$$$ for your firearms

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Jason
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:37 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Jason » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:50 am

Campitor wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:04 am
We don't go to war because we're violent, we're violent because we go to war.
I disagree. Philosophically, existentially, however you want to approach it. But the point is moot from a practical standpoint. Military industrial complex is insatiable. The country is privately armed. What's Thanksgiving all about? Let's decapitate a Turkey in honor that we were on the right side of a mass slaughter. You got your MMA, You got your cops vs. minorities. If we're not fighting, we pay to watch other people fight. The most violent sport going is fighting people who are protesting violence or who knows at this point. You know John Mccain wanted to throw down on Mitch McConnell right on there on the congressional floor but it would have been too embarrassing for the highest ranking Republican congressmen to lose to a Democrat with brain cancer. Trump never would have let him live that down. "How can you lose a fight to a guy who can't even see straight!!!" Love it or leave it is not a pacifist mantra. And l'm not an expert in the industry, but I don't think there's a video game with Ghandi walking around in his bare feet telling people to put down the guns and sit around in a circle centering themselves.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 876
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:29 pm

If you tune into the Investigation Discovery channel, you can watch an unending marathon of murder porn before finally seeing an interview of Pamela Smart.

Let’s make sure the criminal gets her hair and makeup done before giving her even more camera time that she earned by being reprehensible.

daylen
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by daylen » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:53 pm

@Campitor, Jason

A line is a fascinating fiction, isn't it? It is almost as if many of them make a curve; unfortunately, a tangle is more likely. :P

FIRE 2018
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by FIRE 2018 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:43 am

Holy crap and news media not even making incident a big news story. Must have been a slow news day. A male wearing camouflage clothing with loaded tactical weapons and multiple rounds walked into Wal Mart in Missouri recently and wanted to see if anyone noticed him? The manager pulled the fire alarm to alert the customers and a customer subdued him until the police arrested him. Crazy times we live in.

Campitor
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Campitor » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:30 am

Interesting site about Chicago's gun violence: https://heyjackass.com/category/chicago-crime-2019/

Jason
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:37 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Jason » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:35 am

FIRE 2018 wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:43 am
A male wearing camouflage clothing with loaded tactical weapons and multiple rounds walked into Wal Mart in Missouri recently and wanted to see if anyone noticed him?
That's just dumb. If he had walked into a Target, he could have said he was confused about the type of business.

suomalainen
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by suomalainen » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:48 am

Riggerjack wrote:
Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:21 am
Those in very populated areas, where police response is rapid, tend to be comfortable abdicating the responsibility for their physical safety to a professional police force (though I do find it odd that those same people are so comfortable hating those same professionals...).
You write pejoratively about those who may want/need police while objecting to police overreach. How is this any different than your objection to WA state "inspector" overreach? Is it okay to "hate" on overreaching government officials you personally don't want or need, but not okay to "hate" on government officials you do want or need? Even if you disagree with a SJW on the role of the state on the front end, I don't see any difference between the two of you on the back end. Individuals holding government office and conducting governmental business should be held accountable when breaching professional standards - be they "useful police" or "useless bureaucrats".

Campitor
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Campitor » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:08 am

suomalainen wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:48 am
You write pejoratively about those who may want/need police while objecting to police overreach. How is this any different than your objection to WA state "inspector" overreach? Is it okay to "hate" on overreaching government officials you personally don't want or need, but not okay to "hate" on government officials you do want or need?
I'm not speaking for Rigger but for myself. We're being asked to abdicate our safety to the state by the very same people who vigorously protest the abuse done by police. There is a deep intellectual inconsistency in believing in the virtue of government while decrying government abuses that involve allegations of murdering innocent civilians.

