a newer discussion of 5 is enough: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/ammo-how-much-is-enough-when-carrying-for-self-defense/#axzz60jqqk7sK

I like Tom Givens analysis of time in the fight based on capacity. Fewer rounds less time in the fight before needing to have a time out.

My point on self-defense was that Heller seemed to focus on SD and shifted SD as the only reason for the 2nd Amend. in the minds of many. The focus on that would and has in lower court decisions made restrictions on the fiction of the modern sporting rifle reasonable as:

1. You only need 5 or 6 - from the link above:


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/ammo-how-much-is-enough-when-carrying-for-self-defense/#ixzz60jrnhVO5


Should one really bother carrying spare ammunition? The simple – and only – answer is emphatically “Yes!” I have heard and read more people than I care to remember state that they only carry a small compact semi-auto or revolver, no spare ammunition, and laughingly say “if I can’t get it done in six rounds, something’s wrong” or “I deserve what I get” or something equally absurd.

or the 3,3,3 rules as a law of nature.

2. Thus the 'modern sporting bang stick' (remember it is not an assault bang bang), is :

Heller:


We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi*tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Now later, Scalia's line and the later discussion of modern evil bad guns has been used to justify the state bans by the lower courts who cite that and self-defense needs.

This is why supporting self-defense as a right was good but had a double edged risk. That risk and the limitations discussions was explicitly put in there to keep Kennedy happy. Here's a good analysis of these issues and why the upcoming NYC case may come out good or bad for us. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/27/20879906/second-amendment-guns-supreme-court-new-york-moot-brett-kavanaugh-nra

How about the demographics war - it has two factors (obviously there could be more):

1. Shift from rural to urban. However, rural does not mean universal acceptance of modern instruments of sporting mass destruction. See Zumbo, Metcalf and Scarborough as 'conservative' banners.

2. The explicit catering to the conservative and mostly white population by the major gun organization (guess who) as the best money making strategy. Outreach was spoken but not really a major goal.

Both factors could be countered but the current leadership horror probably makes that unlikely.

[RoyGBiv]

This is why supporting self-defense as a right was good but had a double edged risk. That risk and the limitations discussions was explicitly put in there to keep Kennedy happy. Here's a good analysis of these issues and why the upcoming NYC case may come out good or bad for us. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/27/20879906/second-amendment-guns-supreme-court-new-york-moot-brett-kavanaugh-nra
The VOX story was an interesting read... Thanks.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

PS - on self-defense:


“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual,” Judge Blake wrote.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

https://www.breachbangclear.com/the-truth-about-rifles-for-hearth-and-home/


The writer, Nick Leghorn, wrote an op-ed on The Truth About Guns (TTAG) in which he says the use of rifles for self-defense is the “dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.” He goes on to describe the difficulties of maneuvering through a house with a rifle, brings up the badly inaccurate ‘rifles shoot through walls’ argument and suggests a pistol provides additional advantages in the form of leaving one hand free.

“Moving through the hallway to get back to your family and protect them won’t be a problem because the handgun is small and light and fits nicely in the waistband of your Fruit of the Looms if need be (it’s a bad idea, but in a pinch it could work)…Even when doing other tasks such as herding your family into your bedroom and out of harm’s way or barricading the door, the pistol is small enough that you don’t need to put it down to lift things or move stuff.”

As you can imagine, I disagree on every level with Judge Blake. I also take exception with the writer’s stance. She is misinformed and uneducated—he should not have that excuse, but we all have our opinions. I have to wonder if he, a staunch Second Amendment proponent with a ready wit (who, so we’re clear, has written some good articles on TTAG), realizes he is unintentionally reinforcing anti-Second Amendment ideas among the credulous with his inaccuracies.

[Suvorov]

PS - on self-defense:

https://www.breachbangclear.com/the-truth-about-rifles-for-hearth-and-home/

I have read mr Leghorn and my thoughts afterwards is often “who is this guy and what background does he have to make such comments?”

The fact that some blogger who writes about home defense is taken as seriously as people who advocate rifles for home defense - people like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, Mas Ayoob, John Lovell, etc; is a huge problem for us.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree. My concern is that 'gun' people sabotage the 2nd Amend. by the kind of commentary, I decry.

[Jeep]

I have read mr Leghorn and my thoughts afterwards is often “who is this guy and what background does he have to make such comments?”

The fact that some blogger who writes about home defense is taken as seriously as people who advocate rifles for home defense - people like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, Mas Ayoob, John Lovell, etc; is a huge problem for us.

It is the classic "one size fits all" fallacy. Now a pistol would probably be the best overall choice in my house--but to resist someone breaking down the door, I'd choose a carbine or a shotgun. And if I weren't a decent pistol shot, I might choose a semi-auto pistol-caliber carbine as my primary weapon.

As with everything in tactics, it all depends about the situation. The house; its location; its inhabitants; where they are; likely bad-guy approaches; where the neighbors are etc. etc. And any weapon you choose is probably going to be a compromise on multiple issues--and it might not prove to be the correct choice.

Saying that rifles aren't good home defense weapons is like saying that since nickel and dime packages are normally not optimal on running plays in football they have no place in the game. Pure pedantic idiocy.

[Jeep]

Yeah, and these “Genghis Khan” conservative kids and their parents are gonna find some on the left are well-educated, well-armed where that is lawfully relevant, and aren’t gonna comply with their assaults on freedom in the name of conservatism, either.

Turns out freedom, like guns, isn’t partisan.

Rapid: On many things I'm pretty conservative (Genghis Khan, by the way, wasn't) but so long as lefties aren't trying to take my guns, nationalize my property and increase our already fairly confiscatory levels of taxation I pose no threat to them (Heck, at my age I pose very little threat to anyone--but that is, sadly, a different story).

However, the local lefties where I live (East Coast) all want to take my guns, nationalize my property, cut my electricity supply, and hugely increase our already fairly confiscatory levels of taxation in order to create a bizarre Utopia that can't exist. My proudly left-wing local state senator, for example, wants to do all that and most especially wants to greatly restrict all the few firearms she doesn't want to ban (admittedly, she almost certainly doesn't know that the legislation she is sponsoring would ban basically all semi-automatic firearms but she doesn't much care about those details.

Anyway, like all the conservatives I know, I mainly want to be left alone by the government so long as I don't hurt anyone. The lefties around here find that to be an intolerable attitude--one they oddly conflate with Fascism (they aren't aware that Mussolini loudly attacked what he called the classical "liberal" view of limited government and was for "everything in the state--nothing outside the state," which is a view with which Bernie Sanders could agree). But, while I might disagree here and there about specific policies, I can get along with anyone who is serious about preserving individual freedom. I have a harder time finding common ground with those who think I should labor half of my life or more for the various entities that govern us, or that my property belongs to the government, or that I should only be able to own those guns approved by government.

[Medusa]

Ok. Meantime, I watch the United States Department of Justice argue, right now, before the Supreme Court, that being lgbt can be a fireable offense, watched the Republican Party adopt a platform against same sex marriage, etc. I watch the government deny the right to serve in the military to trans people. I see exemptions carved out so doctors can refuse treatment to lgbt people in religious grounds. And yet no such exemption exists for people who wish to be free from religion, no capacity to say, your religion offends my conscience, you’re fired. And so on.

Perhaps, therefore, you’ll forgive me for drawing different conclusions about being left alone by the government, or what equal protection under law means, or what the ability to pursue happiness means.

I share with most people here the belief that government cannot fix all or most ills. Guns can’t either; they can’t solve many at all, actually. But there are some situations where each can help, some where each is essential.

I took the Genghis Khan language from a post in this thread; I am aware of who and what he was.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is a difference between the leave me alone conservative/libertarian and the thought/sex police/my religion conservative as Rapid Butterfly points out. Are there thought police on the left - sure. However, one cannot be blind to some of the right being equally concerned with limiting personal liberty.

[Steve m]

Not to bring up the NRA stuff, but what are they doing about this. *I have to be a member for my range*

[jetfire]

I watch the government deny the right to serve in the military to trans people.

Hold on. Of the three examples you cited, this one does not follow. The military can deny people entry for all kinds of reasons, including something as simple as asthma. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBT, but I also agree with a policy on not allowing people who have gender dysphoria to serve in the military.

[wvincent]

Ok. Meantime, I watch the United States Department of Justice argue, right now, before the Supreme Court, that being lgbt can be a fireable offense, watched the Republican Party adopt a platform against same sex marriage, etc. I watch the government deny the right to serve in the military to trans people. I see exemptions carved out so doctors can refuse treatment to lgbt people in religious grounds. And yet no such exemption exists for people who wish to be free from religion, no capacity to say, your religion offends my conscience, you’re fired. And so on.

Perhaps, therefore, you’ll forgive me for drawing different conclusions about being left alone by the government, or what equal protection under law means, or what the ability to pursue happiness means.

I share with most people here the belief that government cannot fix all or most ills. Guns can’t either; they can’t solve many at all, actually. But there are some situations where each can help, some where each is essential.

I took the Genghis Khan language from a post in this thread; I am aware of who and what he was.

Rapid, thank you for posting this. I was not aware that case was being heard today. I believe (and sincerely hope), that based on the makeup of the SC right now, that individual rights will be affirmed over the bias exhibited in the original individual cases.

Having said that, the Military trans issue is certainly a different beast. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm not saying it's wrong either.

Hopefully we will have advanced enough in the near future where we won't even need to have these conversations.

[Medusa]

Hold on. Of the three examples you cited, this one does not follow. The military can deny people entry for all kinds of reasons, including something as simple as asthma. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBT, but I also agree with a policy on not allowing people who have gender dysphoria to serve in the military.

