The Liberal Gun Club Forum

tom wrote:Bernie lost my vote with the, climate change causes terrorism thing, now his latest thing with control of guns, well as a registered Independent, i have decided to go full republican this election cycle, when and if, the DNC removes it's collective head from it's ass, i may give the party some thought again.

I never was for Clinton, she carries to much baggage, and none of it good, i had hope in Sanders, but he destroyed it, maybe it's a good thing, now rather than later.

I will cast my lot with the devil on the right this time, next time, the devil on the left might entice me, we shall see.

I will still be here with you great people because you are a fun group of guz nutz, politics aside.

modernhamlet wrote:The logic chain that takes one from climate change to terrorism isn't that hard to follow, honestly.

And does anyone actually think Bernie would make gun control of any sort a priority once in office?

modernhamlet wrote: And does anyone actually think Bernie would make gun control of any sort a priority once in office?

RurouniKakita wrote:

tom wrote:Bernie lost my vote with the, climate change causes terrorism thing, now his latest thing with control of guns, well as a registered Independent, i have decided to go full republican this election cycle, when and if, the DNC removes it's collective head from it's ass, i may give the party some thought again.

I never was for Clinton, she carries to much baggage, and none of it good, i had hope in Sanders, but he destroyed it, maybe it's a good thing, now rather than later.

I will cast my lot with the devil on the right this time, next time, the devil on the left might entice me, we shall see.

I will still be here with you great people because you are a fun group of guz nutz, politics aside.

Voting republican seems very much in the line of cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

You should absolutely vote how you want but if a republican gets into office the ACA will be repealed meaning at the very least insurance companies can deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and proceed to drop those that joined when they couldn't deny benefits based on that. Millions of people who are now able to see a doctor or get medical help without the risk of going bankrupt and many will be stuck in jobs they hate because it provides health benefits and they can't risk losing those because they might not be able to get insurance again if they leave. Not to mention the almost certainty of another war and a big step in the direction of turning the country to a theocracy.

modernhamlet wrote:The logic chain that takes one from climate change to terrorism isn't that hard to follow, honestly.

And does anyone actually think Bernie would make gun control of any sort a priority once in office?

I don't think any of them will but it is disheartening to see him say these things. I hold out hope though as it hasn't made it on to his campaigns website unlike Hillary's.

hoosier8 wrote:

RurouniKakita wrote:

tom wrote:Bernie lost my vote with the, climate change causes terrorism thing, now his latest thing with control of guns, well as a registered Independent, i have decided to go full republican this election cycle, when and if, the DNC removes it's collective head from it's ass, i may give the party some thought again.

I never was for Clinton, she carries to much baggage, and none of it good, i had hope in Sanders, but he destroyed it, maybe it's a good thing, now rather than later.

I will cast my lot with the devil on the right this time, next time, the devil on the left might entice me, we shall see.

I will still be here with you great people because you are a fun group of guz nutz, politics aside.

Voting republican seems very much in the line of cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

You should absolutely vote how you want but if a republican gets into office the ACA will be repealed meaning at the very least insurance companies can deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and proceed to drop those that joined when they couldn't deny benefits based on that. Millions of people who are now able to see a doctor or get medical help without the risk of going bankrupt and many will be stuck in jobs they hate because it provides health benefits and they can't risk losing those because they might not be able to get insurance again if they leave. Not to mention the almost certainty of another war and a big step in the direction of turning the country to a theocracy.

modernhamlet wrote:The logic chain that takes one from climate change to terrorism isn't that hard to follow, honestly.

And does anyone actually think Bernie would make gun control of any sort a priority once in office?

I don't think any of them will but it is disheartening to see him say these things. I hold out hope though as it hasn't made it on to his campaigns website unlike Hillary's.

The ACA is a clusterfuck and I think, even if it is repealed, something else will take it's place. Once you create a new entitlement, it is impossible to get rid of it.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Oh, I got so into the last Machiavellian post I forgot the topic.

I think there are solutions that we could implement that would solve 98% of the problem with guns in America today. Ban them all, collect them all, and melt them down. Oh wait. That was a joke... Perhaps I should have picked a different username!

No, I got Bernie's e-mail. It panders to the Democratic attitude at this point. I view it as a start of a conversation.

