New anti-gun legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rob Allen

Active Member
Seriously???

What makes you think having a PhD and being a regular Joe with common sense are mutually exclusive? Talk about an elitist attitude, but I've seen this anti-science attitude from you before and for many years (old Westfly). Not to derail, but I guess the COVID-19 experience has taught you nothing about science, its value, and how it works.

With your own anecdotal example, about bass fishing, I guess no one should listen to you when you chime in with your local stream knowledge or equipment knowledge, correct? According to you, experience is meaningless.

Cheers
Way to jump to conclusions and assume the extreme about someone you don't know..

I am not anti- science..

I am just saying an Alaskan moose hunting guide knows more about defending oneself from a bear attack than a room full of scientists.. He carries a rifle, a big lever action rifle.

That's not anti science..


Yes the last year has taught us A TON about scientists and how their work is abused for political goals..

Big thanks to the real scientists, the ones who worked to get us a vaccine.
 

ribka

Active Member
It was a study done on hundreds of attacks, by people with doctorate degrees who work with bears for a living.

I think I'll take their input over the anecdotes of a rude person on the internet.
Ive never seen a bear but I read and article on the internets now Im an expert


Do you have a link to those hundreds of well documented bear attacks on people and the list of phd's who conducted that research and live and work in bear country every day?

Why does anyone, without a phd, who works around bears every day for a living carry a firearm?

Have you ever, in your life, been close to a grizzly bear or even a black bear?

waiting for your reply

and interesting that you want firearms banned and confiscated in the US. Did you even read the bill? You're an immigrant here in the US and you want to abolish American's basic civil rights enshrined in our founding documents. Thats very facist
 
Last edited:

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
""


Big thanks to the real scientists, the ones who worked to get us a vaccine.
You're very welcome.

" I have come to realize that experts with PHDs are wrong more often than regular joes with common sense.."

Which conclusion did I jump to - those were your words, and who is jumping to conclusions about people they don't know? Hmmmm.

Cheers
 

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
I work in the field with bears 150+ days a year and I don't carry a gun.

I also think it might be time for a little common sense gun control.

And yes, I own firearms.



The term " control " is beyond most RWL comprehension, it's instantly turned into violation of rights.
 

Chromer J

Active Member
It's amusing how so many firearms threads merge into one : the gun vs bear debate. I'm surprised the gun vs bear debate hasn't shown up in the classifieds yet. lol

I like the belt, suspenders, and chest holster approach, especially if hunting in bear country. i.e. common sense situational awareness, spray, and 15 rds of hard-cast 10mm applied in that order of preference. Yes there are more powerful options out there, but that's what strikes my balance (as well as many Alaskan guides) on the weight/firepower ratio. If you're not experienced and proficient with the firearm(s) you'd be carrying, obviously leave them behind. Knowing how to chamber a round and how not to hit the magazine release while trying to figure out how to chamber a round is not enough, but it's a good start. <- An allusion to a relatively recent, tragic incident leading to a fatal bear encounter during a WY elk hunt.

"Studies on pepper spray vs. firearms for bear defense have been cited by government agencies and pundits as pure fact, despite deep flaws. These studies have gone unchallenged...until now." :

 
Last edited:

Rob Allen

Active Member
You're very welcome.

" I have come to realize that experts with PHDs are wrong more often than regular joes with common sense.."

Which conclusion did I jump to - those were your words, and who is jumping to conclusions about people they don't know? Hmmmm.

Cheers


You said I was anti science... I am not and never have been.. I think science is great, it is however proven on a daily basis. That scientists are often wrong, its the nature of their business to be wrong, that's how science improves.

How science gets worse is when a scientist doubles down when proven wrong or when a politician grabs ahold of it and uses it badly, which also happens on a daily basis.
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Hey Rob - Yes, science is self-correcting, but I have had this with you before (on the old Westfly). You seem to decide what is good science and what is bad based on you personal beliefs; evolution - not so good - Creationism - very good (to be very clear, I have no issue with you believing in Creationism, its just not science). I'd also like to know who the "real scientists" are, and how you decide they are real (though this is probably a discussion for a different thread).

On the bright side Rob, I couldn't agree with you more about "a scientist doubles down when proven wrong" (though I'd like to know who you might be referring to, or provide an example of such) "or when a politician grabs ahold of it and uses it badly, which also happens on a daily basis." - A pox on the both of them.