A person who has transitioned doesn’t have gender dysphoria. That’s why they transition, and the purpose of it, for most. Let a person meet a standard and serve if they can meet it, is my view. That’s freedom and it’s standards, too. Right now, a fully transitioned and documented trans person cannot serve, is my understanding. Regardless of what they can do. I’m not good with that.

Above, someone said, or implied, they aren’t a threat to lgbt people if they aren’t a physical threat. And that just isn’t so, when one votes for people who mean to do harm to some kinds of persons, looking the other way or excusing it.

A poster above asked about the nra. I joined so I can become a member of a particular range. It’s my understanding they don’t require it after initially joining. Maybe yours has a similar policy.

[JRB]

Hold on. Of the three examples you cited, this one does not follow. The military can deny people entry for all kinds of reasons, including something as simple as asthma. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBT, but I also agree with a policy on not allowing people who have gender dysphoria to serve in the military.

^This. In most combat/deployed/etc environments it's a significant hardship just to keep enough separate space available for females. Adding a third option or mixing those options up WILL be exceptionally disruptive to good order & discipline, as well as morale, and it'd be utilized by a very disproportionately small population of potential service members, each of which can be expected to demand wildly different accommodations/interaction exceptions/etc. The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.

I can say right now, from the operational environment as I type this, nobody here gives a shit if you're M/F or which way you swing or what flavor you are so long as you're professional, take care of your job, and take care of your subordinates. Seriously. We don't have time for the bullshit and it gets stomped out FAST if it ever pops up. It's honestly the fastest way to end your career.


A person who has transitioned doesn’t have gender dysphoria. That’s why they transition, and the purpose of it, for most. Let a person meet a standard and serve if they can meet it, is my view. That’s freedom and it’s standards, too. Right now, a fully transitioned and documented trans person cannot serve, is my understanding. Regardless of what they can do. I’m not good with that.

Above, someone said, or implied, they aren’t a threat to lgbt people if they aren’t a physical threat. And that just isn’t so, when one votes for people who mean to do harm to some kinds of persons, looking the other way or excusing it.

A poster above asked about the nra. I joined so I can become a member of a particular range. It’s my understanding they don’t require it after initially joining. Maybe yours has a similar policy.

If we're strictly speaking binary, the rub there is so long as there's differing physical standards for males and females, transitioning M-F drops your requirements severely and transitioning F-M is a very serious hardship. There is also the transitioning period and all of the accommodations required there and the net result is not beneficial to the military. Ultimately, from the perspective of the mission, it is an expensive, lengthy process that sidelines a Soldier for a significant amount of time and the result doesn't make them a better (or worse) Soldier. On potential recruits that have already transitioned, well, there's a lot of medical complications that need to be accommodated and civilian EMS is having a very real challenge keeping up with that. At the very least, a Soldier would need to wear a medical alert tag identifying them as trans at all times, and even though that tag is the same one we use for people who wear contacts or have allergies, the trans folks I know would genuinely take exception to having to be identified in any way as trans.
The bottom line is that transitioning is about the individual, and the military is not about the individual it is about the team and about the mission. Maybe, as technology advances in that field and society changes, that'll be something to revisit. It wasn't all that long ago that females would be stuck in secretary/nursing/clerical positions exclusively and now they're out here and kitted up just like the dudes. Give it time.

The Army is rolling out a new PT program that is job based, meaning Soldiers in more physically demanding jobs will require higher performance and vice versa, and that will change the composition of a lot of units. I have a feeling that most of the females currently in the Army will not be able to pass that requirement and they will re-implement gender differentiated PT grading standards. Honestly I do not think that is fair - 240lbs worth of Soldier and gear weighs 240lbs and gravity doesn't change for chromosome pairs.

[Medusa]

^This. In most combat/deployed/etc environments it's a significant hardship just to keep enough separate space available for females. Adding a third option or mixing those options up WILL be exceptionally disruptive to good order & discipline, as well as morale, and it'd be utilized by a very disproportionately small population of potential service members, each of which can be expected to demand wildly different accommodations/interaction exceptions/etc. The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.

I can say right now, from the operational environment as I type this, nobody here gives a shit if you're M/F or which way you swing or what flavor you are so long as you're professional, take care of your job, and take care of your subordinates. Seriously. We don't have time for the bullshit and it gets stomped out FAST if it ever pops up. It's honestly the fastest way to end your career.

If someone has transitioned fully and is documented, it’s not a mix and match or some third option. Yes there are those who might be mix and match....that is a specific problem not answered by an a priori solution.

I appreciate your service and that of every single soldier on this board (and off it), and that won’t ever change, despite our differences on some issues.

[jetfire]

^This. In most combat/deployed/etc environments it's a significant hardship just to keep enough separate space available for females. Adding a third option or mixing those options up WILL be exceptionally disruptive to good order & discipline, as well as morale, and it'd be utilized by a very disproportionately small population of potential service members, each of which can be expected to demand wildly different accommodations/interaction exceptions/etc. The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.

I can say right now, from the operational environment as I type this, nobody here gives a shit if you're M/F or which way you swing or what flavor you are so long as you're professional, take care of your job, and take care of your subordinates. Seriously. We don't have time for the bullshit and it gets stomped out FAST if it ever pops up. It's honestly the fastest way to end your career.

Also sitting in an operational environment (waves from AFCENT) another issue is access to medication. My understanding of the trans-process is that even if someone successfully accomplishments gender reassignment surgery, they still have to take a pretty robust schedule of medication in order to maintain the hormone level of their desired gender, right?

We have problems in theatre getting enough flu vaccine at times, so to my mind denying entry to someone who needs to take constant medication is a resonable restriction. Plus, there's the very simple fact that serving in the military isn't a right, it's a privilege and not everyone is elegible for that.

[Medusa]

Also sitting in an operational environment (waves from AFCENT) another issue is access to medication. My understanding of the trans-process is that even if someone successfully accomplishments gender reassignment surgery, they still have to take a pretty robust schedule of medication in order to maintain the hormone level of their desired gender, right?

We have problems in theatre getting enough flu vaccine at times, so to my mind denying entry to someone who needs to take constant medication is a resonable restriction. Plus, there's the very simple fact that serving in the military isn't a right, it's a privilege and not everyone is elegible for that.

No, that’s not really right. It can be no more difficult than taking blood pressure or birth control or cholesterol drugs. One suspects some serve who take these meds daily or weekly. Is it not so ?

[JRB]

If someone has transitioned fully and is documented, it’s not a mix and match or some third option. Yes there are those who might be mix and match....that is a specific problem not answered by an a priori solution.

I appreciate your service and that of every single soldier on this board (and off it), and that won’t ever change, despite our differences on some issues.

My apologies for editing instead of simply replying - My more complete response ended up above yours.

And thank you, sincerely, for your support. It's all about the right to have those differences and still be friendly neighbors, if you ask me.


No, that’s not really right. It can be no more difficult than taking blood pressure or birth control or cholesterol drugs. One suspects some serve who take these meds daily or weekly. Is it not so ?

Depends on the ramifications of not having that medication for 30-45 days plus. I can tell you from my experience in Pre-mobilization screening at Ft Hood just a few months ago, they were reassigning folks for very small stuff. In some cases, they were being medically discharged from the Army entirely.
Blood pressure meds, antidepressants, etc all generally got you kicked off the deployment in a real hurry. Even a history of having been prescribed some antidepressants in the past 5 years got people kicked off even though they hadn't been on it in 1 or 2 years.

I damn near couldn't even enlist myself because of an old injury.

[Medusa]

No, that’s not really right. It can be no more difficult than taking blood pressure or birth control or cholesterol drugs. One suspects some serve who take these meds daily or weekly. Is it not so ?

Further. I strongly suspect there are women serving who have had oophorecromy or hysterectomy or have low estrogen who take hormones and still serve, and men with low testosterone who take it. Is that not so? The regimen is essentially the same.

[Jeep]

Ok. Meantime, I watch the United States Department of Justice argue, right now, before the Supreme Court, that being lgbt can be a fireable offense, watched the Republican Party adopt a platform against same sex marriage, etc. I watch the government deny the right to serve in the military to trans people. I see exemptions carved out so doctors can refuse treatment to lgbt people in religious grounds. And yet no such exemption exists for people who wish to be free from religion, no capacity to say, your religion offends my conscience, you’re fired. And so on.

Perhaps, therefore, you’ll forgive me for drawing different conclusions about being left alone by the government, or what equal protection under law means, or what the ability to pursue happiness means.

I share with most people here the belief that government cannot fix all or most ills. Guns can’t either; they can’t solve many at all, actually. But there are some situations where each can help, some where each is essential.

I took the Genghis Khan language from a post in this thread; I am aware of who and what he was.

Come on, Rapid. You're a lawyer. On your first point you know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says nothing about sexual identity and there is no reasonable construction of the legislative intent that can get you there. Your solution is to get the statute amended-but first ask yourself if you really want that result. Because currently the law says that "being straight can be a fireable offense" every bit as much as "being lgbt" can. That is, both can in those states that don't have a law on that subject. And strangely enough we read very little about wholesale firings of either lgbt or straight people even in the states without a statute.

