Spread the Truth

[etmo]

If they are merely fence sitters, or those that just have never desired to own a gun before, yes I agree. Many times some of those can be shown the way if you take the time to show them about guns, and teach them how to shoot, and how they have been lied to about guns, can be moved to our side. But true, dyed in the wool anti-gunners, I just would not waste my time, energy, or breath in trying to reach them, or teach them in the use of tools they can use against us.

It's a fair point you make, and a reasonable concern.

From my limited personal experience, I can't say I've ever seen anything which has led me to believe it's a risk. I have met some hard-core antis, and invited a couple of them to the range, and they simply declined.
But they did appreciate that I attempted to reach out to them, and we have become sorta friends? Friends that disagree on everything political, that's for darn sure, but the world is a better place when at least there's civilized disagreements as opposed to rabid hatred, and it's hard to hate someone who treated you with kindness and respect.

Also, as a shooter you know this as well as I do: shooting is a perishable skill. If they want to use those weapons against us, they're going to have to buy them, and shoot them, and dry fire with them, and clean them, and go to brownells and get replacement springs, and watch YT videos on how to install the springs, and suffer ammo prices like the rest of us, and vote against anti-gun laws, because if anti-gun laws get passed, then the next generation of [whatever we're calling them] can't get guns, same as us.

So I'm reluctant to believe that a lot of people who walk the same road as us will end up so very different from us. Sure, there's always some fringe weirdos, but if the majority of us and them have all this in common, then we're a lot less likely to want to kill each other.

As for training them in the use of tools they can use against me, there are far superior teachers offering tons of content on YouTube that will show them everything they need to know and then some. IOW, my teaching them or not isn't going to make a bit of difference if they're really out to kill me, but being a good person, offering to teach them, speaking to them with respect, well, that might just make them reluctant to kill people like me, because they will discover that we're pretty decent folk!

 

[Hoji]

It's a fair point you make, and a reasonable concern.

From my limited personal experience, I can't say I've ever seen anything which has led me to believe it's a risk. I have met some hard-core antis, and invited a couple of them to the range, and they simply declined.
But they did appreciate that I attempted to reach out to them, and we have become sorta friends? Friends that disagree on everything political, that's for darn sure, but the world is a better place when at least there's civilized disagreements as opposed to rabid hatred, and it's hard to hate someone who treated you with kindness and respect.

Also, as a shooter you know this as well as I do: shooting is a perishable skill. If they want to use those weapons against us, they're going to have to buy them, and shoot them, and dry fire with them, and clean them, and go to brownells and get replacement springs, and watch YT videos on how to install the springs, and suffer ammo prices like the rest of us, and vote against anti-gun laws, because if anti-gun laws get passed, then the next generation of [whatever we're calling them] can't get guns, same as us.

So I'm reluctant to believe that a lot of people who walk the same road as us will end up so very different from us. Sure, there's always some fringe weirdos, but if the majority of us and them have all this in common, then we're a lot less likely to want to kill each other.

As for training them in the use of tools they can use against me, there are far superior teachers offering tons of content on YouTube that will show them everything they need to know and then some. IOW, my teaching them or not isn't going to make a bit of difference if they're really out to kill me, but being a good person, offering to teach them, speaking to them with respect, well, that might just make them reluctant to kill people like me, because they will discover that we're pretty decent folk!

You are still under the belief that communists are people. I hope you do not have to pay for that belief one day.

 

[etmo]

They will vote to outlaw them.

That settles it -- then I'm against them. As for the laws not applying to them, let's be honest -- you and I would have no intention of obeying such laws, either.

Tell you what. Let us know the next time an untrained person is going to be in their position. We can make sure they get proper training BEFORE the event and then they won't be criticized when they successfully avoid problems.

Let us know who to train and where.

This was just mentioned in another thread. Might be the best way is to train everyone, everywhere. You want to buy a gun? Hey, consider taking this free training course so you can learn how not to do silly things like the St Louis couple. Doesn't take much -- a few links to YouTube videos that already exist and they're on their way. It'd be nicer still if the government would chip in some money to train Americans, but...

