The AHSA Trolls are Out in Force

[wild cat mccane]

The anit crowd can possess good arguments. It is called an honest disagreement.

 

[barnbwt]

^^^^Agreed, Sam *thumbs up*

We need to let cooler heads prevail right now. Stand firm on our beliefs and issues. It is a sad time for our nation.

We all need to be strong, since so many in our nation and its leadership have shown they cannot be so. We have a President declaring we have no choice but terror or subjugation, and shrill cries for "meaningfull action" (another troll buzzwerd) with absolutely no desire for its definition; merely its passage. This is the ugly side of Democracy at work here; the "consensus" decision. We are not in a debate. A debate is an impartially moderated event with rules regarding behavior and arguments. What we are seeing is a torch mob that has decided (falsely) it has superior numbers and is making a decision for the rest of us to either accept, or face the consequences. The only option is to stall the process long enough to allow the wrath of the people to wash over our targeted minority (the prinicpal aim of our system of checks and balances), and then to argue our case with the winded leaders of the "majority."

Remember that our nation was founded a Constitutional Republic for a reason.

I don't post a lot either! I enjoy the High Road for the great info and the ocassional funny posting.

NARC!!! NARC!!! Just kidding, of course

The anit crowd can possess good arguments. It is called an honest disagreement.

If, and only if, they argue in good faith. Bogus stats, deliberate misuse of well-defined language, and hypocritical claims of moral superiority don't suggest that.

TCB

 

[RungSat65]

Possible answer

I got this from another board and in a way it makes sense. If you understand my screen name it will tell you where and what i was doing in the 60's. The possible solution-- go to the local VFW, American Legion Post, AmVets or other similar group and call for volunteers to donate a few hours a day at a local school as a security guard. (Armed of course) I am sure this would upset the local LEOS but look at the impact on the anti's and others. Most of the above are, trained, tested and usually willing to help out, and are loyal Americans and for the most part gun owners.

 

[slidemuzik]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKMtnRunner
How bad is it to propose elevating the level of gun responsibility if it appeases anti gunners? With more freedom, there has to be a higher level of responsibility and accountability. As long as we hold the right to bear arms without pledging to anti's our sincerety for meaningful gun safety, we'll be painted as irresponsible and a threat to society.


How bad is it to propose elevating the level of gun responsibility if it appeases anti gunners?

Those sound like code words. Please be specific on what "elevating the level of gun responsibility" means.

With more freedom, there has to be a higher level of responsibility and accountability.

More of what freedom? Again, what does a "higher level of responsibility and accountability" mean? Specificly.

As long as we hold the right to bear arms without pledging to anti's our sincerety for meaningful gun safety, we'll be painted as irresponsible and a threat to society.

Sir or Ma'am, if you personally are not holding yourself accountable for the highest standards of "meaningful gun safety" already... PLEASE seek training on how to do so. Unless your range is different from every other one I've visited, there are plenty of friendly folks at your local range that will be happy to assist you. If you are already committed to practicing the highest standards of gun safety, and wish to influence "anti's", try this... 1) Ask them if they have ever been to a range? 2) Offer to take them. Ask them to just visit and watch a little.

My experience has made me believe that most anti-gun folks have had little to no exposure to firearms in general and a range in particular. They don't know anybody that has asked them. They have been taught to fear guns primarily by people that know nothing about them. So much of the battle is fear of the unknown. They have never been exposed to guns in a situation that they felt was safe.

The emphisis on safety present at ranges will help make them more comfortable. They will see what we know. They will see that the majority of responsible gun owners are very safety conscious and keep a close eye on suspicious characters.
We self regulate over and beyond what is legislated.

In more cases than not, they will change their mind about just watching, and when given the chance, will want to shoot it at least once to experience it. I always take a .22 pistol to the range that is very good for this. I love the smile on their faces after they fire that first shot. I then show them how to properly clear the weapon so it is safe and go over the basic safety proceedures again.

