Tweet
Originally posted by Morvandium
View Post
I'm sorry you don't like the term "conservative extremist", and I'm sorry if it hurt your feelings. As to the original context of my usage: if you can provide me with a more conservative position on that topic, I will rescind my phrasing of "conservative extremist" in regards and apologize. Feel free to DM me so this thread stays closer to the main topic.
I'll tap two parts of this:
Totally agree. Training should be required. State national guards you can join provide that training on the proper weapons they equip you with. I'm actually a lot more comfortable with mandatory training before public gun carry/usage is allowed than I am with low magazine limits. Interestingly, whether or not a weapon was of a type used in a militia was one of the 4 main points the government made in US v Miller before the SCOTUS, noting that a short barreled shotgun was not used nor trained for in the military at the time.
I have a concealed carry permit, and I have a minor intermittent hand tremor that makes light pistols a problem for me. I feel should be required to at least prove basic competency on weapon I wish to carry. My hunters ED training years ago only included using shotgun use, but was apparently adequate training, despite shotguns not being a valid carry weapon under WI law. In regards to that training, Reagan was right: verify.
Back to magazines...
I don't accept that a magazine is a firearm and therefore I believe it is completely valid to limit capacities. All the rhetoric to the contrary won't stop it from being a law that is enforced, however, because no claim of magazine limits being unconstitutional has been decided by the SCOTUS, yet. Maybe SCOTUS will take Duncan v Bonta, and things might change. I'll happily live in that reality.
I deny the assertion that "Shall not be infringed" means or implies absolute. I am well aware this goes against the conservative interpretation common these days, but it is not the only legal opinion.
This right co-exists with other Constitutional rights, and our courts rule on the complex questions when those rights contradict or conflict with each other directly or as a result of legislation (Marbury v Madison, 1803). US v Miller (regarding the NFA) was in part an early affirmation of the RIGHT of the federal government to govern interstate traffic by enforcing the NFA to REGULATE AND TAX and not be in violation of the 2A, despite putting limitations and restrictions on gun sales, transfers, and transportation. Has Miller been overturned recently, or SCOTUS invalidated its precedence, and I missed it? If so, I'll live in that reality.
If believing in a SCOTUS precedent constitutes mental gymnastics, I'm a gymnast.
So, I clearly do not share some of your premises. This is America, so that's fine that we hold differing views. Law is not a foreign concept to me, and no internet forum has the appropriate pedigree and intellectual firepower to change my mind. Let's not waste time.
Take note of the above -- I do approve of some laws which might negatively affect me. Besides magazine limits, I APPROVE of BATFE's move to require 80% lowers to be serialized (I've finished 3, have a 4th 80% sitting around), but APPROVE of BATFE's move to restrict pistol braces, (I have 1 that came with a gun), but I DISSAPPROVE of the method (that point system is whack). I'm not trying to get off topic, but just provide examples that I don't just approve of restrictions that don't affect me.
Regarding waking up -- are you trying to tell me I should be woke? Thought only liberals cared if I'm woke! lol, jk
I really woke up the day after election day, when the count was still up in the air, and I stopped in at a local FFL that I was considering for a firearm transfer. When I heard the employees there casually and seriously talking with customers about starting a civil war if leftist policies passed at the federal level, I woke up! And I got wary of heavily armed people in my own community expressing sincere interest in overthrowing MY government. I remembered the Whitmer kidnapping plot arrests, and info came out there were ties places to within 50 miles of me in WI. I still hoped it was bluster, until Jan 6 rolled around.
As to "the left" and guns:
You fallaciously squeeze a large spectrum of opinions into a small box when you describe the left. You could say I'm part of the left, although much of the left would not. There's leftist gun enthusiasts, but many tend to keep heads low. Many oppose all gun restrictions like the extreme right does. Some, like me, favor a limited amount of legislation providing limits on firearms, and where and how they can be carried and used. There's nothing incompatible about owning and using firearms, and supporting some regulation on their usage and possession; I've done it for decades. Within my circle of friends, I by own far the most firearms, and most of my friends have served and are more conservative than me.
Example of far leftist gun enthusiasts, if you doubt me: SRA (Socialist Rifle Association): https://socialistra.org/ They have (as of 3/11/22 9:00pm CST) a link to their open letter opposing this Washington law on the home page. They are too far left for me, but it illustrates my point: there's political of diversity among gun enthusiasts. The "liberals are coming for your guns" mantra wildly misestimates the homogeny of moderate and liberal opinions on the IIA, and substitutes the easy-boogeyman voices for all "dems", or "leftists", or whatever. In the past couple years, there's many African American 2A groups starting, most of which are very liberal, and many of which felt they had to organize because the NRA fails to support black and brown people legally exercising their 2A rights.
I didn't see the "conservatives only forUm" sign.
Seems that this is THE Grendel forum, so here I am. I don't intend on spending much of my time in the 2A part of 65grendel, but neither will I be intimidated into not speaking. If someone wants to kick me off of here because I have different views on gun laws and share my opinions, go for it, but don't complain about social media censorship of conservatives afterwards.
I can't even... To me, that reads as nonsense. I've read this before, and consider the "evidence" a joke. (Simpsons S6E10, Bart & Milhouse's conspiracy chart is what I see.) I'll discuss 2A stuff where I hold a contrary opinion. At best, we're gonna have to agree that we absolutely, completely disagree on THIS, but you can know I AM DISTURBED BY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS and I won't further respond to anything with that type of baggage attached.
There's been some surprises from both Roberts and Gorsuch. If taken, Duncan v Bonta could possibly draw a narrow ruling on the specific capacity of 10, leaving other magazine limits in effect. Now wouldn't that be a royal pain for years to come?
Maybe reddit would be more to your liking. Your thoughts and beliefs are delusional and well insane.
Gray. I will take that popcorn with movie butter and a extra large drink now please
Comment