U.S. Army prepares to invade Texas

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I had a similar experience, recently. A long time friend, (Whom I've always known owned guns, but believed it was for "normal" purposes went full on gun nut.), started posting nothing but paranoid rants about "gun grabbers" and "storm troopers" kicking doors in. Then about a week ago, he posted a video of "Walmart douchebags" putting up a fence around an abandoned store that he and a bud of his got caught lurking about in two days prior. When I asked him WTF he was doing, he went into an insane rant about Walmarts ".......complicity in the government takeover." I commented "Paranoid much?" and he unfriended me............

So sad to watch a friends mind go.

There have always been some under-educated, alienated sorts who went in for that sort of thing, but there seem to be so many more of them now. Don't know why reality is slipping away for so many.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I had a similar experience, recently. A long time friend, (Whom I've always known owned guns, but believed it was for "normal" purposes went full on gun nut.), started posting nothing but paranoid rants about "gun grabbers" and "storm troopers" kicking doors in. Then about a week ago, he posted a video of "Walmart douchebags" putting up a fence around an abandoned store that he and a bud of his got caught lurking about in two days prior. When I asked him WTF he was doing, he went into an insane rant about Walmarts ".......complicity in the government takeover." I commented "Paranoid much?" and he unfriended me............

So sad to watch a friends mind go.

Dunno how you should handle him being no longer trustworthy with firearms. He will of course go full-on delusional paranoid gun nut if approached on that.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Dunno how you should handle him being no longer trustworthy with firearms. He will of course go full-on delusional paranoid gun nut if approached on that.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

That is the trap isn't it? Once they lose their minds worrying about this crap, any attempt to talk to them about it is seen as confirmation that they're right.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

That is the trap isn't it? Once they lose their minds worrying about this crap, any attempt to talk to them about it is seen as confirmation that they're right.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-control.html

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-control.html

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Excellent article. The belief in "legislative creep" is the cause of the intransigence. Another not-so-nutty friend of mine recently agreed with me that there is a problem that should be addressed, "......but we can't do it because it would just be one step closer to (the leftist) goal of gun confiscation."

Therein lies the stalemate.

My thought is; We already have regulations regarding gun ownership, yet there has been no kicking in of doors and mass confiscations. What makes them think that improved background checks are going to be any different? Why don't they see that if they can check the so-called "legislative creep" at this level, they can check it at the next?

[Pio1980]

I also think the NRA crowd truly dreads losing a popular legislative review of the 2nd amendment in present times.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

I also think the NRA crowd truly dreads losing a popular legislative review of the 2nd amendment in present times.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Yep. That's why they can't stand it when anyone even broaches the subject. A classic case of "Move along, Folks! Nothing to see, here!". There is a reason why the NRA only has the latter half of the 2nd Amendment on their lobby wall. That's what they want everyone to stay focused on. Think about it.

[BlueStreak]

2nd Amendment, full text;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

1). "Well regulated"---- Not "unregulated".

2). "State"---- Not "individual".

3). "people"----Plural form. No mention of individual rights.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

2nd Amendment, full text;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

1). "Well regulated"---- Not "unregulated".

2). "State"---- Not "individual".

3). "people"----Plural form. No mention of individual rights.

They could have tried to make it even more vague.
OTOH, try for instance: "individual citizens may keep a weapon for defence and provender without interference, if proven competent and trustworthy".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

They could have tried to make it even more vague.
OTOH, try for instance: "individual citizens may keep a weapon for defence and provender without interference, if proven competent and trustworthy".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

The thing is; I don't see that it's all that "vague". It calls for well regulated state militia. There is no mention of individual rights in the amendment itself.........what-so-ever. Some see vagueness in the second half. Some see absolute certainty of "individual rights" in the second half. I see neither. We have never had an absolute individual right to unregulated gun ownership that some insist we do today.

Now, you could argue intent based on other writings by the founders. That would be the only place where an argument could be made, IMO. However, such writings do not constitute the agreed upon and signed legal document. They only express the intent of some of the individuals involved.