After leaving the range they will probably tell you that the experience was not at all what they thought it was going to be like. You have now accomplished what no "pledge" will ever do. You have opened their mind by casting a different light than they have ever seen the issue in. It changes minds.

 

[k_dawg]

Add this to the obvious 'talking points':

The word "high powered" with respect to a .223/5.56. It is obvious the individual has never fired such a rifle.

In fact, it is not powerful enough to hunt in many states.

I would also include any reference similar to 'designed to kill'.

Yes, yes it is. That is its intended function. But that is not a reason to ban it. That is a reason to buy it!

 

[statelineblues]

Posted by k_dawg:

I would also include any reference similar to 'designed to kill'.

Yes, yes it is. That is its intended function. But that is not a reason to ban it. That is a reason to buy it!

No, it isn't a firearm's intended function - it is designed to propel a small projectile in a straight line to a target.
What that target is depends on the person.

 

[slidemuzik]

Add this to the obvious 'talking points':

The word "high powered" with respect to a .223/5.56. It is obvious the individual has never fired such a rifle.

In fact, it is not powerful enough to hunt in many states.

I would also include any reference similar to 'designed to kill'.

Yes, yes it is. That is its intended function. But that is not a reason to ban it. That is a reason to buy it!

.223 not high powered? Really? Not that there aren't many more powerful, but there are a lot less powerful too.

 

[Sam1911]

Uh, yeah...the .223 is NOT "high powered." There's very little -- almost NOTHING in the whole list of modern (OR ANTIQUE!) rifle chamberings that is LESS powerful than the .223.

So anyone who waxes wide-eyed hysterical over these "high-powered" weapons has NO idea what they're talking about -- but probably wants to see your guns banned.

 

[Dave P.]

Reading this thread the idea of gunowner responsibility has popped up.

Question....has anybody seen anything regarding how the shooters
mother was storing the guns?
Gunsafe ?
Thanks
Dave

 

[Sam1911]

Does it much matter? He KILLED his mother. Without delving into the macabre, somehow I don't think getting her guns would be much trouble.

 

[AKMtnRunner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKMtnRunner
How bad is it to propose elevating the level of gun responsibility if it appeases anti gunners? With more freedom, there has to be a higher level of responsibility and accountability. As long as we hold the right to bear arms without pledging to anti's our sincerety for meaningful gun safety, we'll be painted as irresponsible and a threat to society.


How bad is it to propose elevating the level of gun responsibility if it appeases anti gunners?

Those sound like code words. Please be specific on what "elevating the level of gun responsibility" means.

With more freedom, there has to be a higher level of responsibility and accountability.

More of what freedom? Again, what does a "higher level of responsibility and accountability" mean? Specificly.

As long as we hold the right to bear arms without pledging to anti's our sincerety for meaningful gun safety, we'll be painted as irresponsible and a threat to society.

Sir or Ma'am, if you personally are not holding yourself accountable for the highest standards of "meaningful gun safety" already... PLEASE seek training on how to do so. Unless your range is different from every other one I've visited, there are plenty of friendly folks at your local range that will be happy to assist you. If you are already committed to practicing the highest standards of gun safety, and wish to influence "anti's", try this... 1) Ask them if they have ever been to a range? 2) Offer to take them. Ask them to just visit and watch a little.

My experience has made me believe that most anti-gun folks have had little to no exposure to firearms in general and a range in particular. They don't know anybody that has asked them. They have been taught to fear guns primarily by people that know nothing about them. So much of the battle is fear of the unknown. They have never been exposed to guns in a situation that they felt was safe.

The emphisis on safety present at ranges will help make them more comfortable. They will see what we know. They will see that the majority of responsible gun owners are very safety conscious and keep a close eye on suspicious characters.
We self regulate over and beyond what is legislated.

In more cases than not, they will change their mind about just watching, and when given the chance, will want to shoot it at least once to experience it. I always take a .22 pistol to the range that is very good for this. I love the smile on their faces after they fire that first shot. I then show them how to properly clear the weapon so it is safe and go over the basic safety proceedures again.