I don't see any inconsistency in Rigger's statement. He's not saying "it's not okay to hate on cops" while he "hates on states inspectors." He's saying he doesn't want his rights usurped by either hence his proclivity towards gun possession and not wanting nosy inspectors on his property. At least that is my opinion of his statement.

suomalainen
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by suomalainen » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:03 pm

I'm not really interested in gun debate politics. Without a constitutional amendment, I doubt very much anyone is "being asked to abdicate our safety to the state" if, to you, having a gun = safety. As far as I'm aware, the gun control debate is currently about limits within the 2nd amendment, not for a constitutional amendment revoking the 2nd amendment.

And where is there intellectual inconsistency in "believing in the virtue of government" (as a system) while, and let me paraphrase you while being more accurate and clear - "decrying the abuses perpetrated under the guise and cloak of governmental authority." Speaking for myself, and not as a spokesperson for whatever "very same people" you are referring to, I generally trust "the police" in the same way that I generally trust "people", but individual police officers and individual persons in individual circumstances could act unprofessionally or even criminally. What is wrong with holding people accountable when they abuse their governmental office?

Campitor
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Campitor » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:38 pm

suomalainen wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:03 pm
I'm not really interested in gun debate politics. Without a constitutional amendment, I doubt very much anyone is "being asked to abdicate our safety to the state" if, to you, having a gun = safety. As far as I'm aware, the gun control debate is currently about limits within the 2nd amendment, not for a constitutional amendment revoking the 2nd amendment.
There have been instances of state agencies trying to restrict guns so excessively it's a close suspension of the 2nd amendment. It was only via a SCOTUS decision that the 2nd amendment was upheld and these excessively restrictive guns laws overturned.

And having a gun doesn't automatically impart safety anymore than an extinguisher prevents the total incineration of a domicile. But it's nice to have either should circumstances require their use to prevent an even greater tragedy.

And where is there intellectual inconsistency in "believing in the virtue of government" (as a system) while, and let me paraphrase you while being more accurate and clear - "decrying the abuses perpetrated under the guise and cloak of governmental authority." Speaking for myself, and not as a spokesperson for whatever "very same people" you are referring to, I generally trust "the police" in the same way that I generally trust "people", but individual police officers and individual persons in individual circumstances could act unprofessionally or even criminally. What is wrong with holding people accountable when they abuse their governmental office?
There's nothing wrong with holding people accountable for abusing their government office. But should a morally decrepit person, police or civilian, decide to use criminally inspired deadly force, it would be beneficial to have the means to repel or prevent it.

I generally trust police myself. I have friends who are homicide detectives as well as regular cops. They tell me it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun but not have it. They all believe that responsible gun ownership is a good thing.

The intellectual inconsistency I was talking about is in regards to persons who believe the police to be a completely corrupt, racist, and murderous institution but yet still advocate for the removal of 2nd amendment privileges because the government is the perfect entity to protect us. I should have made this clear - sorry I did not. Do you believe the police are completely corrupt and murderous? If you don't then you can safely believe you're not who I'm talking about in regards to intellectual inconsistency.

suomalainen
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by suomalainen » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:51 am

Yeah, like I said, I'm not really interested in gun politics. For my part, I'm on @riggerjack's side when he suggested that de-escalation / avoidance is a better strategy. But, you know, I wish you and your guns luck in any armed standoff. Let us know how it goes.

My point was more about @riggerjack's mocking, without a hint of irony, in one post SJW's who complain about excessive use of force (including deadly force) by bad-apple cops while, not 10 posts later, suggesting he needed a gun (or the culture of gun ownership) to protect himself from over-enthusiastic "inspectors". I'm not sure what an "inspector" is, but I can imagine a conversation that goes like this:

SJW / Mother of dead brown son: "The police that shot my brown son said he was scared of my brown son and thought the wallet my son had in his hand was a gun, so he shot him dead."

Gun-nut or whatever / guy whose rights have been hampered by "over-regulation": "You think YOU'VE got problems?! You should see this health inspector that tries to pull these bullshit 'surprise' inspections on my dairy farm!"

Which one is the snowflake, exactly?

FIRE 2018
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by FIRE 2018 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:59 am

In Florida and in a number of states, it's "Stand your ground" law. Come at me with aggression and I will defend myself.