 

[Whistler]

I did not say a word about denying someone their rights.

I am referring to what happens when people discharge firearms without following the basic rules of firearm safety. If one (or both) of the lawyers had fired their weapon, they really would have been in trouble. If they had shot someone, they would have been lucky if they only lost their life savings.

Other people have killed friends or family members by not following the basics. While proper training and following the basics, does not guarantee a lack of unintentional discharges. However, training and following the basics reduces the risk of shooting something or someone a person does not intend to shoot.

I'm not against training, I'm against mandating training and that's where every one of these discussions ends.

Who gets to decide what training, when, how much, cost, how often? People always compare it to operating a vehicle but driving a car isn't in the bill of rights.

Freedom is messy, that's the nature of it and any attempt to make it less so, no matter how well-intentioned, invaribly ends with reduction, restriction or elimination of that freedom.

Irrespective of how much or how little training some people will still do stupid shit. I present into evidence the warning labels on coffee cups and gasoline cans. Those warnings are there because more than one moron did that stupid shit.

Nothing personal but that's how we got here, short term thinking, the belief a small restriction won't hurt and will satisfy their hissy fit. Its incrementalism and there is but one possible conclusion.

Instead I propose personal responsibility and individual accountability. We make our choices and we own the results good or bad. That's how freedom works.

 

[oldag]

Let's assume this is true. Those communists want to kill us all, and they want to use guns.

So it comes time to vote, and one of the measures on the ballot is some anti-gun measure. Let's say something like no ARs allowed in Texas...some assault weapons ban. How will your communists vote on that ballot issue?

I really have no confidence that all the liberals who bought guns out of fear will change anything in the way they vote. They will continue to vote for liberal candidates. And those liberal candidates will be anti 2A.

 

[jrbfishn]

Some of those liberals bought guns because they have finally realized that the police will not save them from something bad happening.
There is also a large block of them that have bought because they believe the lies being told to them.
That WE are the ones they need to be afraid of.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Hoji]

As for the laws not applying to them, let's be honest -- you and I would have no intention of obeying such laws, either.

...

There is a big difference between not complying with a law, and not having it apply to you.

These communists have learned over the last several weeks that rioting laws do not apply to them.

Aggravated assault laws do not apply to them.( on both private citizens and LE)

Vandalism of landmarks, public and private property laws do not apply to them.

See why they would go ahead and vote for gun bans of guns they own that you taught them how to use?

Why would they think ,after all of the above, that a gun law would apply to them either?

 

[etmo]

There is a big difference between not complying with a law, and not having it apply to you.

These communists have learned over the last several weeks that rioting laws do not apply to them.

Aggravated assault laws do not apply to them.( on both private citizens and LE)

Vandalism of landmarks, public and private property laws do not apply to them.

See why they would go ahead and vote for gun bans of guns they own that you taught them how to use?

Why would they think ,after all of the above, that a gun law would apply to them either?

To be fair, they have only learned that local laws are not being applied against them.

Federal laws, now those are a different matter entirely, and those do apply to them. You try to vandalize a federal building, and you get the full-strength flash bang, not the watered-down local version: https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-officers-clash-with-protesters-in-portland-oregon-2020-7
and
https://theconservativeopinion.com/...y7vurvV8Ec-5_NkEgmDh1WLnBCjFfRIcipTjXEyve3rYA

So gun laws might go the same way. Idiot progressive politicians in Oregon might let their local thugs get away with murder, but a national gun law? That's out of their hands, and can be enforced by the FBI, the ATF, etc, etc. Federal criminals serve on average 88% of their sentences (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics 2012—Statistical Tables, Table 7.11.), so this is not some slap on the wrist from your local yokel Judge.

 

[Hoji]

To be fair, they have only learned that local laws are not being applied against them.