After leaving the range they will probably tell you that the experience was not at all what they thought it was going to be like. You have now accomplished what no "pledge" will ever do. You have opened their mind by casting a different light than they have ever seen the issue in. It changes minds.

My words are in response to an observation that I have made in the days since Friday of the general tone on THR. I mention the words responsibility, accountability, and (oh, the horror) some way to SHOW anti gunner's that we can at least think of ways to attach those words to guns, and most spit in my direction. Why is that? I'm just tossing out ideas here.

The anti gun movement is hungry and they're going to eat something. As gun issue experts, it should be up to you folks to serve up something that can work for the common good. If nothing is prepared and served by the gun owning community, they will barge into the kitchen and make a real mess of things.

Like I suggested, instead of talking about gun control, what if we made the issue gun security?

For example, instead of saying that we want teachers to carry guns in classrooms, how about on a strictly volunteer basis, a teacher can become "certified" and have a handgun in a quick safe in their desk drawer? That probably sounds crazy to most folks here, to require a teacher like that to have to be "certified" and have to keep the firearm away from his/her person, but it sure as heck would sound more reasonable to the other side.

In order to convince someone, you have to first show them that you understand where they are coming from. Then, get them to agree with you without them knowing it.

As long as we spout off the "mine mine mine mine", what else can anti's think of?

 

[slidemuzik]

Uh, yeah...the .223 is NOT "high powered." There's very little -- almost NOTHING in the whole list of modern (OR ANTIQUE!) rifle chamberings that is LESS powerful than the .223.

So anyone who waxes wide-eyed hysterical over these "high-powered" weapons has NO idea what they're talking about -- but probably wants to see your guns banned.

I would make the assertion that beauty and "high powered" is in the eye of the beholder and depends on your perspective.

My only experience with AR styled rifles is at the range shooting somebody else's gun. Admittedly, very limited experience. One reason I favor pistol calibers (carbine & pistol) for home defense is in part because of wall penetration concerns with .223. I don't shoot beyond 100 yards. An AR-15 (depending on ammo choice) is good to 300yrds +. It seems "high powered" from my perspective and I think that's a legitimate opinion.

My point is, I think if gun owners take the bait to argue semantics on what is or isn't an assault rifle ( what does the AR stand for in front of 15?) or what is high powered or not, it allows dividing lines to be drawn and, with the best of intentions, subtly allows a subversion of the 2nd AM.

Bill O'Reilly tonight addressed the 2nd Am and hit the nail on the head... then let the hammer fly back and split his head.

He said that it was there to protect us against a tyranical government. Good... But he continued to say that was a long time ago and implyed that the concept was outdated and obsolete because if the army was ordered to move against the citizens, and they carry out the orders, an AR-15 isn't going to stop it. So Bill's assertion was that ownership of an AR-15for the average citizen is unjustifiable under that pretense.

The key to what he said was "if the forces carry out the order". Bill's correct that an AR-15 isn't going to protect you against an army, BUT millions of them in millions of different hands will test the resolve of those forces to act against it's citizens and make that exponentially more difficult. That is still relevent and legitimate today.

One more reason against limiting RTKBA. Should a disaster or terrorist attack isolate large areas where government security can't protect you. We have the right to protect ourselves to whatever level we can afford. A person may need to defend themselves from multiple attackers. Responsible ownership of an AR style rifle is completely justifiable if you decide that's something you can afford and want that capability.

This brings me to a point regarding what the writers of the 2nd AM saw as the difference between a well armed militia and an army. The militia was made up of individual citizens who primarily armed themselves. They were given the right to arm themselves, but I don't think they had the ability to tax others to pay for it. Logically that served to limit the power of a militia then, the same as it does today. I don't think the framers believed a militia would ultimately be able to defeat an organized army back then anymore than they would today.

However it would test the army's enlisted men's resolve knowing the consequences... so that order would be very difficult to make and hopefully never attempted.