Campitor
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Campitor » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm

suomalainen wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:51 am
Yeah, like I said, I'm not really interested in gun politics. For my part, I'm on @riggerjack's side when he suggested that de-escalation / avoidance is a better strategy. But, you know, I wish you and your guns luck in any armed standoff. Let us know how it goes.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9730&p=164600&hilit=fubar#p164600

In the above link, I've stated that my personal preference for foregoing gun ownership and the reasons behind it. But I understand why my choices wouldn't be universally acceptable to persons who may live in very different circumstances. And I'm not interested in armed standoffs but sometimes there are circumstances where fleeing or hiding is impossible and aggression in self defense is the only choice.
My point was more about @riggerjack's mocking, without a hint of irony, in one post SJW's who complain about excessive use of force (including deadly force) by bad-apple cops while, not 10 posts later, suggesting he needed a gun (or the culture of gun ownership) to protect himself from over-enthusiastic "inspectors". I'm not sure what an "inspector" is, but I can imagine a conversation that goes like this:

SJW / Mother of dead brown son: "The police that shot my brown son said he was scared of my brown son and thought the wallet my son had in his hand was a gun, so he shot him dead."

Gun-nut or whatever / guy whose rights have been hampered by "over-regulation": "You think YOU'VE got problems?! You should see this health inspector that tries to pull these bullshit 'surprise' inspections on my dairy farm!"

Which one is the snowflake, exactly?
I would regard neither as a snowflake. A dead son killed by excessive state force is certainly worthy of moral indignation and outrage. And it's also deeply indignant for the state to abuse its power by levying excessive fines which force homeowners out of their residences, deprive persons of their livelihood, or force individuals into bankruptcy.

SCOTUS recognizes that states can and do abuse their powers for levying fines hence their recent decisions to curtail it. What is intellectually inconsistent is to decry the abuse of state in unjustified homicide while downplaying the effects of excessive state regulations that lead to loss of income or home; regulations which are abusive and in direct contradiction to government's role of ensuring the public good. And pivotal in this abuse are the state inspectors who are knowingly complicit in this governmental abuse.

https://pacificlegal.org/supreme-court- ... ive-fines/ :

Unfortunately, as we explained in our amicus brief, despite the historical protection, many state governments today impose outrageous fines, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, for small offenses—with the burden frequently falling on citizens who can least afford to pay. Consider the following examples:

One Missouri city fined a homeowner $180,000 for choosing to plant flowers instead of grass.
A Florida homeowner faced municipal fines of $58,000 for failing to register a burglar alarm with a local bureaucrat.
PLF clients faced fines of $100 per day—exceeding $10,000 in just a short time—for their home’s Van Gogh style mural
In California, PLF clients Henny and Warren Lent face over $4 million in fines for blocking an unusable public access easement.
Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward ending the kind of fines presently imposed for even non-criminal offenses by many states. All Americans, especially our friends at Institute for Justice who fought this battle, should be proud.

Riggerjack
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Riggerjack » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:13 pm

My point was more about @riggerjack's mocking, without a hint of irony, in one post SJW's who complain about excessive use of force (including deadly force) by bad-apple cops while, not 10 posts later, suggesting he needed a gun (or the culture of gun ownership) to protect himself from over-enthusiastic "inspectors".
:lol: would a hint have helped?

For what it's worth, I like SJWs (at a distance, but I like most people better at a distance). They are loud, aggressive, and clueless, as they should be at that age.

I like their equally loud, aggressive and clueless counterparts among the right, for the same reasons, also at a distance.

Maybe factor that in, when you read between the lines of my posts. Odds are good we disagree on nearly everything, but I don't disagree in the way you seem most comfortable arguing against.

suomalainen
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by suomalainen » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:54 am

Meh, I was making a very narrow point only tangentially related to this thread's topic, which nobody seems to get, so either I must not be clear or the topic is too loaded for people to see beyond it or both. In any event, I don't have any real opinions on this topic, so the chance for disagreement is quite low.

jennypenny
Posts: 6212
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by jennypenny » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:04 pm

@Suo—I got your point. It actually makes sense to me that the people who rely on and interact with ‘the system’ the most would also demand more accountability because they feel its flaws more acutely.