As for denying the right to serve in the military to "trans people" that has always been the case except for about a year in the second Obama administration in which women were told that biological men who identified as trans would be moving into their berthing areas and taking showers with them and that any objection could be subject to disciplinary charges. Like many of the members here, I'm a vet. Like all vets of my generation, I was told (and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated) that there is no "right" to serve in the military. Everything is supposed to be subject to the needs of the service--and there is of course good reason for that. Personally I cannot accept that some guy can decide he is really a woman and then demand to go sleep and shower with the biological women. But that's just my personal view. As a vet I cannot understand why the massive disruption this will cause--military women are going to push back hard when this happens to them--should be incurred for the sake of a very few people who believe their real sex is different from their actual sex. Nor can I understand why the department of defense should be hit with massive medical costs--over $100,000 for transgender surgery and tens of thousands per year for hormones--for this. No one else gets those kinds of medical costs--if you are injured on duty and will have massive medical costs going forward you are medicaled out within weeks. The military is most definitely not a social welfare agency.

As for doctors refusing treatments for religious grounds--you bet they can and it would undermine--not add to--personal freedom if that were not the case. Doctors who believe that abortion involves killing a living human being should not be forced to commit murder even if others don't think it is murder. Doctors who object to transsurgery should not be required to perform it. Forcing other people to violate their own consciences just because one has the power to do so is a classic case of modern totalitarianism.

As for not being able to fire people on religious grounds, again you know the answer to that. That is specifically in the text of the 1964 Act. But it is also the case that no one can be fired for being an atheist. That is the parallel situation. Now personally I'd be willing to ament the 64 act to get rid of both sides of that. If someone hates religious people, fine, they can fire them. Similarly the religious people could fire them. Both would be being stupid, but we could easily live with such a law. However, those laws have nothing to do with the lack of laws forcing people to violate their consciences. Do you really want to enact that into law?

Because while I can live with anyone willing to let me live my own life, I will not comply with a government regime that attempts to force me to violate my own conscience, no matter how misguided/stupid/weird others thinks that conscience is. I hope that on reflection you agree that doing so is wrong, and threatens all of us because all our consciences are at risk.

As for Genghis Khan, I withdraw my remark and apologize. I should have realized that you understood why the term is misplaced here.

[jetfire]

No, that’s not really right. It can be no more difficult than taking blood pressure or birth control or cholesterol drugs. One suspects some serve who take these meds daily or weekly. Is it not so ?

High blood pressure is a disqualifying medical condition for entry into the armed forces. If you develop it while you're in that's different, but for initial accession it's usually a no-go.

I can't speak to people on TRT or women taking estrogen supplements, because I'm not in medical and I don't know how something like that would be handled. I do know of dudes who voluntarily went on TRT because of "low-T" and the USAF doesn't really care because it's a voluntary therapy in their eyes.

[Duke]

I’m pro doing what ever you want in life.


Until you tell me I have to support you regardless, and that there should be a law making it so.


Then I’m opposed to all of it even though I supported it at first.

[HCM]

I have read mr Leghorn and my thoughts afterwards is often “who is this guy and what background does he have to make such comments?”

The fact that some blogger who writes about home defense is taken as seriously as people who advocate rifles for home defense - people like Paul Howe, Kyle Lamb, Mas Ayoob, John Lovell, etc; is a huge problem for us.

To answer your question he is an IT security guy who shoots some competition and worked for a now defunct local gun store.

[TheNewbie]

How did this thread develop into a discussion trans people joining the military?


You know how good we have it in this country? People are SERIOUSLY discussing trans people joining the military.


Whether your support the trans movement, have pity on them, or you are against it, at least have the self awareness to know that we have so few worries we are now able discuss this.

[Medusa]

Yeah. And as a lawyer and a woman, I’ve read price Waterhouse and similar cases and believe they rightly interpret what sex discrimination really is.

Your statement about costs is just absurdly and demonstrably false. Estrogen and t are cheap. Surgery is not hundreds of thousands of dollars, closer to 20. But the current prohibition exists even if someone undertook that expense on their own and healed on their own. In combination, these points demonstrate the falsity of the expense argument. As for disruption, civil rights are always disruptive to certain people. You tell me who those people usually are.

I know of a documented case in which a trans woman died for lack of treatment in an emergency situation because she was trans, because responding emts ridiculed her instead of treating her.

I’m gonna guess that you’ve never had services denied because of your religion. I’m gonna guess you’ve never faced job discrimination for being straight or religious. I’m gonna guess you’ve never been denied treatment because of your religion or orientation. I’ve experienced all of these, and seen it happen to others. It’s not about forcing someone to perform surgeries, which I don’t agree with either. It’s about equal protection and dignity under law.

If I can fire religious people, or pass them over for promotion, deny them medical care because my conscience says they are dangerously deluded, then we have parity. I don’t actually think the answer is to protect no one, but I sure as hell don’t accept the answer is, you’re protected and others aren’t.

The taxation is theft claptrap is just that, and this isn’t the time or place for engagement on that.



Come on, Rapid. You're a lawyer. On your first point you know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says nothing about sexual identity and thest sre is no reasonable construction of the legislative intent that can get you there. Your solution is to get the statute amended-but first ask yourself if you really want that result. Because currently the law says that "being straight can be a fireable offense" every bit as much as "being lgbt" can. That is, both can in those states that don't have a law on that subject. And strangely enough we read very little about wholesale firings of either lgbt or straight people even in the states without a statute.

As for denying the right to serve in the military to "trans people" that has always been the case except for about a year in the second Obama administration in which women were told that biological men who identified as trans would be moving into their berthing areas and taking showers with them and that any objection could be subject to disciplinary charges. Like many of the members here, I'm a vet. Like all vets of my generation, I was told (and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated) that there is no "right" to serve in the military. Everything is supposed to be subject to the needs of the service--and there is of course good reason for that. Personally I cannot accept that some guy can decide he is really a woman and then demand to go sleep and shower with the biological women. But that's just my personal view. As a vet I cannot understand why the massive disruption this will cause--military women are going to push back hard when this happens to them--should be incurred for the sake of a very few people who believe their real sex is different from their actual sex. Nor can I understand why the department of defense should be hit with massive medical costs--over $100,000 for transgender surgery and tens of thousands per year for hormones--for this. No one else gets those kinds of medical costs--if you are injured on duty and will have massive medical costs going forward you are medicaled out within weeks. The military is most definitely not a social welfare agency.

As for doctors refusing treatments for religious grounds--you bet they can and it would undermine--not add to--personal freedom if that were not the case. Doctors who believe that abortion involves killing a living human being should not be forced to commit murder even if others don't think it is murder. Doctors who object to transsurgery should not be required to perform it. Forcing other people to violate their own consciences just because one has the power to do so is a classic case of modern totalitarianism.

As for not being able to fire people on religious grounds, again you know the answer to that. That is specifically in the text of the 1964 Act. But it is also the case that no one can be fired for being an atheist. That is the parallel situation. Now personally I'd be willing to ament the 64 act to get rid of both sides of that. If someone hates religious people, fine, they can fire them. Similarly the religious people could fire them. Both would be being stupid, but we could easily live with such a law. However, those laws have nothing to do with the lack of laws forcing people to violate their consciences. Do you really want to enact that into law?

Because while I can live with anyone willing to let me live my own life, I will not comply with a government regime that attempts to force me to violate my own conscience, no matter how misguided/stupid/weird others thinks that conscience is. I hope that on reflection you agree that doing so is wrong, and threatens all of us because all our consciences are at risk.

As for Genghis Khan, I withdraw my remark and apologize. I should have realized that you understood why the term is misplaced here.

[Suvorov]

To answer your question he is an IT security guy who shoots some competition and worked for a now defunct local gun store.

Well - those are bonafide credentials for sure!

I’m sure it sure makes him proud that his opinions are making himself a SME in the eye of judges over people with far more credentials but as far as I’m concerned - it’s terrifying.

[Suvorov]

As someone who can claim at least a Warren-level ancestry to Ghengis Kahn - I would opine that his position on the Trans issue has no relevance on the issue of scary looking semi-automatic rifles that most on the left want forcibly removed from the possession of American citizens.

[Medusa]

It got there because there’s a large number of self styled conservatives who say they believe in liberty but back a political party taking the actions identified. If a person believes trans people being a priori denied the opportunity serve, full stop,is ok, that doesn’t alter what I said about the United States government taking the position in court being lgbt being a fireable offense, nor does it change the fact that anti lgbt discrimination is still legal in more than half the states.

It’s easy to be complacent when you’ve got yours. It’s easy to delude oneself on what counts as liberty and what doesn’t.

All of us here are students of the pistol, we are pro 2a, and against Beto and those who support confiscation, standard cap mag bans, etc.



How did this thread develop into a discussion trans people joining the military?


You know how good we have it in this country? People are SERIOUSLY discussing trans people joining the military.


Whether your support the trans movement, have pity on them, or you are against it, at least have the self awareness to know that we have so few worries we are now able discuss this.

[TheNewbie]

So if the Left wins the trans war, thus hurting society and trans people, then what will the next battle be?


I have an idea, how about limited government? You don't want to hire me because I am white, Catholic, conservative and eat more Mexican food than Santa Anna? Fine, don't hire me! Big deal.


People are sooooo pathetic and weak. Yes I have been pathetic and weak at times in life, but at least I can see it, acknowledge it and not try to destroy others with it.



Guns, trans, gay, abortion, taxes, liberty, blah blah blah blah blah blah. The left has no wisdom, the right has no balls. When someone from the right finally gets balls, the rest of the right develops battered women's syndrome and they protect the abusers of the country.


I love people, truly do. However, if my wife left me tomorrow for a dashingly handsome Mexican Tele novella star, I am going to the desert mountains for a year to detox from the insanity.

[GardoneVT]

How did this thread develop into a discussion trans people joining the military?


You know how good we have it in this country? People are SERIOUSLY discussing trans people joining the military.


Whether your support the trans movement, have pity on them, or you are against it, at least have the self awareness to know that we have so few worries we are now able discuss this.