If we are sugarcoating facts regarding guns, I think eventually that will backfire. I'd suggest the better strategy to keep those rights is justifying the unvarnished truth and not appear to duck it, glorify it, or be ashamed of it.

Like the rest of the Constitution, it serves as the framer's best attempt to protect the Country from human nature. That hasn't changed in all those years.

 

[Halal Pork]

If it's trolling to advocate sensible compromise to preserve the 2nd Amendment, I am guilty.

Mark my words, Sam. When the liberals come for your guns and the moderates in this Republic support them, I will feel little sympathy, because the bulk of the High Road (and presumably, the vocal fringe of the gun-rights movement) has chosen to bury our opponents in tired talking points.

Let's compromise. I want all your money. To show you I'm reasonable, I'll settle for half. It's a fair compromise. We can talk about striking another deal a year or two from now, but this will be a start. We'll meet in the middle.

(Feel free to substitute "money" with anything else regarding civil rights or property rights.)

As soon as you stated in another thread "The Constitution is a living document" I could identify either you've been thumbing through a junior high school social studies textbook or you truly subscribe to a point of view adopted by groups that wish to change fundamental rights by some other means than the amendment process (for which they have insufficient support.)

 

[russ69]

..My only experience with AR styled rifles is at the range shooting somebody else's gun. Admittedly, very limited experience... An AR-15 (depending on ammo choice) is good to 300yrds +...what is or isn't an assault rifle ( what does the AR stand for in front of 15?) or what is high powered or not,..

Sorry, you really don't know much about ARs. AR service rifles are shot in competition at up to 1000 yards. the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle, the patent holders at the time the rifle was designed.

 

[smalls]

For example, instead of saying that we want teachers to carry guns in classrooms, how about on a strictly volunteer basis, a teacher can become "certified" and have a handgun in a quick safe in their desk drawer? That probably sounds crazy to most folks here, to require a teacher like that to have to be "certified" and have to keep the firearm away from his/her person, but it sure as heck would sound more reasonable to the other side.

Quick access safes are basically to keep small children out. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for a high school student to get it out of the desk and either smash it open or bring it to shop class and break into it? The safest place for a firearm is ON YOU.

I'm not opposed to any teacher carrying to have extra mandated training. Teachers are constantly doing after hours training to learn to teach better, it wouldn't be that hard to do a class once or twice a semester. I'm sure they'd get a group rate.

 

[Deanimator]

The anit crowd can possess good arguments. It is called an honest disagreement.

...but they just CHOOSE not to present them?

Feel free to cite one.

I've never seen it.

 

[Deanimator]

The anti gun movement is hungry and they're going to eat something. As gun issue experts, it should be up to you folks to serve up something that can work for the common good.

You seem to expect a saltwater crocodile to be satisfied if you offer him ONE of your legs.

The anti-gun movement is a maximalist movement.

They have ONE goal.

It's only the path and timetable which are subject to alteration.

The fastest way for gun owners to stop BEING gun owners is to ignore those facts.

 

[Deanimator]

My point is, I think if gun owners take the bait to argue semantics on what is or isn't an assault rifle ( what does the AR stand for in front of 15?) or what is high powered or not, it allows dividing lines to be drawn and, with the best of intentions, subtly allows a subversion of the 2nd AM.

Feel free to show me a debate that was ever won by allowing the OTHER side to set the terms of debate and the vocabulary.

I keep running into very intelligent, honest, otherwise knowledgeable people who think that semi-automatic firearms are "machine guns". I talked to one of them at work yesterday. My old boss thought that. He's NOT a stupid or generally ignorant man.

NONE of this is an accident. In fact Josh Sugerman of the VPC has PUBLICLY ADMITTED to INTENTIONALLY confusing semi-automatic and automatic firearms in the public mind.

The other side is LYING. You simply have NO chance of winning the public debate as long as you allow those lies to go unchallenged.