I’ll let the gun argument lie since I don’t think rules that work in one area/culture necessarily make sense in another.

subgard
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by subgard » Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:27 am

The second amendment is already completely and utterly infringed. To the point of it being nonsensical. "The right to bear arms" is the right to possess military weapons. Not hunting tools. Weapons for destroying human beings and their property. With a few exceptions on the very low end of the scale (semiautomatic small caliber fire-arms), these weapons are almost completely banned from the private citizenry.

The rights of speech, press, and assemblage are much more important for preserving a free society.

If you're an oppressed minority, and the rest of the populace doesn't care about you, you're absolutely screwed, no matter what weaponry you possess.

GandK
Posts: 1958
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by GandK » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:44 am

I wish there were more, and easier, $$$ for gun programs. When you inherit multiple unregistered firearms from your relatives, but you don't run in the gun community, know no dealers, and are unfamiliar with your state/local carrying and transportation laws, unloading unwanted firearms is a giant pain in the ass. Where I live, you can't (legally) just put them in the car and drive them to a dealer for the dealer to buy, because you have no permit to carry/transport them. You can't (legally) just sell them online to whomever can provide appropriate documentation (whatever that may be) either, because you're not a dealer, and there are state line laws regarding guns. You basically can't sell them at all (legally) without knowing people. But it's still OK to gift them, undocumented, to somebody else... whose bright idea was this.

We eventually got them sold, but if my husband didn't work in the law enforcement community with people who could help us jump through all the hoops, I'm sure we would have broken some law, somewhere, in just trying to get rid of our unwanted firearms. Anyone less conscientious certainly would.

No matter where we all stand on the US 2nd amendment, Americans who end up with guns they don't want should have a simple way to unload them to a responsible person/authority, that doesn't potentially make a criminal out of them. (Thanks again for the advice @ffj.)

Sclass
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:15 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by Sclass » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:55 pm

GandK wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:44 am
I wish there were more, and easier, $$$ for gun programs. When you inherit multiple unregistered firearms from your relatives, but you don't run in the gun community, know no dealers, and are unfamiliar with your state/local carrying and transportation laws, unloading unwanted firearms is a giant pain in the ass.
I am so there right now. I am the guardian of three generations of hunting arms. I am dreading the liquidation.

With every passing year I lose interest in the hobby. We no longer own hunting property. We just own memories. Grandpa’s shotguns. Dad’s shotguns, deer rifles and revolvers. I sit around in my father’s “gun room” trying not to stir up too much dust. Reloading equipment with lead #9 shot still in the hoppers bolted to the table. Old pelts from what i believe are extinct animals. :roll:

Realistically I need to sell off the collection. The younger members of the family are less interested than me. My BIL has a similar issue. Three generations of guns in his home. Sister hates it and when I mentioned dad’s toys she said “no no no!” At our recent reunion.

A cousin just sold his family’s collection of 100 or so guns. It was a mess. Brokers. Auctions. Legal stuff. I’ll ask his advice on the local ins and outs of doing this. California...yay.

In the meantime I have to take care of this stuff. It isn’t like dad’s *&$#ing porn collection that I can just put out on the curb. Like porn everyone has their particular taste in guns. Our family collection doesn’t turn me on. It’s grandpa and dad’s tastes foisted off on me. One man’s guns aren’t another man’s guns like the 80s porn tapes. I guess I should put the Betamax out there with the tapes... :lol:

I feel my dad’s influence when I am expected to cherish this stuff. I feel guilty that I don’t want it. Part of me wants it to get outlawed so I’m forced to hand it in. I’m deeply conflicted.

ffj
Posts: 1929
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: $$$ for your firearms

Post by ffj » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:24 pm

@K

Glad to have you back.

@Sclass

Send me a rough list of the guns and we might work out a deal.

Post Reply