Your post trivializes a very legitimate concern. We aren’t a nation by and large of civil rights. We’ve become a gang who cite the Constitution so long as it aligns with our personal viewpoints and biases.
Conservatives (again, by and large) are OK with civil liberties- so long as it includes the gun safe and tax office. They’d see nothing wrong with turning America into a Christian Iran, complete with legal enforcement of Biblical principles by the authorities. If your lifestyle doesn’t match the King James Bible, you’re opting out of the American Dream in this view.

The flip side is the left- espousing concern for the environment, personal expression and community support. Broad support for lifestyle and social justice freedoms.But fuck off with that individualistic nonsense. Like guns , commerce & free enterprise ?Error 404- American Dream not found holmes.

The second totem is rightly called out as hypocrisy. It is similarly so to want firearms freedoms but to marginalize LGBT individuals. Either believe in civil rights or not- you don’t get to stand for freedom and then opt for tyranny when your personal values disagree.

Insofar as military integration goes, that’s a topic best discussed as it’s own thread.

[TheNewbie]

Your post trivializes a very legitimate concern. We aren’t a nation by and large of civil rights. We’ve become a gang who cite the Constitution so long as it aligns with our personal viewpoints and biases.
Conservatives (again, by and large) are OK with civil liberties- so long as it includes the gun safe and tax office. They’d see nothing wrong with turning America into a Christian Iran, complete with legal enforcement of Biblical principles by the authorities. If your lifestyle doesn’t match the King James Bible, you’re opting out of the American Dream in this view.

The flip side is the left- espousing concern for the environment, personal expression and community support. Broad support for lifestyle and social justice freedoms.But fuck off with that individualistic nonsense. Like guns , commerce & free enterprise ?Error 404- American Dream not found holmes.

The second totem is rightly called out as hypocrisy. It is similarly so to want firearms freedoms but to marginalize LGBT individuals. Either believe in civil rights or not- you don’t get to stand for freedom and then opt for tyranny when your personal values disagree.

Insofar as military integration goes, that’s a topic best discussed as it’s own thread.


You know different conservatives than I do. Different Christians as well?


Iran? Dude that is simply a foolish and vile statement.


Secularism (which the Left makes worse) USA style, my God look at the wisdom we have here (in general not your post). It's infected everything from the universities to religion to otherwise sensible people.


Oh and we all want to legislate our personal values on others. ALL of us. All.....

[Jeep]

Yeah. And as a lawyer and a woman, I’ve read price Waterhouse and similar cases and believe they rightly interpret what sex discrimination really is.

Your statement about costs is just absurdly and demonstrably false. Estrogen and t are cheap. Surgery is not hundreds of thousands of dollars, closer to 20. But the current prohibition exists even if someone undertook that expense on their own and healed on their own. In combination, these points demonstrate the falsity of the expense argument. As for disruption, civil rights are always disruptive to certain people. You tell me who those people usually are.

I know of a documented case in which a trans woman died for lack of treatment in an emergency situation because she was trans, because responding emts ridiculed her instead of treating her.

I’m gonna guess that you’ve never had services denied because of your religion. I’m gonna guess you’ve never faced job discrimination for being straight or religious. I’m gonna guess you’ve never been denied treatment because of your religion or orientation. I’ve experienced all of these, and seen it happen to others. It’s not about forcing someone to perform surgeries, which I don’t agree with either. It’s about equal protection and dignity under law.

If I can fire religious people, or pass them over for promotion, deny them medical care because my conscience says they are dangerously deluded, then we have parity. I don’t actually think the answer is to protect no one, but I sure as hell don’t accept the answer is, you’re protected and others aren’t.

The taxation is theft claptrap is just that, and this isn’t the time or place for engagement on that.

If EMT's ridicule someone instead of saving him or her they are going to have a very hard time justifying that under freedom of religion--and I very much doubt that was their defense. My guess is that they would say they were too late to do any good or something like that.

Your guess about services being denied because of my religion is wrong. They have been. I thought it was weird and I moved on. Job discrimination for being religious? You bet. It is more common than you think. A partner who disliked my religion required me to routinely work on Sunday morning precisely because he knew that was the one time I wanted off. I left that job a short while later. (And, of course, I could have sued because religion is expressly covered in the 1964 act but what real good would that do and I have told others to do the same. Why work for people who are jerks?) At the same time I have never seen anyone who faced job discrimination for being gay. I know it happens and I don't doubt it happened to you, and of course being fired for being straight also happens. Still good workers are hard to get and intelligent bosses don't fire people for non-job-related reasons. Stupid bosses do, but who wants to work for a stupid boss? Life is too short.

Again, on the religion issue keep in mind that you are protected. Being a non-believer is protected under the 1964 Act. Again, I would be willing to see the religion part of the 64 Act go--indeed I'd be willing to see everything but race go and return to normal Anglo American legal principles. (The reason race is different is because of the legacy of government-required segregation; without that I do not believe that provision of the 64 Act would have been justified). Like you I do not agree with an approach in which I am protected and others aren't. As for being "dangerously deluded" you are indeed entitled to your own opinion on that, an opinion I value because you understand why the Beretta 92 is a far better pistol than most think. But personally I think my biggest delusion does not have to do with religion but with continuing to kid myself into believing that the profession of law is socially useful. And I also tend to think that the belief that the supernatural cannot exist is little better than a delusion because even a bit of metaphysical thought will show that the natural cannot explain creation. That doesn't, of course, mean God exists, but it does caution in favor of a certain modesty when reaching conclusions.

I am glad that you are not in favor of using government power to force people to violate their consciences. It is something that puts all of us at risk.

As for taxes, I haven't argued, and would not seriously argue that all taxation is theft. Obviously, in many parts of the world, the completely arbitrary taxes levied by agents of the local kleptocracy are no different than theft. We are not there yet in the US for the most part, though countless poor homeowners have lost their houses in the US to rapacious governments and equally rapacious purchasers, often operating as part of a crooked scheme. Property tax bills and the follow up notices fail to get delivered, the house is sold for back taxes (in a rigged auction where it is sold for precisely the amount of those back taxes) and a home owner magically becomes a renter. It is a wide enough scheme in the US that you might have seen it in your own practice.

But that does not mean that normal taxes do not present moral issues. For example I was recently (and angrily) confronted by a public school teacher who wanted a big raise that was not forthcoming because the taxpayers voted down an equally big tax hike. I pointed out that the people voting it down were primarily retired homeowners who could not afford thousands more in property taxes and she told me that they had a moral duty to move out of the houses they had owned for perhaps 50 years since "if they can't afford the taxes that are needed they have not right to live in those homes." It was, to my mind, and odd view of morality and property.

So, too I think is the idea that is prevalent in some quarters that people should be required to pay total taxes well in excess of half their incomes. I live in a high-tax state. Anyone making $100,000 or more will pay over 40% (and often over 50%) of their income in federal, state, social security, medicare and local taxes on their incomes as well as property and sales taxes. In other words, the various institutions of government take around half of their income. It isn't theft per se because we still have representative institutions, but it is a far greater burden than what was required at the time of the Constitution, and I find it extremely difficult to justify--especially because despite this huge haul of money, every year my state falls further in the red and the unfunded state pensions continue to grow. The cry "tax the rich more" (they are taxed more; many are paying over 60%) is both innumerate (there is not enough money there to take care of the problem and besides all the real rich have moved or are moving to Florida) and I think fundamentally immoral (the assumption that all of them received their money illegally or immorally lacks any evidentiary foundation and is a simply appeal to envy and greed).

Taxes might be the price we pay for civilization but they also can be a device that destroys the economy while allowing the elites in control of the government to amass great fortunes. As you know, both have happened repeatedly in history and I submit that both are looking increasingly likely now.

[Jeep]

Your post trivializes a very legitimate concern. We aren’t a nation by and large of civil rights. We’ve become a gang who cite the Constitution so long as it aligns with our personal viewpoints and biases.
Conservatives (again, by and large) are OK with civil liberties- so long as it includes the gun safe and tax office. They’d see nothing wrong with turning America into a Christian Iran, complete with legal enforcement of Biblical principles by the authorities. If your lifestyle doesn’t match the King James Bible, you’re opting out of the American Dream in this view.



Gardone: I know a lot of Christians. I'm a Christian. I don't know any--or know of any significant church--that wants to turn us into Iran or wants to turn the bible into a statute book. (In fairness, many of our laws do reflect our religious heritage, but those are generally laws that are widely supported by everyone. For example, the bible says "thou shall not steal" and pretty much everyone is in agreement with that, including those who think the idea of God is something that is no more likely than a giant flying spaghetti monster).

Now I have heard of a very small group of Christians who want to turn the Bible into the country's rule book, but I have never met any of them and as far as I can tell they are only a handful. It's a big country and there are lot of nutty groups with nutty--and often totalitarian or authoritarian ideas). And, of course, that would generate an intra-Christian argument because the majority Christian opinion going back to the Council of Jerusalem (see the Book of Acts for more on that) in around 50 AD is that Christians are not bound by the laws set forth in the old testament, which I think that handful talks about applying.

I also know a lot of conservatives and I have never met one who wants to enact the Bible. What many do want is to return to the Constitution, including not only the Bill of Rights but to the idea that Congress has only enumerated, not plenary, powers. That is my own view as well. Like all the conservatives who are Christian that I know, I believe we are a multi-religious country that includes people of no religion at all and I do not want the government to force the religious views of any on the others. Live and let live. If I can convert you, that's fine. If you can convert me, that's fine too. But there is no place for the government in all that except to be neutral and keep the peace.

My guess is that every other conservative on this board would agree with that.

[Medusa]

Jeep. We agree in many ways. Specifically, about beretta 92s. :cool:

Let me just add a few things I hope we can agree on.

