Talking guns/2A with your clientele/customers

[Impureclient]

I finally brought it and the conversation got real juicy with one of my customers. Once in awhile I would briefly talk about guns with customers when I knew it was safe but not in depth like this time. I waited until the job was over and I was getting paid of course. We started talking about where they came from as they were cutting the check. It turned into talk about how it isn't as safe as when they were younger(They're in the sixties). Then it got to the meat of what I was curious about. They said they own guns and although the wife wasn't crazy about them, she understands that they may be needed at some point for defense. The husband even had a conceal permit. It went on to talking about the rush on stripping us of our rights for magazines and certain guns. Talk about a wake up call. Never would I think that a couple gun owners would be so uneducated on what the goals are when they are scheming with all these newly introduced laws. The husband said there was no reason for AR/AK type rifles as they aren't needed for hunting. "Nobody hunts with 30 round banana clips" were his exact words. He went on to say the only people who have those guns are people who want to sell them to criminals. :banghead: At that point, it was a lost cause and I just nodded my head and tried to smile as he explained how they are not needed and so forth. I tried to interject how every law being introduced concerning magazine capacity and style of firearm were just baby steps towards the anti's ultimate goal: disarmament and the end of our Constitutional right. He disagreed and kept on how nobody needs "X" gun or "X" number of bullets in a magazine. I really wanted to get through but honestly, I was just glad they even had guns and weren't fully against the 2nd. The thing that really irked me is most of the voting done seems to be this age group. At least that's what I'm seeing when I'm at the polls come election time. So this is why these inane laws get passed, senselessness.

 

[ngnrd]

Here's a great argument against that line of thinking...

The reason that nobody actually needs a semi-auto rifle and a stack of 30-round magazines at this point is because the Second Amendment is doing precisely what it was intended to do. Those patriotic citizens that choose to own these weapons are passively keeping tyranny in check. Why do you think parts of our government want so badly to take them from us? It certainly isn't about public safety, or they would be concentrating on making pistols illegal, since that's what is actually used to commit the vast majority of violent crime. No... it's about using a single tragedy as a justification to take the tools of freedom from the people that may one day have a legitimate need to use them.

And, if they won't get off the "nobody needs to hunt with a 30-round mag in a military style rifle" nonsense, they need to be reminded that every hunting rifle ever used is based on rifles specifically designed for and/or used in war - even their ol' familiar lever action repeater.

 

[beatledog7]

Ah, deterrence. It works exactly as intended.

On a grander scale, the couple in the OP's post might argue that no country needs a 10-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile, right? I mean, are we being attacked by any country who can only be warded off with such a weapon?

Today? No. Ever? No. Why not? Because any country who would consider attacking us knows we have such weaponry and realizes that as long as we do, the potential cost of attacking us is too high and that ultimately they cannot beat us.

Back to the internal picture: Has our government come to town to try and rob us of liberty? Yes, it attacks our freedom and steals our liberty every day. Oh, not with guns (would the people of New Orleans agree?), but just as surely as Federal troops with guns on the outskirts of the city would be a clear indicator of intent, intrusive laws and regulations are the harbinger of more draconian and physically drastic measures.

We can't be unequivocally certain that the Federal government is bent on totally disarming us, but neither do we have any credible assurance that it's not. However, it is easy to point to the cases of what happens to disarmed populations. Many argue that the US government has no such intent and would never turn against the people that empowered it, but there are also many who believe it would (and that this process has been underway for decades).

I look at the trend of increasing government intrusion and intervention in people's lives, and I can't help but believe that if it could do so, the current administration would sweep in and ban all guns in civilian hands tomorrow. I firmly believe that every law it pushes is part of its grand plan to exert complete control over this nation's people and over its means of production.

One might argue that even with the guns we have we could not resist the military, but whether that's true or not, doesn't it make sense that the government would prefer to disarm us without the need to fire a shot?