I do believe there are some policies that could be enacted that would solve 98% of the problems. Or is it 76%? No, no -- 53.5% for sure!!

Seriously, the majority of the problems. Think about this. What is the weakness of our system now? Too many people can do too many things with deadly weapons in isolation. This allows the situation of someone going off the deep end without anyone knowing it. In the military for highly sensitive jobs we had a "two man" rule. Two people had to keep an eye on each other.

Establish a list of firearms that people can own with no restrictions. This includes six or eight shot revolvers, pistols capable of no more than eight shots ever, single shot rifles of any variety, and shotguns.

For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.

Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.

Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.

Now, how wouldn't this work? What didn't I think about?

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

hoosier8 wrote:

RurouniKakita wrote:

tom wrote:Bernie lost my vote with the, climate change causes terrorism thing, now his latest thing with control of guns, well as a registered Independent, i have decided to go full republican this election cycle, when and if, the DNC removes it's collective head from it's ass, i may give the party some thought again.

I never was for Clinton, she carries to much baggage, and none of it good, i had hope in Sanders, but he destroyed it, maybe it's a good thing, now rather than later.

I will cast my lot with the devil on the right this time, next time, the devil on the left might entice me, we shall see.

I will still be here with you great people because you are a fun group of guz nutz, politics aside.

Voting republican seems very much in the line of cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

You should absolutely vote how you want but if a republican gets into office the ACA will be repealed meaning at the very least insurance companies can deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and proceed to drop those that joined when they couldn't deny benefits based on that. Millions of people who are now able to see a doctor or get medical help without the risk of going bankrupt and many will be stuck in jobs they hate because it provides health benefits and they can't risk losing those because they might not be able to get insurance again if they leave. Not to mention the almost certainty of another war and a big step in the direction of turning the country to a theocracy.

modernhamlet wrote:The logic chain that takes one from climate change to terrorism isn't that hard to follow, honestly.

And does anyone actually think Bernie would make gun control of any sort a priority once in office?

I don't think any of them will but it is disheartening to see him say these things. I hold out hope though as it hasn't made it on to his campaigns website unlike Hillary's.

The ACA is a clusterfuck and I think, even if it is repealed, something else will take it's place. Once you create a new entitlement, it is impossible to get rid of it.

The ACA is FAR from perfect. But here is my issue. When it was signed into law it was damaged from the start by Republican efforts to break every Government program and Agency. They stated this was their plan from the beginning. (An interesting side note is that Government has grown substantially larger under every Republician Administration since Eisenhower.) But if you read back, every Democratic Congressman said this Bill is damaged. This was back in the days though that O had a starry eyed idea that he can develop consensus behind good legislation.

The anticipation though was that once we get this baseline Bill passed, additional legislation can fix the problems that come up in implementation. Then the next election came up and the Democrates as normal screwed the pooch and lost. Significantly.

Ever since the only legislation that has come from Republicians has been Bill after Bill to repeal it -- what is the count up to now, 80? So now they are playing the game again and it looks like they will finally get a Bill to the Whitehouse. And in their supreme duplicity, not a single Republican wants the Bill to become law. They know that for it to pass would mean that significant portions of their constituents would loose health coverage. This is all election antics.

If O wanted to do something for the country he'd let the Bill pass into law. It would be a high stakes wager. Let it pass into law and immediately shut it down. All policies cancelled the day of implementation. If the Democrats were smarter they would have manipulated the extremists on the Right Wing to come up with the severest Bill possible. It wouldn't have been hard; a little well applied ridicule that the Wingnuts couldn't pass a Bill that their base wants because the Republicians know their base voters are certifiable and should be institutionalized (it's not like they'd ever vote for a Democrat anyhow).

That would be leave entire Republican Party in disarray. They'd be stuck with the policies that wreck the entire Healthcare industry and uninsure significant portions of their constituents. And they wouldn't have the time to bend their rabble into something that could halfway pass legislation that accomplished something of value to the American public. Want to see both Houses and the POTUS flip Democratic in one election? This could do it. And it might even be enough to permanently break the back of the entire Republican Party. Especially if they put up someone like Trump as their nominee. It would make the coalition that brought O into office puny in comparison.