One, it’s easier to say, why work for jerks when you are worth a certain amount, can afford to stop working there, and, crucially, when there are viable alternatives within the context of one’s means. That is often not the case, and it’s especially often not the case for people in groups who are discriminated against. The whole, if you don’t like it, move position and its variants are therefore, in my experience, sophistry at best.

Two, agnosticism is in my view an appropriate response to the vastness of the universe. But one can and must decide for herself, which belief systems seem worthy of consideration; and then she must inquire and examine them. She may, in the course of that examination, rule some out without ruling any of them in. That’s what I did full time before law school. I share your valuation of epistemic humility, and believe as well that we have epistemic duties in the formation and maintenance of our beliefs.

Cheers.

[GardoneVT]

Gardone: I know a lot of Christians. I'm a Christian. I don't know any--or know of any significant church--that wants to turn us into Iran or wants to turn the bible into a statute book. (In fairness, many of our laws do reflect our religious heritage, but those are generally laws that are widely supported by everyone. For example, the bible says "thou shall not steal" and pretty much everyone is in agreement with that, including those who think the idea of God is something that is no more likely than a giant flying spaghetti monster).

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.”-
Former US Attorney General Sessions.

“"... a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God's law."

-Rick Santorum


“…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”
-Michael Huckabee

I’ve cited these quotes for a reason. These men are politicians: ergo, their statements are intended to appeal to the masses of a given group. In this case, it’s conservative voters. If the majority of conservatives truly cared more about individual liberty over their chosen beliefs these quotes wouldn’t exist- because they’d be horrified, not encouraged.

It is disingenuous to pretend that most conservatives would somehow object to living in a Christian theocracy, so long as said government kept their hands off the guns and businesses. I’m not staying every single conservative feels so- but just like gun control is totemic to the liberal cause, enacting a Christian-based American state is so for the conservatives. Iran is structured to be a religious republic after the Koran- there are a non-zero count of conservatives who’d be just fine with a similar moral enforcement structure on the US, so long as the book was the Bible instead. It is nonsense to pretend this notion doesn’t exist.

[TheNewbie]

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.”-
Former US Attorney General Sessions.

“"... a country that is given rights under the god, under god, not any god, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that God that gave us rights also gave us a responsibility, and laws, by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God's law."

-Rick Santorum


“…I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view…”
-Michael Huckabee

I’ve cited these quotes for a reason. These men are politicians: ergo, their statements are intended to appeal to the masses of a given group. In this case, it’s conservative voters. If the majority of conservatives truly cared more about individual liberty over their chosen beliefs these quotes wouldn’t exist- because they’d be horrified, not encouraged.

It is disingenuous to pretend that most conservatives would somehow object to living in a Christian theocracy, so long as said government kept their hands off the guns and businesses. I’m not staying every single conservative feels so- but just like gun control is totemic to the liberal cause, enacting a Christian-based American state is so for the conservatives. Iran is structured to be a religious republic after the Koran- there are a non-zero count of conservatives who’d be just fine with a similar moral enforcement structure on the US, so long as the book was the Bible instead. It is nonsense to pretend this notion doesn’t exist.


No what you are saying is disingenuous.

First we were largely founded on Judeo-Christian values, secondly adhering to certain biblical values does not make a nation a theocracy. You know like "thou shalt not murder".

Very few Christians I know would be ok with what Iran does to those "outside of God's law". Again, maybe you know some different ones. I just think you are out of touch with the reality of Christianity in America. You really should be concerned by leftism's influence of Christianity and Judaism. Not the traditional religion's influence on America. It wasn't secular wise men who made the greatest contributions to forming the freest country in history.

[Jay Cunningham]

It is disingenuous to pretend that most conservatives would somehow object to living in a Christian theocracy, so long as said government kept their hands off the guns and businesses. I’m not staying every single conservative feels so- but just like gun control is totemic to the liberal cause, enacting a Christian-based American state is so for the conservatives. Iran is structured to be a religious republic after the Koran- there are a non-zero count of conservatives who’d be just fine with a similar moral enforcement structure on the US, so long as the book was the Bible instead. It is nonsense to pretend this notion doesn’t exist.

I would LOVE to live in a Catholic Monarchy.

Alas... the European royals have all either been murdered and/or marginalized by revolutionaries.

*sigh*

But the reality is that I live in a nominal republic founded by Freemasons, humanists, and Enlightenment darlings. Oh sure, throw a handful of Protestants into the mix. Of course, 243 years later it looks a little different.

Oh, for the record, I’m neither “conservative” nor “libertarian”.

[Jay Cunningham]

First we were largely founded on ̶ ̶J̶u̶d̶e̶o̶-̶C̶h̶r̶i̶s̶t̶i̶a̶n̶ Catholic values, secondly adhering to certain biblical values does not make a nation a theocracy.

Fixed it for you.

Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive.

In 1215 nobles, clergymen, and commoners rose up against King John and forced him to accept and seal what has come to be known as the Magna Carta.

In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne).

American law is based off of English common law. The Catholic Church permeated the culture and was the arbiter of morals. Protestants didn’t show up until 1517. Hence, America is de facto Catholic.

Boom; mike drop.

[TheNewbie]

Fixed it for you.

Since 1189, English law has been a common law, not a civil law system; in other words, no comprehensive codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive.

In 1215 nobles, clergymen, and commoners rose up against King John and forced him to accept and seal what has come to be known as the Magna Carta.

In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne).

American law is based off of English common law. The Catholic Church permeated the culture and was the arbiter of morals. Protestants didn’t show up until 1517. Hence, America is de facto Catholic.

Boom; mike drop.



I am a serious Catholic, but the founders were largely rooted in the Hebrew bible. American's owe the Jews and the English a big thank you at the very least. While the Catholic's spread Christianity to Europe, and advanced the Western tradition in many ways, it was Protestant Christians who founded the US.


I think it took the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants (with "secular" government thrown in) to make this country what it is. They just had different roles in doing it.

[Suvorov]

Well, at least we will all be able to have lively political, religious, and philosophical discussions should we be fortunate enough to find ourselves in the same gulag.

I look forward to meeting you all!

[blues]

Well, at least we will all be able to have lively political, religious, and philosophical discussions should we be fortunate enough to find ourselves in the same gulag.

I look forward to meeting you all!

I hope they have potatoes instead of beets.

[Jay Cunningham]

I hope they have potatoes instead of beets.

Me too.

[blues]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2018/09/11/TELEMMGLPICT000174172241_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-cZgJ2M1SOi2p5-857wdFQQsn7ijl1lepxOmkMJUPq4.jpeg?imwidth=1400

"Oh boy, these new sledgehammers are awesome."

"Yeah, I just put a 'gadget' on mine."

"Where's Newbie?"

"Looking for a taco truck."

"So, like I was saying earlier, all this was once predicated on Catholic law before the last election..."

"Would you consider that sledgehammer tactical or hard use?"

[Jay Cunningham]

This whole thread is seemingly about LEOs and military who won’t comply with commands to confiscate firearms.

What if the commands go as follows:


Confiscate firearms from these white supremacists.

Confiscate firearms from these neo-nazi antisemites.

Confiscate firearms from these extreme right-wing Christian terror groups.


It doesn’t matter if the labels aren’t true.

Will LEOs and military comply with the above commands?

[blues]

Probably.

[WobblyPossum]

I hope they have potatoes instead of beets.

You’ll get neither and like it.

[HCM]

This whole thread is seemingly about LEOs and military who won’t comply with a commands to confiscate firearms.

What if the commands go as follows:


Confiscate firearms from these white supremacists.

Confiscate firearms from these neo-nazi antisemites.

Confiscate firearms from these extreme right-wing Christian terror groups.


It doesn’t matter if the labels aren’t true.

Will LEOs and military comply with the above commands?

Your question is hysterical nonsense. It’s just like the idiots who think a president can ban guns by fiat via executive order.

On what legal basis ?

You can label anyone as anything. Unless they are committing a crime no one is confiscating anything.

Save your wannabe Yoda bullshit.

This comes back to the same reason there are not designated domestic terrorist groups or why its not a crime to belong to NAMBLA - freedom of speech, freedom of association etc.

[willie]

So if the Left wins the trans war, thus hurting society and trans people, then what will the next battle be?


I have an idea, how about limited government? You don't want to hire me because I am white, Catholic, conservative and eat more Mexican food than Santa Anna? Fine, don't hire me! Big deal.


People are sooooo pathetic and weak. Yes I have been pathetic and weak at times in life, but at least I can see it, acknowledge it and not try to destroy others with it.



Guns, trans, gay, abortion, taxes, liberty, blah blah blah blah blah blah. The left has no wisdom, the right has no balls. When someone from the right finally gets balls, the rest of the right develops battered women's syndrome and they protect the abusers of the country.


I love people, truly do. However, if my wife left me tomorrow for a dashingly handsome Mexican Tele novella star, I am going to the desert mountains for a year to detox from the insanity.


No disrespect intended, sir, but this makes no sense to me.

[Greg]

I support the eradication of beets.

[TheNewbie]

Well, at least we will all be able to have lively political, religious, and philosophical discussions should we be fortunate enough to find ourselves in the same gulag.

I look forward to meeting you all!



I'll bring the dreams of Mexican food....comrade.

[jetfire]

I would LOVE to live in a Catholic Monarchy.

I feel like there have been several pretty decent sized wars throughout history to prevent those sorts of things. "Preventing theocracies" of any flavor is definitely something I'd get out of bed to shoot people in the face for.

[Clusterfrack]

Deleted.