Federal laws, now those are a different matter entirely, and those do apply to them. You try to vandalize a federal building, and you get the full-strength flash bang, not the watered-down local version: https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-officers-clash-with-protesters-in-portland-oregon-2020-7
and
https://theconservativeopinion.com/...y7vurvV8Ec-5_NkEgmDh1WLnBCjFfRIcipTjXEyve3rYA

So gun laws might go the same way. Idiot progressive politicians in Oregon might let their local thugs get away with murder, but a national gun law? That's out of their hands, and can be enforced by the FBI, the ATF, etc, etc. Federal criminals serve on average 88% of their sentences (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics 2012—Statistical Tables, Table 7.11.), so this is not some slap on the wrist from your local yokel Judge.

How many have been prosecuted for weed at the federal level in weed legal states?( I think it should be legal BTW)

 

[rotor]

I agree with Hoji, I don't believe the new gun owners will change their stupid ways now that they are gun owners. "I got mine and don't care about you" will be their belief. They will still vote the same way, for democrats.

 

[etmo]

How many have been prosecuted for weed at the federal level in weed legal states?( I think it should be legal BTW)

Can't say I know; I'm a single-issue (2A) voter, don't really pay careful attention to much else from a political perspective. I'd be willing to bet the number is tiny; IIRC Obama said Feds would not waste time prosecuting, and I don't have any memory of Trump changing that, so probably 0.

But that is the point -- we currently do have a President who will prosecute these vandals / rioters / whatever, so Federal law does apply to them, as they are finding out (two links above).

And that underscores the importance of re-electing Trump / Rs in general -- law and order on the Federal level. Democrats are OK with rioting, looting, raping, burning, whatever, and Republicans are not. Sounds like a great campaign platform issue to me!

I agree with Hoji, I don't believe the new gun owners will change their stupid ways now that they are gun owners. "I got mine and don't care about you" will be their belief. They will still vote the same way, for democrats.

Some certainly won't change their stupid ways, but some will, and we need every vote we can get. I can say my sister and her family are first-time gun owners because of these BLM riots, and they have been bitterly disappointed by the gun laws in their state (they live in CA). I have burned more calories resisting the urge to rub her nose in it than I burn in 2 hours at the gym, but by being understanding, helpful and informative, I've been able to guide her and her family to a realization of why they need to actively support the Republican party (before this they have been apolitical).

The left is alienating people by their extreme behavior, and that opens the door for us. We need to act like reasonable adults and we'll win the fence-sitters to our side, prevent them from voting D, and thus preserve our way of life.

 

[rotor]

etmo, my brother lives in Comiefornia, begs me to send him 30 round magazines for his ASSAULT RIFLE (I won't) but he will still vote for any democrat that runs. He is not stupid as far as IQ but he is a dumb shit otherwise. As long as he has he doesn't care if you have. This is the mentality we are dealing with.

 

[Whistler]

Couldn't be a single issue voter. Take Trump, don't much like him at all but I like what he delivers. I don't have to like my CO if he's a freakin good CO I'll back and support him.

I like what he's trying to do and particularly impressed what he's managed to do despite opposition that would have crushed most in his position.

I can overlook his personality, never met a CEO that wasn't a jerk, sort of a requirement of the job. Nice guys can't do that job well though some of them are better at pretending they are.

Biden is no threat, no one is voting for Biden, they are voting for his replacement, their true candidate. This is what frightens me because everybody on the list is against everything I believe.

 

[Mohawk600]

I really have no confidence that all the liberals who bought guns out of fear will change anything in the way they vote. They will continue to vote for liberal candidates. And those liberal candidates will be anti 2A.

They will all be selling their first time purchases in short order once Biden loses.

 

[Tcruse]

I did not say a word about denying someone their rights.

I am referring to what happens when people discharge firearms without following the basic rules of firearm safety. If one (or both) of the lawyers had fired their weapon, they really would have been in trouble. If they had shot someone, they would have been lucky if they only lost their life savings.

Other people have killed friends or family members by not following the basics. While proper training and following the basics, does not guarantee a lack of unintentional discharges. However, training and following the basics reduces the risk of shooting something or someone a person does not intend to shoot.