O will never do it though because he's too worried about his legacy at this point. Even tough a legacy like this one could go down in the history books! Instead, he'll veto it and allow the Republicians to further pander to their base and get election points....

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Oh, I got so into the last Machiavellian post I forgot the topic.

I think there are solutions that we could implement that would solve 98% of the problem with guns in America today. Ban them all, collect them all, and melt them down. Oh wait. That was a joke... Perhaps I should have picked a different username!

No, I got Bernie's e-mail. It panders to the Democratic attitude at this point. I view it as a start of a conversation.

I do believe there are some policies that could be enacted that would solve 98% of the problems. Or is it 76%? No, no -- 53.5% for sure!!

Seriously, the majority of the problems. Think about this. What is the weakness of our system now? Too many people can do too many things with deadly weapons in isolation. This allows the situation of someone going off the deep end without anyone knowing it. In the military for highly sensitive jobs we had a "two man" rule. Two people had to keep an eye on each other.

Establish a list of firearms that people can own with no restrictions. This includes six or eight shot revolvers, pistols capable of no more than eight shots ever, single shot rifles of any variety, and shotguns.

For any other weapons require the individual to obtain and maintain liability insurance. This liability insurance can either be individual policies, or policies obtained by gun clubs to cover all firearms purchased by the membership.

Require the gun industry to subsidize only the policies obtained by gun clubs. Put some rules on what constitutes a properly functioning and recognized gun club. Things like quarterly meetings and each member must attend at least one meeting every six months. Keeping a locally maintained and managed inventory of weapons owned by the membership. Require that ownership of the weapon passes to the gun club if a member resigns and doesn't immediately obtain a private liability policy.

Final piece is a system of Federally funded civilian Marshalls with police powers. One Marshall for every 1,000 gun club members, who is nominated by the gun clubs themselves. Organize it along the lines of the Civil Air Patrol. These Marshalls would be responsible for communicating Government programs and policies to the local gun clubs and ensure that each gun club was being operated as required. They wouldn't keep any records on ownership but would have the power to confiscate firearms in a defined list of circumstances and pass the firearm to the gun club for disposition.

Now, how wouldn't this work? What didn't I think about?

rascally wrote: <snipped for bandwidth> So, is your main concern for the nation or for the party? They are NOT the same thing...

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote: <snipped for bandwidth> So, is your main concern for the nation or for the party? They are NOT the same thing...

My concern is for the Nation. But here's the thing. Do you still consider today's incarnation of the Republican party as Legislating for the Nation's benefit? Or for the benefit of their corporate/1%er overlords? I'm not saying that the Democrats are much better today, but I don't think the Democratic Party has sunk beyond the point where it is irreparable. Yet.

So I am for whatever destroys the Republican Party as it exists today and forces it to reconstitute itself into an effective Legislative group that represents the conserverative point of view. I don't despise conservatives. I despise today's Republician party.

RurouniKakita wrote:
Voting republican seems very much in the line of cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

rascally wrote:]
<snipped for bandwidth again> No. What is your understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Have you read any of the Federalist Papers?

If no one else will say it, I will. NO. Hell no. What you suggest is a recipe for utter and complete disarmament. NO.

rascally wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote: <snipped for bandwidth> So, is your main concern for the nation or for the party? They are NOT the same thing...

My concern is for the Nation. But here's the thing. Do you still consider today's incarnation of the Republican party as Legislating for the Nation's benefit? Or for the benefit of their corporate/1%er overlords? I'm not saying that the Democrats are much better today, but I don't think the Democratic Party has sunk beyond the point where it is irreparable. Yet.

So I am for whatever destroys the Republican Party as it exists today and forces it to reconstitute itself into an effective Legislative group that represents the conserverative point of view. I don't despise conservatives. I despise today's Republician party.

Well, it's good to know that you didn't miss today's mandatory 4 minutes of hate...

Wurble wrote:

RurouniKakita wrote:
Voting republican seems very much in the line of cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

While this is true, the original sentiment CANNOT be ignored.

Despite how illogical it is, this is what happens with an extremely large number of gun owners when Democrats start spouting anti-gun rhetoric. I'm ashamed to admit it, but it caused me to vote for Pat Toomey.

