We are a Pro Gun site, please stop pandering

Status
Not open for further replies.
What could be more "pro-gun" than the African warlords recruiting (and arming) child soldiers? No-one here is in favor of those lunatics (I would hope).

As the man said, "critical thinking". And the complete elimination of variance of opinion means that you will never be influenced in any positive sense either. Am I in favor of gun-control? No. Am I in favor of suppression of dissent? A more fundamental no.
 
No one is being dictatorial, merely pointing out that if we start suggesting things to appease the anti gun crowd, it weakens our position, as they will as always take things out of context. This is just not a good idea now, "or ever" as you need to show a united front. Everything said here is looked at by many people, Some of those people monitor these sites for signs of weakness in the gun community. If we start questioning everything form hi capacity magazines to sporting rifles. Don't you think that will come back and kick us in the butt?

Ayoob sent out a similar email actually 2 of them, not saying what I said but along those lines , right after I posted last night. The politicos will bend and twist what you say here and before you know it, they will be printing that pro gun people agree that there should be limitations on everything from magazines to semi-auto handguns and rifles.

Sometimes wearing your heart on your sleeve is not the best way to go. No one is saying that you cannot express yourself, but when half the front page is full of "anti gun" discussions, it makes me wonder if some folks are here to enjoy or destroy what we all supposedly believe in.

You cannot give concessions to politicians, you can't make deals, they cast things in a language that will bite you. Even when they pass a simple bill, it has a hundred things attached to it that only those who wrote it know about. Now is just not the time to show weakness. It is time for reflection, and sadness. But there will always be mentally ill people out there, It's like that old joke 1 out of ten people are crazy, if your 9 friends are sane then it's you. We can never stop the actions of a few crazy people, we can just cope with them and be more watchful.

But for a few days it seems like some were just piggybacking off of what others were saying as far as why do we need this or that, we only need bread and water, it's what you want and fought to get that counts. And good men have died in order to give us these things, so all I'm saying is don't be in such a hurry to send the wrong message to these gun grabbing SOBs, they don't need any help in trying to deny your rights.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Mass...utm_campaign=Feed:+MassadAyoob+(Massad+Ayoob)
 
Last edited:
So then, suppression of opinion only when necessary and in the right context?

Who decides?

Our founding fathers thought so highly of the right to keep and bear arms that it became the second amendment to our constitution. And what do you think was so highly important to them that it came first?
 
Thank god and country we have people like this to help decide.
NRA worked with our allies in the U.S. Congress and successfully assembled strong bipartisan opposition to any treaty that adversely impacts the Second Amendment. On two occasions NRA was successful in convincing a majority of the U.S. Senate to sign letters to President Obama that made it clear that any treaty that included civilian arms was not going to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
 
Are you implying that the Congress can decide when it is necessary and in what context to suppress dissent? That would be a mis-interpretation of the failure of the proposed UN Treaty. I interpret it as eveidence that "our side" should not be the ones convinced that the "sky is falling".
 
I am implying that enough of us were upset enough to wrte our congressmen and senators along with donating money to get our point accross to them that any outside interference from the UN would not be looked upon lightlly, and if they want to keep thei jobs,it's in their best interest to do what their costituants ask then to do. Sitting by and allowing Obama and the UN to take away our rights is not an implication, it is a fact if you do nothing to stop it
 
As stated before, each man has the freedom to engage in education and persuasion as he sees fit, just like the excercise of civic responsibility.

It is not your nor anyone else's right to dictate how that is to be done.

Such is nature of freedom. In a messy sometimes alarming way it seems to be working and the abandonment of certain elements of free society is not IMHO called for nor ultimately desirable.
 
Last edited:
And as I stated before this is a Pro gun forum. If you choose to enter into a debate about who should say and feel whichever way they choose, I suggest peraps a political forum or a debating society. We come here to talk guns, not how we can give up our right to own them.
 
hso
<SNIP>If we can't counter the concessionary ideas of our own members how do we argue against treacherous antis trying to convince ill-informed members of the public who've swallowed the drivel that a "machine gun" was used?
<SNIP>
Click to expand...

True BUT I suspect some of those jokers posing the "ideas" are merely trolls. I guess the best we can hope for is cordial dialog and close the thread when appropriate.
 
cyclopsshooter said:
hso has a very good point. I have become much more irritated by peoples inability to entertain other opinions. This nation was once very good at making compromise, we are quickly loosing that skill.
Click to expand...