[P30]

Then again, the US isn't a first world European country. We really don't have the same tradition of "shut up and do what you are told by your betters", or even "argue, but obey!



Americans also feel very strongly that gun ownership is a big part of their personal liberty. That's also not going away quickly or easily.

Americans do not do the Good German thing all that well.


So many of the real good Germans ended up in PA and TX...
More and more Germans understand that "shutting up and do what you are told by your betters" is dumb. In the elections this month in Saxonia and Brandenburg, many voted AfD in order to protest against the government. Saxonia and Brandenburg are two of the sixteen federal states in Germany.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Sachsen_2019
43029

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Brandenburg_2019
43030

So far so good.

But now the head of the Brandenburg government wants to form a coalition with the Green party (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Brandenburg_2019#Koalitionsm%C3%B6 glichkeiten_nach_der_Wahl) in order to keep the power. The Green party ("Grüne") is extremely strong when it comes to telling you what to do and what not to do. They want to take away the guns of the German gun owners more than any other party.

[Cypher]

I support the eradication of beets.

My wife makes a killer tuna casserole with beets as a side dish. I do not support the eradication of beets

[Bucky]

This whole thread is seemingly about LEOs and military who won’t comply with a commands to confiscate firearms.


You must of skipped a page or two.

[Jay Cunningham]

I feel like there have been several pretty decent sized wars throughout history to prevent those sorts of things. "Preventing theocracies" of any flavor is definitely something I'd get out of bed to shoot people in the face for.

I believe you.

[JAD]

I would LOVE to live in a Catholic Monarchy.

I probably don’t have to point out that we all do live in that particular Kingdom. We also live within borders drawn by men (mostly not very good men), under a system that fosters real plurality. Gloria enim Dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio Dei; and we are best served by a society that permits man to freely advance toward that goal. The thumb is unfortunately firmly on the secular scale right now; we are so obsessed with a malformed perception of ‘freedom’ that we have forgotten what freedom is for. I’m sure it will get better.

[olstyn]

I feel like there have been several pretty decent sized wars throughout history to prevent those sorts of things. "Preventing theocracies" of any flavor is definitely something I'd get out of bed to shoot people in the face for.

^
This, and I'm 40 years old and am not now and have never been a soldier, but that shit is worth fighting and possibly dying for, as it always has been.


I probably don’t have to point out that we all do live in that particular Kingdom. We also live within borders drawn by men (mostly not very good men), under a system that fosters real plurality. Gloria enim Dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio Dei; and we are best served by a society that permits man to freely advance toward that goal. The thumb is unfortunately firmly on the secular scale right now; we are so obsessed with a malformed perception of ‘freedom’ that we have forgotten what freedom is for. I’m sure it will get better.

That's an "interesting" perspective. If I'm reading you correctly, you think society would be best served by being controlled by laws set down by the Catholic church? If so, my response has to be something along the lines of "how about we NOT do that," to be followed up by standing beside jetfire should it become necessary. To be clear, I take no issue with the establishment and practice of any religion which does not harm or seek to control others, but as soon as a religion tries to become a government (or a government allows itself to be controlled by a religion), there's a major problem.

[Jay Cunningham]

You must of skipped a page or two.

I may have. I skimmed the part about transexuals, though.

[Hambo]

No disrespect intended, sir, but this makes no sense to me.

You have summed up this entire thread. From AWB hearing to transgender theocracy, this thread has it all, and I don't mean that in a good way.

[Jay Cunningham]

I probably don’t have to point out that we all do live in that particular Kingdom. We also live within borders drawn by men (mostly not very good men), under a system that fosters real plurality. Gloria enim Dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio Dei; and we are best served by a society that permits man to freely advance toward that goal. The thumb is unfortunately firmly on the secular scale right now; we are so obsessed with a malformed perception of ‘freedom’ that we have forgotten what freedom is for. I’m sure it will get better.

A republic is certainly a legitimate form of government; it's even a "good" form of government.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

- John Adams

Hopefully nobody is ever ordered to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

[JAD]

That's an "interesting" perspective. If I'm reading you correctly, you think society would be best served by being controlled by laws set down by the Catholic church? If so, my response has to be something along the lines of "how about we NOT do that," to be followed up by standing beside jetfire should it become necessary. To be clear, I take no issue with the establishment and practice of any religion which does not harm or seek to control others, but as soon as a religion tries to become a government (or a government allows itself to be controlled by a religion), there's a major problem.

Nope, I did a bad job of expressing myself. Jay said he’d like to live in a Catholic monarchy, and I said we do — the Kingdom is at hand. I meant that we also live in a fallen world, and a subset of that is a nation; and in that nation, we fallen men have created a pluralistic society where people are reasonably free. That’s a reasonably good thing, since God wants us to choose Him, and in a truly free society that happens in a natural way. I qualify it because our society has become confused about what freedom is for. Freedom is not a good, in and of itself. It is a condition that permits good. If we begin to think that freedom is the object rather than the means, then we become self deterministic and start making some really bad choices.

[olstyn]

Nope, I did a bad job of expressing myself. Jay said he’d like to live in a Catholic monarchy, and I said we do — the Kingdom is at hand. I meant that we also live in a fallen world, and a subset of that is a nation; and in that nation, we fallen men have created a pluralistic society where people are reasonably free. That’s a reasonably good thing, since God wants us to choose Him, and in a truly free society that happens in a natural way. I qualify it because our society has become confused about what freedom is for. Freedom is not a good, in and of itself. It is a condition that permits good. If we begin to think that freedom is the object rather than the means, then we become self deterministic and start making some really bad choices.

Thanks for the clarification. I sit somewhere on the continuum between agnostic and outright atheist, so I can't agree regarding self-determinism being a bad thing, but at least now I don't think you want to [forcibly] create a theocracy. :)

[Suvorov]

More and more Germans understand that "shutting up and do what you are told by your betters" is dumb. In the elections this month in Saxonia and Brandenburg, many voted AfD in order to protest against the government. Saxonia and Brandenburg are two of the sixteen federal states in Germany.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Sachsen_2019
43029

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Brandenburg_2019
43030

So far so good.

But now the head of the Brandenburg government wants to form a coalition with the Green party (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landtagswahl_in_Brandenburg_2019#Koalitionsm%C3%B6 glichkeiten_nach_der_Wahl) in order to keep the power. The Green party ("Grüne") is extremely strong when it comes to telling you what to do and what not to do. They want to take away the guns of the German gun owners more than any other party.

I am curious - do you still see a big divide between the former East and West Germany politically? Are those who suffered under communism more or less likely to want to return to an all powerful central government? Do you see those who have known nothing but privilege and abundance wanting some utopian ideal like seems to be what is happening in the US? How much of a political swing have you gotten from the influx of Islamic migrants? Has Germany been affected by the Craft Beer craze?

[OlongJohnson]

Has Germany been affected by the Craft Beer craze?

Very important question.

Back in 2002-2003, my Gen-X German friends were referring to Oktoberfest as the Italian Culture Festival due to the predominant attendance by vacationing southerners.

[GardoneVT]

Freedom is not a good, in and of itself. It is a condition that permits good. If we begin to think that freedom is the object rather than the means, then we become self deterministic and start making some really bad choices.

The concept that self determination is “improper” when there’s a religious deity governing existence is the logic behind much evil in the Middle East (and elsewhere) .

[blues]

Very important question.

Back in 2002-2003, my Gen-X German friends were referring to Oktoberfest as the Italian Culture Festival due to the predominant attendance by vacationing southerners.

Well, I guess what goes around comes around. When I was in Paris, it seemed that I heard as much German as French. It's a (relatively) small continent and travel between the countries is easily accomplished.

[Suvorov]

The concept that self determination is “improper” when there’s a religious deity governing existence is the logic behind much evil in the Middle East (and elsewhere) .

Spoken like a true secularist! Of course there is a complete lack of owning up to the hundreds of millions killed during the last century by militant secularism - AKA Communism.


Not discounting the evils committed by Muslims following their holy books to the letter or even Christians who have taken their God's teaching way out of context (still looking in the New Testament for where Jesus instructs his disciples to convert by the Sword and stone those who don't follow the law), simply pointing out that a group of people need not believe in a religious deity to commit acts beyond comprehension.


To Quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn - "Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened."

[blues]

To Quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn - "Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened."

And vice versa, it seems.

(Having no dog in this fight and no religion I can comfortably call home, I'm merely calling it as I see it from my limited vantage point. The truth of it is beyond my pay grade, apparently.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Theodicy and the lack of reliable modern direct communication from deities is well known as a problem for those postulating the validity of their religion.

A CNN debate between Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Odin, Zeus or whomever - probably not going to happen. Chthulhu is upset as he didn't reach 2% of believers in the polls.

Some believers have to resort to rational (in their eyes) arguments because of the problems I mentioned. Others reject the need for any evidence or logic as faith is sufficient.

What does this have to do with assault weapons?

[blues]

Theodicy and the lack of reliable modern direct communication from deities is well known as a problem for those postulating the validity of their religion.

A CNN debate between Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Odin, Zeus or whomever - probably not going to happen. Chthulhu is upset as he didn't reach 2% of believers in the polls.

Some believers have to resort to rational (in their eyes) arguments because of the problems I mentioned. Others reject the need for any evidence or logic as faith is sufficient.

What does this have to do with assault weapons?


https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wuwm/files/styles/small/public/201401/David_and_Goliath_fried_dough.jpg

"You have to ask?"

[TheNewbie]

Theodicy and the lack of reliable modern direct communication from deities is well known as a problem for those postulating the validity of their religion.

A CNN debate between Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Odin, Zeus or whomever - probably not going to happen. Chthulhu is upset as he didn't reach 2% of believers in the polls.