Not true. They had the right to use deadly force to protect themselves. I agree that they could have shown better gun handling, however, they were 100% successful in that they were not killed, their pets were not killed, and their home is still standing.

 

[Tcruse]

It's a fair point you make, and a reasonable concern.

From my limited personal experience, I can't say I've ever seen anything which has led me to believe it's a risk. I have met some hard-core antis, and invited a couple of them to the range, and they simply declined.
But they did appreciate that I attempted to reach out to them, and we have become sorta friends? Friends that disagree on everything political, that's for darn sure, but the world is a better place when at least there's civilized disagreements as opposed to rabid hatred, and it's hard to hate someone who treated you with kindness and respect.

Also, as a shooter you know this as well as I do: shooting is a perishable skill. If they want to use those weapons against us, they're going to have to buy them, and shoot them, and dry fire with them, and clean them, and go to brownells and get replacement springs, and watch YT videos on how to install the springs, and suffer ammo prices like the rest of us, and vote against anti-gun laws, because if anti-gun laws get passed, then the next generation of [whatever we're calling them] can't get guns, same as us.

So I'm reluctant to believe that a lot of people who walk the same road as us will end up so very different from us. Sure, there's always some fringe weirdos, but if the majority of us and them have all this in common, then we're a lot less likely to want to kill each other.

As for training them in the use of tools they can use against me, there are far superior teachers offering tons of content on YouTube that will show them everything they need to know and then some. IOW, my teaching them or not isn't going to make a bit of difference if they're really out to kill me, but being a good person, offering to teach them, speaking to them with respect, well, that might just make them reluctant to kill people like me, because they will discover that we're pretty decent folk!

Your point is correct. What many of us do not understand is that anti-gun groups are not anti-gun (they have their protection via guns) they are anti-gun owners.

 

[Tcruse]

They will all be selling their first time purchases in short order once Biden loses.

Some will, most will not.

 

[Dougw1515]

I'm 70 yo. Never felt the need to own a pistol or to carry until now. When talk started circulating about defunding police depts., and the likes, the hand writing on the wall was blatantly obvious. In the last few months I've spent several thousand dollars arming up and I don't even own a gun yet. I expect to spend another few thousand in the month(s) to follow. Doesn't matter to me what the tool is I have a firm resolve that if I'm going to buy a tool I'm going to get the best tool I can. Then I'm going to make sure I know how to use and maintain that tool. Owing a gun of any sort comes with responsibilities knowing how/when to deploy are part of those responsiblities. It kinna helps if you actually know how to use the tool. I wouldn't advise using a hammer to drive a screw nor use a cordless drill to drive a nail.

 

[popsgarland]

From my understanding the lawyers, that were protecting their home, had their LTC, both of them. If this was the case, then they were trained in the safety and use of fire arms.

It seems they were scared, pissed and afraid for their safety so they did what they thought was right to keep from loosing their house and maybe their life.

Me, I would have sat on my porch, showed them my weapon and gave them the evil eye, as telling them to come on I'm ready for you.

I also read that the gun the woman had did not even work, as in broken.

 

[Aus_Schwaben]

I'm not against training, I'm against mandating training and that's where every one of these discussions ends.

Who gets to decide what training, when, how much, cost, how often? People always compare it to operating a vehicle but driving a car isn't in the bill of rights.

Freedom is messy, that's the nature of it and any attempt to make it less so, no matter how well-intentioned, invaribly ends with reduction, restriction or elimination of that freedom.

Irrespective of how much or how little training some people will still do stupid shit. I present into evidence the warning labels on coffee cups and gasoline cans. Those warnings are there because more than one moron did that stupid shit.

Nothing personal but that's how we got here, short term thinking, the belief a small restriction won't hurt and will satisfy their hissy fit. Its incrementalism and there is but one possible conclusion.

Instead I propose personal responsibility and individual accountability. We make our choices and we own the results good or bad. That's how freedom works.

I neither said a word about mandating firearm training nor denying Second Amendment rights.