Networks of licensed shooters ... denying access to [sic bad] individuals

[Chance]

I should note for the record that I'm encouraged to see this amount of tough talk on 2A from people. If even 10% of it is actually legit, and not just "random person talks like a tough guy on the Internet about what he's gonna do when they come for his guns", we're probably in good shape.

I don't believe "they" are coming for our guns for two reasons. You're the one suggesting we lose our right to not only self-defense, but the mere physical contact with our own lawfully possessed property, when someone else commits a crime. And I'm sure you're going to side step this by saying, "Well that's not confiscation!" Please.

People are not computers, which means they'll not behave as dictated by protocols. And it's not like those computer protocols are routinely circumvented, and/or intentionally disrupted, right? I guess that's why the Internet is such a safe place.

What's your background with computers, anyways?

[AtomicToaster]

“Genuine compromise: both sides give up some things.”

There are certain things a man or woman should never compromise on. The Bill of Rights does a pretty good job enumerating a few of them.

Licensure, be it governmental or social, has a tendency to create groups of Good Ol’ Boys that impose their own interests on others.

This plan, at its core, relies on wise and well-meaning committees. For that reason, there is no fixing it and no reason to consider it.

ETA: I appreciate the thought and work that went into this plan, but I think the author should spend some time examining his/her core principles.

[Casual Friday]

I should note for the record that I'm encouraged to see this amount of tough talk on 2A from people. If even 10% of it is actually legit, and not just "random person talks like a tough guy on the Internet about what he's gonna do when they come for his guns", we're probably in good shape.

Make no mistake about it, I and most everyone here would tell you straight to your face just how dumb this idea is. Shit like this from "pro gun" people is why I swear, drink whiskey, and get kicked off Facebook pages for droppin' truth bombs on motherfuckers.

[Ed L]

The reason I'm here is that someone posted a link to this specific thread in the github repo issue queue where we're talking about this proposal.

For firearms, I have an LMT LM8 DI, LMT LM8MWS, and another LMT piston gun, various pistols (a Springfield XM Mod.2, Ruger MKIII, Colt 1911, and others)... but again, any discussion should be about the proposal. I'm not interested in gun forum penis-measuring.

The reason I asked about what guns you owned, how long you have been into guns, whether you had any formal training, whether you had a ccw permit was not to engage in "gun forum penis-measuring" but to get an idea of your background as a firearm owner. Your background relates to how you came up with your proposal.

If I were to go to an plane owners messageboard and post something that most of the people there found objectionable and ridiculous, people might ask me about my flying experience, people might ask me about my experience owning planes, whether I had a pilot's license, whether I had ever taken any flying lessons, etc.

BTW, I don't even know what GitHub is, for whatever that is worth.

[Joe in PNG]

The thing is, we have been compromising on the Second Amendment since 1934.

[UNK]

I do. I don't think he is trustworthy.

Let's test this: How many in this here Pistol Forum Network think Stokes should have to give up his guns?

[RevolverRob]

Food for thought.

The government decides this network approach is a solid idea.

The KKK sets up a network, because, seriously the KKK is already a network. Each member vouching for one another. It isn't formally called, "KKK Gun Owners Network" and there are no written rules of the network that they will not vouch for non-white members, but it is the KKK.

Now down the street the Crips setup the "Crips and Bloods Counter-KKK Gun Owners Network", because they can't join the KKK GON. Down the street from them the local chapter of those upstanding choir boys named MS-13 do the same. So on and so forth.

Meanwhile over in Suburbia Avenue with Soccer Mom, John Smith, the Joneses, found the Christian Gun Owners Network which allows Father Jim, the friendly neighborhood pedophile to get a gun, but not Zamir, the Ukrainian Jew, or Farouk, the local Sikh, to get one.

Do you not see how this would end poorly? I so rarely support the idea of a centralized authority, but fuck it, give me the BATF(U) and Congress any day over your (not-so) friendly local gun owners network.

In fact new rule about the Licensed Gun Owner Networks: You don't talk about Licensed Gun Owner Networks.

[Chance]

Aww.... Did Stokes stop playing? But I yearn for my intellectual and moral superior to correct my wayward notions of individual rights! Whatever shall we do if left with our own freedoms?!

Stokes! Save us!

[Ed L]

Boardmembers made some very astute observations in this thread.

Here was another thing from the proposal on the guy's webpage:

"A shooter can change networks with no penalty once every 7 years ."

I don't even know where to begin. It's like Obamacare and health insurance, but much worse.

[elsquid]

Aww.... Did Stokes stop playing? But I yearn for my intellectual and moral superior to correct my wayward notions of individual rights! Whatever shall we do if left with our own freedoms?!

Stokes! Save us!

So I clicked on the embedded URL, saw Stokes' website, and...

Jon Stokes apparently is the same Jon Stokes that wrote this a little while back[1]:

Why the NRA hates smart guns

So Mr Stokes, while I'm quite critical of your 'network' proposal, I think you deserve a lot of credit for that article. Good job there!

And now... back to the flaming!



-- Michael


[1]( https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ng-perspective )