Some believers have to resort to rational (in their eyes) arguments because of the problems I mentioned. Others reject the need for any evidence or logic as faith is sufficient.

What does this have to do with assault weapons?



Well no one is really sure.

Though secularism does not create wisdom based societies, and they attack on weapons is not an attack based on wisdom.

[blues]

What this thread needs is "A Jew, a Catholic and an atheist walk into a bar..."

Thankfully we can all agree on the 2 Amendment, to a greater or lesser degree. (By "all" I mean the dwellers of this particular den of iniquity.)

[jetfire]

https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wuwm/files/styles/small/public/201401/David_and_Goliath_fried_dough.jpg

"You have to ask?"

I am pretty sure I had the children's book that illustration came from.

[Suvorov]

https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wuwm/files/styles/small/public/201401/David_and_Goliath_fried_dough.jpg

"You have to ask?"

So given that this thread is seriously off track (in face we have gone from LeMans to The Baja 500) I am wondering - how many here subscribe to the theory that Goliath was in fact a Nephilim?

[JAD]

I am pretty sure I had the children's book that illustration came from.

I know for a fact I did, and I was a hardcore atheist for 19 years and a milquetoast semideist for 24. Go figure — handing your kid a book on religion and letting them figure it out for themselves would intuitively seem like the best plan.

[JAD]

So given that this thread is seriously off track (in face we have gone from LeMans to The Baja 500) I am wondering - how many here subscribe to the theory that Goliath was in fact a Nephilim?

Goliath was, and is, a hell of a symbol.

[JRB]

https://i.imgur.com/YDtpX2K.gif

[JAD]

Theodicy and the lack of reliable modern direct communication from deities is well known as a problem for those postulating the validity of their religion.

Yes, and the behavior of helium balloons poses great challenges to those who postulate the theory of gravity. All the developed monotheistic western religions have a number of reasonable theodicies, each of which make sense in the context of their theologies. None of them just shrug their shoulders and say, jeez, I don’t know, we can’t really explain the problem of evil, it’s a stumper. I’m not familiar with any atheist philosopher who uses it at the foundation of their argument against the existence of God, because the fruit of the assumptions behind the several theodicies hang significantly lower.

[blues]

So given that this thread is seriously off track (in face we have gone from LeMans to The Baja 500) I am wondering - how many here subscribe to the theory that Goliath was in fact a Nephilim?

I think he was a giant from Turkmenistan.

[Joe in PNG]

It's pretty much a general consensus here that weapons are just tools, and the people who use them for bad ends are the ones who are evil- not the weapons.
The idea that weapons cause people to do bad things is fairly silly.

One can make a similar argument about belief systems- it's not the religion, but the people who use and twist it for bad ends that are evil. Very few people are do evil just for the kick of doing evil. They like to have some overriding moral goal in order to justify their evil actions, even if it goes against the actual express tenants of the belief system they profess.

People are really good at justifying bad behavior. It was once thought that if we got rid of religion, then people wouldn't have it as an excuse to do bad things. But, people just latched on to various flavors of Communist belief to do far more terrible things to people.

People also seem to have this flaw that they think by finding and exposing the sins and shortcomings of others, they are then justified in comparison. The modern Left leaning Cancel Culture for instance is an atheistic Means of Grace. It's not a whole lot different from old time religious Puritanism or the Inquisitions of old.

[Totem Polar]

I am pretty sure I had the children's book that illustration came from.

Is that where your affection for ancient, open slide pea-shooters came from?


… I am wondering - how many here subscribe to the theory that Goliath was in fact a Nephilim?

Subscribe? I dunno about that, but I’d for sure be open to discussing the theory over a beer and warm burn barrel when you and I get sent to the west coast gun buff gulag.

[jetfire]

Is that where your affection for ancient, open slide pea-shooters came from?

My religious education likely has a lot to do with my affection for revolvers.

[Medusa]

I wrote a long response but stowed it. Theodicy is what I studied and wrote all of my undergrad and graduate theses on. But this is a firearms board. Suffice to say that assertions, no matter how confidently made, are not the same as merit, and that there is a whole lot to study if one wants to master the subject. One can understand religious teachings at a high level and reject them; and while you may be unfalsifiably told, as I was often enough in my 16 years of catholic education, that this is evidence “your soul is corrupt,” in the end it’s just like firearms training. You need to do the work yourself and draw the best conclusions you can. Then you must live your life in accordance with those conclusions, and stay open to new evidence.

The freedom to do that matters to me, and I will defend it with every resource I have, as to me, that is the real American Way. The 2a is a big part of that and long may it be so. The 2a is not partisan. Scary “weapons of war” are not partisan.

Hey, here’s an unofficial YouTube vid of the song that pops into my head every time I say American Way.

https://youtu.be/lCi7r1cb3M0

[Joe in PNG]

We may argue and disagree about a lot of things here, but I can pretty much guarantee that we all share the common belief that there is absolutely no need for "A Princess Bride" remake.

[Eric_L]

I wrote a long response but stowed it. Theodicy is what I studied and wrote all of my undergrad and graduate theses on. But this is a firearms board. Suffice to say that assertions, no matter how confidently made, are not the same as merit, and that there is a whole lot to study if one wants to master the subject. One can understand religious teachings at a high level and reject them; and while you may be unfalsifiably told, as I was often enough in my 16 years of catholic education, that this is evidence “your soul is corrupt,” in the end it’s just like firearms training. You need to do the work yourself and draw the best conclusions you can. Then you must live your life in accordance with those conclusions, and stay open to new evidence.

The freedom to do that matters to me, and I will defend it with every resource I have, as to me, that is the real American Way. The 2a is a big part of that and long may it be so. The 2a is not partisan. Scary “weapons of war” are not partisan.

Hey, here’s an unofficial YouTube vid of the song that pops into my head every time I say American Way.

https://youtu.be/lCi7r1cb3M0

Yes, you have to do the work yourself. That really applies to any endeavor of any significance in life. When I was whitewater canoeing I was always interested in tandem. It tended to let me off the hook. I have to fight the urge to coast. Now I did my part on derailing this thread.


https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-6.htm

[blues]

It's pretty much a general consensus here that weapons are just tools, and the people who use them for bad ends are the ones who are evil- not the weapons.
The idea that weapons cause people to do bad things is fairly silly.

One can make a similar argument about belief systems- it's not the religion, but the people who use and twist it for bad ends that are evil. Very few people are do evil just for the kick of doing evil. They like to have some overriding moral goal in order to justify their evil actions, even if it goes against the actual express tenants of the belief system they profess.

People are really good at justifying bad behavior. It was once thought that if we got rid of religion, then people wouldn't have it as an excuse to do bad things. But, people just latched on to various flavors of Communist belief to do far more terrible things to people.



I'm sorry. My response, to anything I or others may have done that was improper, is always: cherchez la femme.





(Since I don't want to incur the wrath of any women who may or may not think my remark was appropriate...I was only kidding. Well, maybe.)

[RevolverRob]

Well, at least we will all be able to have lively political, religious, and philosophical discussions should we be fortunate enough to find ourselves in the same gulag.

I look forward to meeting you all!

Y'all have fun. As an outspoken, gun owning, freedom-loving, academic, who has a history of mobilizing people to action - I'll be among the first murdered, regardless of who grabs hold of the reins. People with books, guns, and the willingness to speak don't usually last very long. But that's okay. I'm still gonna take as many of those oppressing motherfuckers with me as possible.


I feel like there have been several pretty decent sized wars throughout history to prevent those sorts of things. "Preventing theocracies" of any flavor is definitely something I'd get out of bed to shoot people in the face for.

Since it was mentioned up thread, as someone whose ancestor was an advisor to King John and advised him to sign the Magna Carta (said ancestor's name is listed among the advisors in the preamble) - to maintain church and religious rights and avoid absolute monarchal power, avoiding a theocracy is one of those things I'd get out of bed to face shoot people for, too.

Especially since the other side of my family tree were, enslaved, raped, murdered, and generally oppressed under a different Catholic Monarch.

Yea, I'm not up for a theocracy in general.

Though I think Jay was being facetious...

[olstyn]

We may argue and disagree about a lot of things here, but I can pretty much guarantee that we all share the common belief that there is absolutely no need for "A Princess Bride" remake.

Amen to that. Without Andre the Giant and Mandy Patinkin, it just wouldn't be the same, no matter how good a job was done with it otherwise.

[jetfire]

Though I think Jay was being facetious...

Hard to tell. Every since he used anti-semetic symbols in some online posts, I just take everything he says at face value and assume he means it.

[blues]

Hard to tell. Every since he used anti-semetic symbols in some online posts, I just take everything he says at face value and assume he means it.

I never noticed the symbols, must've missed those posts, but there was a period a while back where I thought he was doing some Jew-baiting in his posts which I took offense toward.

I don't presume to know what's in his heart except for what he puts plainly...such as his devotion to his chosen faith.

(And I'd prefer to be wrong about the posts I found offensive.)

[Jay Cunningham]

43052

43053

43054

[blues]

No worse that "Jesus Saves", "Moses Invests", I suppose.

People need to take themselves a little less seriously.

[Ed L]

I stopped following this thread when someone mentioned that silly website "The (un)Truth About Guns."

But I would like to say that I do appreciate the diversity of opinions that makes this place interesting to read and keeps it alive and thriving while other message boards are dying or dead.

[Jay Cunningham]

No worse that "Jesus Saves", "Moses Invests", I suppose.

People need to take themselves a little less seriously.

43056

[TheNewbie]

So a few things.


Revolver people, please go view my post in the Security Six thread. Muchas gracias por venir.