This is the core problem. We have had to settle for compromise for far too long. NO COMPROMISE

Sent from my HTC Inspire 4G using Tapatalk
 
What is the point of a discussion forum if all everyone does is toe the party line? I for one am glad that "pandering" is tolerated here, as it keeps this place from becoming a pro-gun echo chamber. It sounds like the OP just wants to reinforce his worldview by reading the same rhetoric over and over.
 
IMO 2a was not written for any other reason than to provide an ability for the populace to fight tyranny; the founders had gone through some rather difficult times and were well versed in the ability of a government to turn on it's citizens. Many citizens of the Soviet Union under Stalin probably figured at first ( the people won the war for Stalin ) so he won't turn against us. 25 million later some figured different or had learned to do some serious sucking up! Red Guard in China were basically kids; 20 million or so did not make it through the Cultural Revolution. Cambodia had the road map and again using kids slaughter anyone who had an education and at one point even those who wore glasses got popped. A 14 year old kid with an AK has no conscience sometimes.

I do not know what is going to happen in America; maybe nothing and maybe everything. I am not one who believes all in the states will give up their guns; some have read history and feel that is not an option. $1000 tax on a .22 rimfire or some other excuse to protect the children and society as a whole if spoken with a trembling lip will work on some, others not so much. Time will tell.

Phase one; registration and transfer tax (like we have for title 2/class 3 weapons);
Phase two: annual registration fee and dangerous materials (guns/ammo) surtax on sales. Then after they milk the gun owners and slow down sales they will try to outlaw them like in the UK & Australia. As others have said you give what they consider a reasonable inch and you can end up as others have gone before.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

"Gun Control" Laws

Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme



Ottoman Turkey

1915-1917

Armenians
(mostly Christians)

1-1.5 million

Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915

• Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession



Soviet Union

1929-1945

Political opponents;
farming communities

20 million

Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926

•Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties



Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe

1933-1945

Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples"

20 million

Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938

•Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession



China, Nationalist

1927-1949

Political opponents;
army conscripts; others

10 million

Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935

•Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership



China, Red

1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976

Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state

20-35 million

Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957

•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"



Guatemala

1960-1981

Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies

100,000-
200,000

Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964

•Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools
•Confiscation powers



Uganda

1971-1979

Christians
Political enemies

300,000

Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970

•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers



Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge)

1975-1979

Educated Persons;
Political enemies

2 million

Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938

•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints
•License inspected quarterly



Rwanda

1994

Tutsi people

800,000

Decree-Law No. 12, 1979

•Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

Notice the common thread through all seems to be "•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions" the road map is there and has been opened many times.


A good idea since guns cause so much meaningless death and injury gun owners should pay more. Look in the mirror and say that with a tear and think how many will go for it.

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- The Cybersecurity Act, which Senators will vote on next week, will not only contain measures for cyber security, but also quite a bit of gun control if a coalition of Democrats led by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) get their way.

When the opportunity to add amendments to the bill arose, a “reasonable” gun control amendment was added by Schumer, and backed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/27/...mags-assault-weapons-next-week/#ixzz21vq7sl7U
Click to expand...

I am presently in a country where only the very rich with connections can afford a weapon. 11 people were killed in a resort town this month and the month is not over....Oh they were knifed for the most part...Man's inhumanity to man is alive and well regardless of the weapon used or country you reside. Education on world events and history is actually pretty good; more should try it sometimes but it seems facts and history get in the way of feelings. Open debate and discussion are a means of learning and teaching if discourse for a different opinion is respected. THR The High Road
 
Last edited:
There is no "party line" I am an independant thinker. I have the ability to reason and the experience to know that when you succumb to the will of the corrupt, you will likely not realize what you gave away until it's too late. Again we are a Pro Gun Forum, I suggest anyone not believing that as truth is either misguided, not in touch with reality, or knew at this.
We have fought for decades to get where we are today. It's not a wise move to ever help your enemy gather ammunition against you.
They will pat you on the back with one hand while removing your weapon with the other. Don't help them.If you trully have a suggestion that addresses the problem of how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, or those that wish us harm, that's fine , but offering to give up my rights is not fine with me.
I don't choose to give up any of my rights, you can give your up by just handing in any items that upset you, and refraining from participating in any competitions of activities you find undesireable, but when you say "we" please leave "me" out. Iwas never we, or them, and prefer not to be lumped in with those who would chose to give "my" liberties away, because "they" had an "epiphany". You are welcome to get in touch with your feminine side as you chose, just don't include those of us who chose not to be included. I say these things because I have learned them to be true over 50 years of participating in them and the laws that govern us. You never offer to give up your freedoms or the things you and yours fought and died for, Or the next thing you know, you will be surrounded by a fence with people carrying "guns" on the other side.
We have 3 or 4 home invasions per day here in South Florida, "your milage may vary" Everyone is upset and everyone is arming them selves to a degree that is bothersome. Only because they have little to no training. But this comes because as usual laws get passed without any thought given to the outcome.
I don't agree with a lot of things having to do with firearms, but the main thing is the people who are walking around with them are untrained for the most part, both physically and mentally, which exposes us to a multitude of possible accidents.But again it's not the gun, it's the person.
 