Democrats need to understand this. Gun right enthusiasts are a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY big crowd and when gun rights are threatened, they turtle up and vote Republican even if they are actually mostly liberal. Time and again they don't fucking get it. How many elections do they have to fuck up with their anti-gun bullshit for it to finally sink in?!

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote:]
<snipped for bandwidth again> No. What is your understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Have you read any of the Federalist Papers?

If no one else will say it, I will. NO. Hell no. What you suggest is a recipe for utter and complete disarmament. NO.

The 2A has been ruled by SCOTUS as not being an absolute right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Dred Scott...Plessey V. Ferguson...Separate but Equal...infallible?? They're not f'ing gods...

The 2A is well serviced by a list of firearms that can be owned without restrictions and without requiring any form of registration other than an background check on the purchaser to ensure they are not felons, on the terrorist watch list (why are Replublicans against this?) Do you know that Ted Kennedy was on this list? And just what is the procedure for finding out who is on the list, or for contesting being on the list? , or adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

I draw a line at weaponry that is of a distinctly military orientation. And I'm not saying that those weapons should not be owned by the general public. But it is the duty and right of society itself to ensure that that class of weaponry is owned and maintained responsibly and that is a reasonable restriction.

http://www.remington.com/product-famili ... l-750.aspx, http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14Ran ... odels.html, http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=729, http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=729 ... A4-870-212 http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/co ... 212...What are the main differences here?


Now you might make the argument that, well you can do a lot of damage with an eight shot revolver/pistol. This is true. But a Paris or San Bernardino style of attack would not be possible without military class weaponry. You can mow down large groups of people in a minimum amount of time with military weapons. That is what they are designed to do. An eight shot revolver/pistol would force frequent pauses to reload. These pauses give the police time to respond. We go from an entire incident of 34 people dead or injuried in 5 minutes flat to one where it would take significantly longer and provide opportunities for the victims to take action as well. Do you know what a speed loader is? http://speedloaderstore.com/contents/en-us/d45.html

What we need to wrap our minds around is that we are at war today. So your response is to disarm us?? Our homeland and population are being threatened today. Are we going to handle it by arming every citizen (there are actually enough firearms in circulation today to provide every citizen with a weapon...) or are we going to make it harder for hostile individuals to kill a great number of people? Do you really think the "hostile individuals" are going to give a flying F what the law says?? Do you really think the "hostile individuals" won't be able to get their weapons? Maybe from Mexico..?

You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards. Do you have any idea what happens to fine motor skills ( like aiming) under stress? What about multiple individuals with which to deal?

And the last point I want to address are rampant patterns of irrational thought among many of the 2A crowd. It is irrational to think that the Federal Government is an enemy of the people. I am a retired Federal Employee And I'm retired military..so what?and actually I am deeply insulted by the suggestion that my Federal career was spent in some wild eyed conspiracy to do harm to the American public.Your disillusionment is not grounds for guilt by me) I think it is something to be vigilant about, and the activities of Agency's like the N*A (web crawler naming ) are something that need effective and diligent oversight.

Even if the Feds are out to get us and can talk all the police organizations, the military, and all the Federal employees into this plan -- what are 100,000 people with ARs going to do about it? Are you sure it's only 100,000?Yeah, you can do asymmetric warfare but that will not stop them. Say what you want about Iraq or Vietnam for that matter. When the U.S. committed to forces on the ground, the adversary was totally pwned.Umm...so, who's in control in Vietnam now? Who's in control of Iraq now..? Why is Korea still divided?

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote:]
<snipped for bandwidth again>
You don't need an 18 round Glock to defend yourself unless you can't shoot. You need a well trained individual that take someone out with one well aimed centerline shot at 10 yards.

CDFingers wrote:Some of those I could support, like the expanded background check. The rest, nah.

Now, I know that folks soil their skivvies about a UBC. Look at California where the most restrictive gun laws all were signed by Republican governors. Fewer than ten people have had guns taken. A procedure exists for challenging confiscation.

Since that procedure exists, the only downside is "cost." Every time I buy a gun I have to pay an extra thirty five bucks. Oh, the pain. So I go to work the next day to earn my next thirty five bucks.

Titanium fundoshi firmly in place. PM me for my tailor...

CDFingers