Just placed an order for Alambres con chorizo y fajita sin cebolla. Me gusta cebolla, pero no puedo comerla.

For lunch I had Mexican food.



This is the most interesting place on the net, and when we all get thrown in the gulag, we are going to have the most interesting gulag in the land.

[blues]

So a few things.


Revolver people, please go view my post in the Security Six thread. Muchas gracias por venir.

Just placed an order for Alambres con chorizo y fajita sin cebolla. Me gusta cebolla, pero no puedo comerla.

For lunch I had Mexican food.



This is the most interesting place on the net, and when we all get thrown in the gulag, we are going to have the most interesting gulag in the land.

https://i.imgflip.com/3bupwo.jpg

[Ed L]

Well, since we are on this topic, I am surprised no one has brought up the Buddy Christ from the movie Dogma:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FigprdcBGA

[P30]

I am curious - do you still see a big divide between the former East and West Germany politically?
The east Germans still remember the bad communist government and its propaganda. Therefore many of them can not so easily be fooled by the Merkel government and mainstream media. When Merkel spoke in public in east Germany trying to collect votes, several times many people shouted "Merkel muss weg!" (= "Merkel must leave!"). Merkel does not speak anymore in public in east Germany.

Most west Germans are politically more naive and can be fooled easier.


Are those who suffered under communism more or less likely to want to return to an all powerful central government?
I don't think so.


Do you see those who have known nothing but privilege and abundance wanting some utopian ideal like seems to be what is happening in the US?
Yes. In rich cities, the Green party gets more votes than elsewhere. The Green party wants to receive even more migrants than Merkel and wants to restrict the German automotive industry, our most successful and most important industry. And they want to take away the guns of the German gun owners.


How much of a political swing have you gotten from the influx of Islamic migrants?
Already a big one. Have a look at the diagram in my previous post (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?38688-Sparks-fly-at-assault-weapons-ban-hearing-on-Capitol-Hill&p=935870&viewfull=1#post935870). In the election in Saxonia this month, AfD has gained 18% more votes than 5 years before. AfD is the right-wing party.


Has Germany been affected by the Craft Beer craze?
Unlike many Germans, I don't like soccer and don't like beer. So I can't tell you much about that.

Dear Suvorov, you are very interested in Germany. Why is that so?

[Duke]

I stopped following this thread when someone mentioned that silly website "The (un)Truth About Guns."

But I would like to say that I do appreciate the diversity of opinions that makes this place interesting to read and keeps it alive and thriving while other message boards are dying or dead.

I like diversity except for when discussions of such have fucking absolutely nothing to do with a given topic until someone injects it into the issue.

Or whatever happened in this - not at all about awb hearing - thread.

[jetfire]

I like diversity except for when discussions of such have fucking absolutely nothing to do with a given topic until someone injects it into the issue.

Or whatever happened in this - not at all about awb hearing - thread.

I mean, I've sort of enjoyed this thread. Every now and then you've got to have a proper dumpster fire. Keeps the weaklings away.

[blues]

I mean, I've sort of enjoyed this thread. Every now and then you've got to have a proper dumpster fire. Keeps the weaklings away.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/pNy4tRGxf7pAubshzoaM9g-320-80.jpg

"I'll allow it."

[Duke]

. Keeps the weaklings away.

Like thrusters and max effort rows in same workout for time.

[jetfire]

Like thrusters and max effort rows in same workout for time.

That just sounds like torture with extra steps

[LOKNLOD]

Man...

This wasn't what I expected at all when catching up with this thread. Or maybe exactly what I should have expected?


Either way, taking my own faith, and hope that others might adopt it, completely out of the picture --

Judeo-Christian religious values, the 2nd Amendment, and vaccination are all a lot alike in their role in society.

As long as a critical mass of the population voluntarily adheres to them, they provide a security blanket that allows a minority of individuals to ignore or shun them (which is good - freedom is good). Until there's a critical mass swinging the pendulum the other way, it usually becomes apparent why they had value in the first place.

Fish don't know they need water til you throw 'em in the boat.

[Bergeron]

Yeah, I want sparks if we’re fighting for the Constitution.

I had a great covo years back with a woman fighting for ACLU-Science standards in my home state, and I wished so hard that her intelligence and passion could be focused toward the 2nd Amendment and self-defense rights.

[Yung]

Resuming from my last post in this thread on page, 5, the following is a little about the two relevant hearings last week that I believe it is in everyone's best interest to read and listen to. I am sure I am not the only one who finds the choice of words in titles of past hearings of the judiciary committee just as curious as these two.

Nadler statement.
https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-nadler-statement-hearing-protecting-america-assault-weapons

Feinstein statement, which includes details on what is in the ban.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/feinstein-statement-on-house-assault-weapons-ban-hearing

https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/protecting-america-assault-weapons


The Honorable Nan Whaley
Mayor, Dayton, OH
"I’m here on behalf of the citizens of Dayton to ask you to keep weapons like this off of our streets. I’m here to ask you to do something."

Dr. Alejandro Rios-Tovar
Resident Physician, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso
"I wish I could have done more and I blame myself for her death...If this injury had been caused by a smaller firearm, she may have had a chance at survival. But there was absolutely nothing I could do to fix that kind of devastating injury."

Dr. RaShall Brackney
Chief of Police, Charlottesville Police Department
"National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)"
"We advocate for limiting high capacity ammunition magazines to ten rounds and the regulation of new semiautomatic assault weapons...Law enforcement plays a central and critical role in preventing gun violence and solving crime."

Ms. Kristen Rand
Legislative Director, Violence Policy Center
"Today’s militarized gun industry is focused primarily on developing and marketing increasingly lethal assault weapons as well as handguns for concealed carry."

Ms. Amy Swearer
Senior Legal Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation
"While it is certainly the case that I believe public policy should be based on an accurate assessment of reality, a defense of semi-automatic rifles is more than an exercise in data and technical functions. At the end of the day, this is about my mother."

Ms. Dianna Muller
Founder, The DC Project
"As a police officer, I enforced the laws you created and I had a front row seat to the justice system. It's frustrating to see the revolving door where prosecutors reduce or drop charges, and judges give minimal sentencing. I find it ironic in today's effort of criminal justice reform that you are taking steps to be lenient on people who have actually committed crimes against laws you created, while at the same time you are proposing more laws, like the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, that turn ordinary, law abiding citizens into criminals."

*Please read and/or watch her statement, if no one else's on the witness panel.*
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190925/110001/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-MullerD-20190925.pdf

Mr. David Chipman
Senior Policy Advisor, Giffords Law Center
"It is simply unacceptable that military-style and high-powered weapons are so readily available to civilians today and that they increasingly lead to the loss of innocent lives. We can and should take action to make our communities safer from these weapons of war."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMSNx5YOx8

[Yung]

https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/community-responses-gun-violence-our-cities

Panel One


The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay
Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives
"H.R. 3435, the Local Public Health and Safety Protection Act would allow the Department of Justice to provide grants to States that reverse their ill-advised firearms pre-emption laws and allow local governments to take reasonable measures to address gun violence on their streets."

The Honorable Robin Kelly
Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives
"These laws, like universal background checks, are supported by more than 90 percent of Americans and save lives, specifically the lives of our nation’s young people...As is the bill I recently introduced, H.R. 4116, the Prevent Gun Trafficking Act which would make straw purchases a federal crime. Straw purchases are not just a problem in Chicago, every urban community is challenged with guns used in crimes that are purchased illegally."



Panel Two


Mr. Reggie Moore
Director, Office of Violence Prevention, on behalf of City of Milwaukee Health Department
"Many of the factors that increase the likelihood of violence fall into the category of social determinants of health with the presence of violence being a social determinant itself. It is time to address violence as the health crisis that it is and activate our nation's healthcare and public health systems to work with communities and other sectors to end this epidemic."

Ms. Amber Goodwin
Executive Director, Community Justice Action Fund & Community Justice Reform Coalition
"I could spend hours running down lists of our loved ones of color, including those most marginalized in this country such as our trans brothers and sisters of color, yet issues impacting communities of color and especially women of color aren’t given the urgency, resources, or political weight to even come close to making a difference. The Reauthorization of VAWA H.R. 1585 would address the gaps in the law concerning firearms and domestic violence, and this is also homicide prevention."

Mr. Eduardo Bocanegra
Senior Director, Heartland Alliance
"And we know that exposure to violence and trauma can make people react in unpredictable ways that may not be appropriate to the situation. Much of the gun violence in Chicago, for example, is the result of split-second decisions, by traumatized individuals who have grown up surrounded by violence. I know this from personal experience: I witnessed violence and domestic abuse at home when I was 6 years old. By the time I was 13, I witnessed my first homicide. I was 17 when my friend died in front of me. By the time I was 18, I was sentenced to 29 years in prison for murder. "

Mr. Maj Toure
Founder, Black Guns Matter
"We do not have a “gun violence” issue in our urban centers, but we do have a host of other issues that coupled with the lack of de-escalation tools, leads to violence. What we are experiencing is not an issue with guns per se, but more of a lack of ability to navigate trauma. If we are going to address violence in Urban America, we need to address violence of all kinds. Singling out firearms is a tremendous misstep in SOLVING this issue and I hope my testimony today will assist in redirecting our focus."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIhtI77wUgc

[Suvorov]

Dear Suvorov, you are very interested in Germany. Why is that so?

Thank you for the thoughtful answers. It seems as though we are fighting the same battles in our respective counties. I pray the German people the same success I pray we have.

As for my interest in Germany? How can anyone consider themselves knowledgeable about the world political landscape without a firm knowledge of what is going on in Germany?

Frankly, I consider your comments far more valuable than anything I might read in the Economist.

Danke!