Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

I'm genuinely curious to read a thoughtful perspective on why high capacity, "modded to full auto" assault rifles should in public hands and where the line should be drawn as mortal tech inevitably advances (unlimited ammunition, auto fire "ray" guns or whatever).
These are not currently allowed--full auto is completely illegal, 20 years in Federal Prison.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/


My point in the final paragraph was that there are lots of ways to kill folks, criminals will find a way, with or without guns.

I guess the gun talk is derailing the thread? On the other hand, if you want to see how fast all the colors and creeds of Texas start cooperating really well, the Feds should try taking the guns. It would prove very fast how 'not racist' we are!

I'm not the least bit panicked, do I sound panicked?! :)
 
Last edited:
My point in the final paragraph was that there are lots of ways to kill folks, criminals will find a way, with or without guns
Yup, this is one of the pretty standard points raised during these discussions. Still doesn't answer the questions:

1) Why are some combat weapons approved for civilian ownership (e.g., AR-15)?

and

2) How should the line be drawn between what weapons can be owned by civilians versus those that would be military/police only?
 
My question is where is the line drawn? I could literally interpret your response to indicate that all manner of weapons of war should be available to every citizen. Hell, a bunch of civilians armed with semi-automatic rifles, hunting shotguns, and hand guns would be no match for a modern, well armed force intent on breaching the security of our free state.

Why aren't fully automatic weapons legal for purchase? (Yes, I know you can try to buy one that was made before 1986. They have been outlawed for new sale since then.)

Why aren't assault vehicles legal for purchase? What about small scale nukes?

My question is how is this line drawn today? Does it make sense the way we make such distinctions today?
More questions to add to your list of questions: Where are all the weapons coming from? How is it there are so many illegal weapons available? How do so many of 'our' weapons end up in the hands of friends and enemies around the world?

I'd suggest it is not individual American citizens arming the globe.
 
Yup, this is one of the pretty standard points raised during these discussions. Still doesn't answer the questions:

1) Why are some combat weapons approved for civilian ownership (e.g., AR-15)?

and

2) How should the line be drawn between what weapons can be owned by civilians versus those that would be military/police only?
First I'd need to understand why the AR-15 is called a 'combat weapon', which I really don't.

Second, the point of the constitution as I understand it is the ability to form a citizen-led militia should that become necessary. That would mean what's available to the military/law enforcement should not be restricted among citizens.

If the public wants to amend the constitution that should be done in a transparent, public and lawful manner.
 
full auto is completely illegal
Not really. You just have to pay a bunch of taxes to buy them, and they are so expensive criminals don't buy them. They make them.

Full-auto carbines are range toys. Police and the Military don't even use them. Drug gangs and TV Producers do.

From your article:
[Las Vegas] Audio recordings of the shooting, which captured rapid fire bursts, suggest that the shooter used a fully automatic weapon.
Yet, no full-autos were found. I know why. A friend of mine was there. She witnessed multiple shooters.
 
More questions to add to your list of questions: Where are all the weapons coming from? How is it there are so many illegal weapons available? How do so many of 'our' weapons end up in the hands of friends and enemies around the world?

I'd suggest it is not individual American citizens arming the globe.
Happy to discuss these, but my specific interest and reason for the line of questioning here relates to the assault style weapons that have been used in mass shootings. As I understand it they were all legally acquired.

First I'd need to understand why the AR-15 is called a 'combat weapon', which I really don't.
What is its design origin? Its a combat weapon designed as anti-personnel and not a target practice or hunting design as I understand it. Open to hearing more expert opinions on this, but that's my layman understanding.

Second, the point of the constitution as I understand it is the ability to form a citizen-led militia should that become necessary. That would mean what's available to the military/law enforcement should not be restricted among citizens.
Okay. However, that is not how our regulations and laws work today as you are aware. Going back to my line of questioning, should combat airplanes be made available for citizens to purchase? I mean how could a militia protect our free state from its own government or foreign invaders armed only with shotguns and semi-automatic combat style rifles? Seems ludicrous.

If the public wants to amend the constitution that should be done in a transparent, public and lawful manner.
Agreed and I don't believe I've suggested a thing to the contrary.

Yet, no full-autos were found. I know why. A friend of mine was there. She witnessed multiple shooters.
I had a friend there too. She witnessed only a single shooter.
 
What is its design origin? Its a combat weapon designed as anti-personnel and not a target practice or hunting design as I understand it.
The AR15 was designed in the 1950's as a replacement for the U.S. Military's old M-14.

It was a weapon best suited for shooting people, not deer or hogs.

