Gun Owners for Safety

Yet another attempt to pre-define the outcome of the debate by re-defining the terms of the debate. "Gun owners" - obvious deception. "Safety" - warm & comfy, and everybody's for safety, no? Implies an organization to do something good and supported by gun owners. Ya right. About as deceptive as "commonsense gun control".

Here's a simple idea of how a gun owner can be an activist against this organization: if they send mail to gun owners soliciting their membership, and if they enclose a prepaid return envelope, send the envelope back sealed but empty. They'll have to pay the return postage. (And ... if you're like me, you can also feel free to enclose a short F-Off note).

My biggest concern about this is that they will lobby on behalf of "common sense gun control" and claim they represent "rank and file" gun owners-especially if they get a lot of members. Can you imagine? Anti gunners joining this group, funding it and lending legitimacy to it, so they can claim to speak on our behalf?

hso said:

They're a false flag organization ...

Click to expand...

That's a great description. I like that.

Makes about as much sense as "French Monarchs for Guillotines".

Sistema1927 said:

Makes about as much sense as "French Monarchs for Guillotines".

Click to expand...

Founded by a guy named Robbes Pierre.

deergetter said:

I agree. Must spread the word to stop gun owners from being fooled .

Click to expand...

A cursory internet search immediately makes it blatantly obvious what that organization's real agenda is. I would have serious doubts about the mental capacity of any gun owners who believe in the 2A who would be fooled by such an organization. Now, there are plenty of gun owners who don't believe in the principles behind the 2A and for them, an organization like that may be attractive.

hso said:

Let's stay focused on how we are going to make gun owners aware of this fraudulent group and save the complaining about them for General.

Click to expand...

Edited: I don't see what makes the organization being discussed "fraudulent". They have clearly stated their (misguided) intentions. There are many gun owners who don't actually support the ideals behind the 2A and for some of them, such an organization may be attractive. The best way to combat that, IMO, is to do our best to educate people on the real reason for the 2A and stop trying to use crime statistics, recreation or hunting to justify it. People need to be able to research and think for themselves, not just be spoon fed which organization, candidate, celebrity etc they should listen to.

hso said:

Let's stay focused on how we are going to make gun owners aware of this fraudulent group.

Click to expand...

Yes, thanks, I have something in mind I'm going to do on my own account.

bearcreek said:

...The best way to combat that, IMO, is to do our best to educate people on the real reason for the 2A and stop trying to use crime statistics, recreation or hunting to justify it. People need to be able to research and think for themselves, not just be spoon fed which organization, candidate, celebrity etc they should listen to.

Click to expand...

Yes, well, you didn't mention lies in your list of reasons.

wiscoaster said:

Yes, well, you didn't mention lies in your list of reasons.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you. What list of reasons?

bearcreek said:

What list of reasons?

Click to expand...

bearcreek said:

... stop trying to use crime statistics, recreation or hunting ...

Click to expand...

"I support the Second Amendment, but [insert lie here]"
for example:
lie #1: "it doesn't apply to semi-automatic firearms"
lie #2: "it only applies to militias"
etc, etc, etc

The organization we're discussing here is a great example of a "spoon-feed" organization you're against, and equating "safety" with the "control" they support is a great example of one of their lies - and in the name of their organization even, for crying out loud.

I agree that people need the facts and they're free to make up their own minds, but this isn't an organization to give them the facts. And whether or not they represent "many gun owners", well that remains to be seen.

wiscoaster said:

Here's a simple idea of how a gun owner can be an activist against this organization: if they send mail to gun owners soliciting their membership, and if they enclose a prepaid return envelope, send the envelope back sealed but empty. They'll have to pay the return postage. (And ... if you're like me, you can also feel free to enclose a short F-Off note).

Click to expand...

You need to stuff that envelope with enough stuff to get it to weigh a couple of ounces.

That REALLY jacks up how much they have to pay.

Cannibul said:

You need to stuff that envelope with enough stuff to get it to weigh a couple of ounces.

That REALLY jacks up how much they have to pay.

Click to expand...

OK.

wiscoaster said:

"I support the Second Amendment, but [insert lie here]"
for example:
lie #1: "it doesn't apply to semi-automatic firearms"
lie #2: "it only applies to militias"
etc, etc, etc

Click to expand...

Now I'm more confused. You mentioned "my" list of reasons. That doesn't look like any list I've ever written. List of reasons for what?

bearcreek said:

Now I'm more confused. You mentioned "my" list of reasons. That doesn't look like any list I've ever written. List of reasons for what?

Click to expand...

I believe that's you in post #15, which I quoted in post #18, and requoted in post #20 when you questioned it in post #19. If you can't follow that, then I give up. No offense was intended.

The original issue is whether or not the organization being discussed is a fraudulent organization, which you wished to debate, and I took on with the argument that any organization premised on a lie is by definition fraudulent, and used your "list" of reasons for the 2nd Amendment as an illustration of reasons used (yours legitimate) that didn't include lies (from certain organizations, parties and politicians that do use them).

wiscoaster said:

The original issue is whether or not the organization being discussed is a fraudulent organization, which you wished to debate, and I took on with the argument that any organization premised on a lie is by definition fraudulent, and used your "list" of reasons for the 2nd Amendment as an illustration of reasons used (yours legitimate) that didn't include lies (from certain organizations, parties and politicians that do use them).

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. I guess it was so obvious to me what they were about that I didn't take in the part about "supporting the 2A". They clearly don't. I guess that was kind of my point though. I've talked to people who sincerely believe that the 2A exists primarily to protect the right of the people to own guns for hunting and to defend oneself against civilians. When someone says that, they're lying, but I think that very often they're not lying intentionally. So the question is, can a person or organization be fraudulent if they sincerely and without malicious intent, believe what they're saying? Perhaps they can. Depends how you define it. Regardless, I think that people who believe in the original intent of the 2A will instantly see right through such an organization. People who don't believe in it, or who are on the fence, need to be educated by those who do, but IMO, it's best to focus on the principles rather than "warnings" about a particular, allegedly well meaning organization.