Going to keep this precise and concise;

If more sane people were armed,
Then the crazies would get off less shots!

Support the second amendment.
 
gym,

If we can't counter the concessionary ideas of our own members how do we argue against treacherous antis trying to convince ill-informed members of the public who've swallowed the drivel that a "machine gun" was used?

Think of it as an incubator for 2A arguments.
Click to expand...

It used go be more fun to debate the ignoramuses that were gun banners years ago on the first forums, such as the CNN and NYT. It's kind of sad that 'gun owners' serve the same purpose now.

I'm all for open discussion about any firearms related subject. That is how dialogue goes and serves its purpose.
 
Last edited:
That's what is happening right now and you and others like you are part of the problem
Click to expand...

walkingarsenal,

You have no idea to what extent and how I "support the cause" or try to provide a positive image of the shooting community. You don't know because I haven't chosen to tell you. My point is that when I do so it is not because of an obligation I assumed by being a THR member or by any other means. It is a free choice that not you nor any person can dictate to me.

gym,

Assuming the "getting in touch with the feminine side" is a response toward me as a result of our exchange of opinion, then I will respectfully suggest that it is my opinion that for someone to most effectively advocate for gun freedoms they need to avoid;

1. rash assumptions regarding differing opinions or those who express them
2. emotional response that might tempt you to simply insult however subtly

Otherwise your ability to persuade if it was ever your intention is severly diminished, and once again IMHO if you are not trying to persuade you are trying to dictate.

P.S. If the elimination of ignorance is in anyone's opinion a responsibility, spell check might be a good idea. The devil is in the details.:neener:
 
Last edited:
hso said:
gym,

If we can't counter the concessionary ideas of our own members how do we argue against treacherous antis trying to convince ill-informed members of the public who've swallowed the drivel that a "machine gun" was used?

Think of it as an incubator for 2A arguments.
Click to expand...

cyclopsshooter said:
hso has a very good point. I have become much more irritated by peoples inability to entertain other opinions. This nation was once very good at making compromise, we are quickly loosing that skill.
Click to expand...

I agree.

While I am not sure which threads/posts have gotten under the OP's skin, I can say discussion is never a bad thing. The anti's will proffer all sorts of ideas(mostly bad), but we need to have our metal tested with sound, persuasive retorts to any attempt to infringe on our rights. The best way to do that is bounce ideas off each other in a respectful, mature manner to ascertain what people are thinking.
Only then can we be armed with a sound viewpoint, and be able to back it up.
 
hso said:
gym,

If we can't counter the concessionary ideas of our own members how do we argue against treacherous antis trying to convince ill-informed members of the public who've swallowed the drivel that a "machine gun" was used?

Think of it as an incubator for 2A arguments.
Click to expand...
Great point. These discussions will strengthen our arguments as well. In case no one has noticed, we have some pretty sharp people here. Bring it on.
 
I am not pro-gun. I am pro-liberty. I do not support arms. I support the right to bear them. I also support the right to vote. I support the right to freedom of speech, press, and religion. I disagree, sometimes vehemently, with some people who post their opinions on THR. I also profoundly respect their right to disagree with me.
I respect the OP's right to feel as he does - and to say so - but I disagree with him fundamentally. "Agree with me or shut up/ get off" is not a respectful attitude toward the rights of others; it is not High Road; it is antithetical to the concepts of individual freedom, social responsibility, and civil democratic discourse that drew me to THR over other forums in the first instance. If someone disarees with you on THR, you have two acceptable options: debating the point with him (trying to be civil and rational), or ignoring him altogether. Seeking to take the rights of people who disagree with us is the Anti Way, not our way.
 
Sky said:
IMO 2a was not written for any other reason than to provide an ability for the populace to fight tyranny; the founders had gone through some rather difficult times and were well versed in the ability of a government to turn on it's citizens. Many citizens of the Soviet Union under Stalin probably figured at first ( the people won the war for Stalin ) so he won't turn against us. 25 million later some figured different or had learned to do some serious sucking up! Red Guard in China were basically kids; 20 million or so did not make it through the Cultural Revolution. Cambodia had the road map and again using kids slaughter anyone who had an education and at one point even those who wore glasses got popped. A 14 year old kid with an AK has no conscience sometimes.