The cool thing about them is that they are like an IBM-PC, the basic platform can be configured into almost anything you want. The huge installed userbase means aftermarket options are plentiful and cheap.

This year I intend to build two more of them. One a shorty Ghetto Blaster in .300 Blackout caliber with a 9" barrel like this...



The other a long-range sniper rifle in .338 Lapua similar to this...

 
Okay. However, that is not how our regulations and laws work today as you are aware. Going back to my line of questioning, should combat airplanes be made available for citizens to purchase? I mean how could a militia protect our free state from its own government or foreign invaders armed only with shotguns and semi-automatic combat style rifles? Seems ludicrous.
How have other countries evaded our best militaristic efforts, like Afghanistan? They don't go head to head, they use very effective guerilla tactics as far as I know. My dad owns a DC-3, that was once used in combat. Could he re-arm it and sell it on the open market? I do believe he could, but I'd have to ask him.

Here it is, if anyone's curious:


Your questioning is interesting and thought-provoking, but it's so far from where we currently stand. The push here is to disarm the citizens, that's just so obvious. Does it matter if we can buy 'combat airplanes' if we can't own guns?

For anyone here who has not yet read the intelligence document Paradox of Progress, readily available online as PDF, it is very clear what the Globalist agenda is over the next decade, required reading, imo.
 
Last edited:
The push here is to disarm the citizens, that's just so obvious.
I don't think this is accurate; at least broadly.

The vast majority of people that I have spoken with on this topic are motivated to eliminate weapons of war (yes, a sticky term so let's just stick with the AR-15 to make things easier to discuss). This same large group of people are generally okay with the notion of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles remaining legal for law abiding citizens to own and operate. I will certainly say that many are uncomfortable with guns themselves and all forms of gun violence generally, but they stop short of wanting to ban gun ownership outright.

Honestly, I can't think of anyone with whom I've spoken that wants to completely ban the ownership of guns.

This seems symptomatic of these ridiculous extremes between the "right and left". Just as I have never heard a compelling argument for banning gun ownership outright from the "left", I still have not heard a compelling argument for public ownership of assault rifles from the "right". Just misdirection and the ever growing "my position is 100% right and I need offer no evidence to support it" while your position is "100% wrong and I refuse outright to consider any evidence you may present" phenomena.

EDIT: Mishelle, I should have caveated that I do NOT see you as in one of these extremes and enjoy your willingness to discuss these topics in a collegial fashion!
 
Last edited:
. My dad owns a DC-3, that was once used in combat. Could he re-arm it and sell it on the open market?
The DC3 is a transport aircraft.

It may have been fitted with machine guns or used to drop bombs in some odd quirky scuffles, maybe places like South Africa or South America, but I’ve never seen any such examples.
 
Honestly, I can't think of anyone with whom I've spoken that wants to completely ban the ownership of guns.
I am pleased to talk about it, but maybe we should start a new thread? If enough are interested, that is. I guess we're pretty off topic here.

And I agree with what you've said. The thing is, it's not up to those you speak to, or those who I speak to, these are top-down decisions. If you read that document above I mentioned, Paradox of Progress, I think you will see this. The folks that write these things don't just make predictions, they make plans, they brief the US President on them, through documents such as this one.
 
The DC3 is a transport aircraft.

It may have been fitted with machine guns or used to drop bombs in some odd quirky scuffles, maybe places like South Africa or South America, but I’ve never seen any such examples.
So a transport aircraft is not involved in combat? Are they not carrying armed soldiers, as it points out in the vid?
 
Because they need to protect themselves with others who have guns. What's that old saying, Don't bring a knife to a gun fight?
So guns are in a different class when it comes to dispatching someone efficiently? Think about that when you use the “there are lots of ways to kill folk” argument, which implies there’s nothing special about guns.
 
Oh, I didn’t realise your Dad was in a place where he could ‘arm’ it by filling it full of mercenaries. My mistake.
Look up Mena, AR and you will see it wouldn't be the first time. Or, maybe you could just watch the film, that's what most folks do. It's called American Made with Tom Cruise.

from wiki:

In May 2015, Universal set the film for release on January 6, 2017.[13] On August 8, 2016, the film's release was pushed to September 29, 2017, and its title changed from Mena to American Made.[14] It was released in Europe on August 23, 2017, and in the United States on September 29, 2017.[15]

Probably the most infamous small town in America. They have a saying there still: "Mena, where you can find a dead body in every pond."

Also home to the popular term "to be Arkancided"
 
Last edited:
Top