 

[mayassa]

I spoke with a lady at work while watching TV in the kitchen, she asked if anything good was happening. I told her not to the country Obama is on talking about taking rights away from us, she asked why do we need "those" guns, they didn't have them back then. I told her we did not have cell phones back then but you still have free speech when you talk on one. She looked at me then couldn't come up with anything so I jumped in and asked her how many people where let go in the company because the lack of military spending in the last three months. She new a few of them, I told her this next year we planed on taking a 20% cut her eyes opened up, I told her the government customers are about to get a 20% cut and so are we. She started looking a little nervous, I told her Obama didn't care if she had a job. She said he is going to prove himself to the US by taking a 5% cut. I told her everyone else is getting a 20% cut and he doesn't live off his salary. He gets to take 12 million dollar vacations and entertain at the white house all on us. So she said he will turn this around, I bit my tongue and told her we don't take 20% pay cuts here we loose 20% of staff. So look around you 20 people for every 100 will be let go. Tell them Obama was the right choice for this country. I guess I went off on a tangent but this country is not getting better for most of us.

 

[holdencm9]

Ah yes, deterrence. It is really too bad this quote can't be substantiated as Thomas Jefferson's, but it does sum it up nicely.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation

I generally don't talk guns/2a with clients or coworkers though, unless I classify them more as friends than coworkers. This is because at some point, almost everyone will disagree. As you found out, even your gun-owning, concealed-carry-permit-holding customer, draws the line at AR/AK rifles. However misguided it may be. Even here on THR, where we are all very pro-2A, people have varying opinions of where to draw the line, or if a line should even exist.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Even here on THR, where we are all very pro-2A, people have varying opinions of where to draw the line, or if a line should even exist.

Exactly, which is why it's not a good idea to discuss these issues with people who are giving you money.
With my job, it's kind of different. I work for a State Senator as his paralegal/legislative assistant, so part of my job is to talk about divisive issues. It still gets harry sometimes, even among people in our own party. (Who are supposed to be the pro-gun ones)

 

[SunnySlopes]

Or, how bout we try some paragraphs.

I finally brought it and the conversation got real juicy with one of my customers. Once in awhile I would briefly talk about guns with customers when I knew it was safe but not in depth like this time.

I waited until the job was over and I was getting paid of course. We started talking about where they came from as they were cutting the check. It turned into talk about how it isn't as safe as when they were younger(They're in the sixties).

Then it got to the meat of what I was curious about. They said they own guns and although the wife wasn't crazy about them, she understands that they may be needed at some point for defense. The husband even had a conceal permit.

It went on to talking about the rush on stripping us of our rights for magazines and certain guns. Talk about a wake up call. Never would I think that a couple gun owners would be so uneducated on what the goals are when they are scheming with all these newly introduced laws.

The husband said there was no reason for AR/AK type rifles as they aren't needed for hunting. "Nobody hunts with 30 round banana clips" were his exact words. He went on to say the only people who have those guns are people who want to sell them to criminals.

At that point, it was a lost cause and I just nodded my head and tried to smile as he explained how they are not needed and so forth. I tried to interject how every law being introduced concerning magazine capacity and style of firearm were just baby steps towards the anti's ultimate goal: disarmament and the end of our Constitutional right.

He disagreed and kept on how nobody needs "X" gun or "X" number of bullets in a magazine. I really wanted to get through but honestly, I was just glad they even had guns and weren't fully against the 2nd.

The thing that really irked me is most of the voting done seems to be this age group. At least that's what I'm seeing when I'm at the polls come election time. So this is why these inane laws get passed, senselessness.

In response to the above, just because someone owns guns doesn't make him a friend of the Constitution. The caretaker at my gun club, the very first day I was there, was showing me the pistol lanes. He couldn't resist saying, "But personally, I hate handguns. I think they all should be outlawed."

I couldn't believe it. If he weren't 6'6" tall and 300 pounds of solid muscle, Ida slapped him.

As it was I just gave him a dirty look.

most of the voting done

And there it is. The problem is we can't discuss the real problem. We're constrained in the name of political correctness. We're trying to have a discussion about Lyme disease without implicating the tick.

 

[c4v3man]

I let the customer steer the conversation. If they bring it up, I reflect on my own experiences. Thankfully in my neck of the woods, if someone brings it up it's likely they're pretty Pro-2A, evil black rifles and all.