Cheers
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
The Heller decision is precedent when it comes to gun control. Justices have traditionally been deferential to precedent. Any of these laws can be proposed but there is no reason for those who oppose them to get upset as long as we have a supreme court that is deferential to precedent.
One of the more recent retirees from the bench even stated such recently. That being that if gun control measures were to be enacted there would need to be an amendment to the constitution. Heller is precedent.
The fly in the ointment for gun advocates in my opinion could very well be if this court decides to reverse precedent regarding religious freedom/ the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs and/or if they overturn Roe V. Wade. At the point that this court begins to do these things it will open the door for future courts to reverse the precedent Heller represents and return to prior precedent where the right to bear arms was protected for the sole purpose of arming state militias. This was hundreds of years of precedence prior to Heller.
Now this is just my belief, so take it for what it is. I do believe though that if the current conservative court begins overturning precedent then future left leaning courts (which may be an inevitability) will be free to do the same. In this way, the present conservative court may be the actual biggest threat to gun rights in the long term.
Members of this court are chomping at the bit to affirm discriminatory practices based on religion. This is clear from public statements from a few of the justices. The newer justices (especially the last 2) seem to have been picked for the sole purpose of this and overturning Roe V. Wade. I foresee the rightward shift of the court and it's lack of deference to precedent will lead to an equal and opposite shift the other way.
Another thought on the supreme court. Thirty percent of the population of the US is atheist, agnostic or non-religious. 0% of the Supreme court is. Six are Catholic. 3 are Jewish and 1 was raised catholic but is now Episcopalian. Where is the representation for the 30%?

Go Sox,
cds
 

ribka

Active Member
The Heller decision is precedent when it comes to gun control. Justices have traditionally been deferential to precedent. Any of these laws can be proposed but there is no reason for those who oppose them to get upset as long as we have a supreme court that is deferential to precedent.
One of the more recent retirees from the bench even stated such recently. That being that if gun control measures were to be enacted there would need to be an amendment to the constitution. Heller is precedent.
The fly in the ointment for gun advocates in my opinion could very well be if this court decides to reverse precedent regarding religious freedom/ the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs and/or if they overturn Roe V. Wade. At the point that this court begins to do these things it will open the door for future courts to reverse the precedent Heller represents and return to prior precedent where the right to bear arms was protected for the sole purpose of arming state militias. This was hundreds of years of precedence prior to Heller.
Now this is just my belief, so take it for what it is. I do believe though that if the current conservative court begins overturning precedent then future left leaning courts (which may be an inevitability) will be free to do the same. In this way, the present conservative court may be the actual biggest threat to gun rights in the long term.
Members of this court are chomping at the bit to affirm discriminatory practices based on religion. This is clear from public statements from a few of the justices. The newer justices (especially the last 2) seem to have been picked for the sole purpose of this and overturning Roe V. Wade. I foresee the rightward shift of the court and it's lack of deference to precedent will lead to an equal and opposite shift the other way.
Another thought on the supreme court. Thirty percent of the population of the US is atheist, agnostic or non-religious. 0% of the Supreme court is. Six are Catholic. 3 are Jewish and 1 was raised catholic but is now Episcopalian. Where is the representation for the 30%?

Go Sox,
cds
HhGXlNC.jpg
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
The Heller decision is precedent when it comes to gun control. Justices have traditionally been deferential to precedent. Any of these laws can be proposed but there is no reason for those who oppose them to get upset as long as we have a supreme court that is deferential to precedent.
One of the more recent retirees from the bench even stated such recently. That being that if gun control measures were to be enacted there would need to be an amendment to the constitution. Heller is precedent.
The fly in the ointment for gun advocates in my opinion could very well be if this court decides to reverse precedent regarding religious freedom/ the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs and/or if they overturn Roe V. Wade. At the point that this court begins to do these things it will open the door for future courts to reverse the precedent Heller represents and return to prior precedent where the right to bear arms was protected for the sole purpose of arming state militias. This was hundreds of years of precedence prior to Heller.
Now this is just my belief, so take it for what it is. I do believe though that if the current conservative court begins overturning precedent then future left leaning courts (which may be an inevitability) will be free to do the same. In this way, the present conservative court may be the actual biggest threat to gun rights in the long term.
Members of this court are chomping at the bit to affirm discriminatory practices based on religion. This is clear from public statements from a few of the justices. The newer justices (especially the last 2) seem to have been picked for the sole purpose of this and overturning Roe V. Wade. I foresee the rightward shift of the court and it's lack of deference to precedent will lead to an equal and opposite shift the other way.
Another thought on the supreme court. Thirty percent of the population of the US is atheist, agnostic or non-religious. 0% of the Supreme court is. Six are Catholic. 3 are Jewish and 1 was raised catholic but is now Episcopalian. Where is the representation for the 30%?

Go Sox,
cds


The Supreme Court should be 100% free of public influence, their obligation is to the constitution and absolutely nothing else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top