I do not know what is going to happen in America; maybe nothing and maybe everything. I am not one who believes all in the states will give up their guns; some have read history and feel that is not an option. $1000 tax on a .22 rimfire or some other excuse to protect the children and society as a whole if spoken with a trembling lip will work on some, others not so much. Time will tell.

Phase one; registration and transfer tax (like we have for title 2/class 3 weapons);
Phase two: annual registration fee and dangerous materials (guns/ammo) surtax on sales. Then after they milk the gun owners and slow down sales they will try to outlaw them like in the UK & Australia. As others have said you give what they consider a reasonable inch and you can end up as others have gone before.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

"Gun Control" Laws

Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme



Ottoman Turkey

1915-1917

Armenians
(mostly Christians)

1-1.5 million

Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915

• Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession



Soviet Union

1929-1945

Political opponents;
farming communities

20 million

Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926

•Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties



Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe

1933-1945

Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples"

20 million

Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938

•Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession



China, Nationalist

1927-1949

Political opponents;
army conscripts; others

10 million

Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935

•Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership



China, Red

1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976

Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state

20-35 million

Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957

•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"



Guatemala

1960-1981

Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies

100,000-
200,000

Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964

•Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools
•Confiscation powers



Uganda

1971-1979

Christians
Political enemies

300,000

Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970

•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers



Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge)

1975-1979

Educated Persons;
Political enemies

2 million

Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938

•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints
•License inspected quarterly



Rwanda

1994

Tutsi people

800,000

Decree-Law No. 12, 1979

•Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

Notice the common thread through all seems to be "•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions" the road map is there and has been opened many times.


A good idea since guns cause so much meaningless death and injury gun owners should pay more. Look in the mirror and say that with a tear and think how many will go for it.



I am presently in a country where only the very rich with connections can afford a weapon. 11 people were killed in a resort town this month and the month is not over....Oh they were knifed for the most part...Man's inhumanity to man is alive and well regardless of the weapon used or country you reside. Education on world events and history is actually pretty good; more should try it sometimes but it seems facts and history get in the way of feelings. Open debate and discussion are a means of learning and teaching if discourse for a different opinion is respected. THR The High Road
Click to expand...
We are losing the battle when it comes to the next generation who have undergone massive brainwashing during their years in public education systems. I have to wonder how many people, young and old understand what tyranny really means and weather they would recognize it if they saw it.

In reality, we are already under tyranny in the US according to the definitions of tyranny our founding fathers used. It is already upon us and we have become comfortable living in a restrictive nation with diminishing freedoms. Sadly, many buy the false argument of trading freedom for security. It doesn't work that way.
 
I have no doubts of these things “you” mention, if you do you should address this as the word "I ", not 'we", like I want to give up my Hi cap mags, or I don't think machine guns should be legal, Don't include anyone else in your deluded scenario. I don't choose to accept your disdain for my rights. I think that if you wish to give up the rights that my forefathers died for that you by all means "you" should surrender all the things you feel are in question to you. Also I don't spell check because I choose not to, whether you like it or not, The internet started forums as a way to get a thought quickly across the world instead of writing a formal letter, if you chose to spell check then "you" should, "I" don't. It's not important to me what you think "I" should do, "meant in the nicest way".
There is no exchange of ideas here, just an exchange of surrendering your constitutional rights. I choose not to discuss giving mine away.You are on a Pro gun forum, you chose to come here and talk about guns, not to try and divide and subvert people who have been involved in the sport and business of guns for many years. Go to a basketball forum and discuss changing the rules. It's kind of the same thing. We are here to talk about guns not giving them up.
Mac you have good intentions but these arguments or discussions never help the gun community, only the anti gun community. We did nothing wrong so don't act like or think that you need to fix something that isn't broken.
If people followed the letter of the law we would not be having this discussion.There are over a hundred gun laws out there taht the average LEO is not even aware of, when people loose their way and do something this horrific, you don't sit around and try to change the world to fit them. You move on The law will take care of him, we have nothing to apologise for nor anything to give up, as neither of those things ever makes a difference when something like this happens. It just sucks. Plain and simple, you can't legislate sanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ol' scratch
  • Locked
Obama's new site- Tell us your story of gun violence.
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
r1derbike
R
TanklessPro
  • Locked
Can we stop already?
Replies
1
Views
447
Robert
Robert
JTHunter
  • Locked
Are you PRO-active or RE-active?
Replies
7
Views
903
cdk8
C
S
  • Locked
Please do VOTE here-
Replies
21
Views
1K
Crow1108
C
Grandpa Shooter
  • Locked
Are we being selfish?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
5K
Grandpa Shooter
Grandpa Shooter
Back
Top