 

[OilyPablo]

BUT millions of them in millions of different hands will test the resolve of those forces to act against it's citizens and make that exponentially more difficult. That is still relevant (sp corrected) and legitimate today.

I used this in a discussion yesterday when an anti was went into the "you can't fight the government because they have missiles, etc....."

As for the topic at hand. Hmmm......I work with these people all day. The best I can do is act rational and stick with the truth. I gave a couple folks a few articles yesterday. Some people are slowly coming out of knee jerk land (You know "We have to do SOMETHING - it's for the children".) This actually opened a few people's eyes:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXOuuHcjbs

 

[Deanimator]

I used this in a discussion yesterday when an anti was went into the "you can't fight the government because they have missiles, etc....."

Apparently some people have somehow missed the last ten years in Afghanistan...

I usually just tell them to rent the movie "Michael Collins". Only the dumbest ones have trouble figuring things out after they watch it. By the way, there's a good article about insurgent warfare in the current "Military History Quarterly". Michael Collins plays a prominent role.

 

[michaelbsc]

Look gang, troll, no troll. Jeez I just got called a troll tonight.

Here is the deal.

1) We all know and agree that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

2) Nobody else cares. To them it's a gun issue. Too bad, so sad.


Ergo, someone else's problem has landed in our lap, and it doesn't matter one little bit whether we like it or not. It's ours to deal with.


We can fight it, and lose big. We will not win. Or we can rise to the occasion and become the champions of mental health services in America. We should be out in droves as the "gun owners of America" wanting to know why the mental healthcare system cannot identify these young people who so desperately need help, and how we can make changes to assure whatever is needed gets done.

Just like the Lions club champions vision, the NRA should champion mental health. APA, APNA, NIMH, should all see Wayne La Pierre coming in the door and see access to federal dollars falling out of his briefcase.

The NRA needs to get the hell out of the wine business. Do you know how damned sick of wine brochures I get?

The medical industry should see us as their best friend in town. Right now they want to write a ticket to the insane asylum just for owning a firearm.


Remember, with great change comes great opportunity. We had better not blow this.

It will not be neutral. Or even slightly restrictive. The antis have been so anti that if we aren't just as forcefully positive it will look like Holmstead, Fla after Andrew.

So, hear me you knuckleheads who thought I'm a troll with my White House petition. I am not suggesting we give one iota of ground. I am suggesting we take a strategy that puts in a positive light for the first time in decades.

We've *BEEN* loosing ground for decades. We can't afford to loose any more. We need to become the ones proposing the positive solutions here.

Yes, it's "not really our problem" as a mental health issue. But we have to solve their problem. Period.

 

[Sam1911]

I would make the assertion that beauty and "high powered" is in the eye of the beholder and depends on your perspective.

My only experience with AR styled rifles is at the range shooting somebody else's gun. Admittedly, very limited experience. One reason I favor pistol calibers (carbine & pistol) for home defense is in part because of wall penetration concerns with .223. I don't shoot beyond 100 yards. An AR-15 (depending on ammo choice) is good to 300yrds +. It seems "high powered" from my perspective and I think that's a legitimate opinion.

It is an opinion. But to anyone with reasonable amounts of experience with guns it is a very flawed one.

You've ridden bicycles and go carts. Now you're given the keys to a Ford Focus. It's a really high-powered car ... from your limited perspective. That doesn't mean you really should go saying that in an authoritative manner. You will not be credible as knowledgeable of the subject matter.

My point is, I think if gun owners take the bait to argue semantics on what is or isn't an assault rifle ( what does the AR stand for in front of 15?) or what is high powered or not, it allows dividing lines to be drawn and, with the best of intentions, subtly allows a subversion of the 2nd AM.

I've said very similar things. I don't think we should EVER argue "oh but it isn't a machine gun..." because there's NOTHING wrong or dangerous about civilian ownership of machine guns, either!

I don't think the framers believed a militia would ultimately be able to defeat an organized army back then anymore than they would today.

That doesn't really fly. They just had devoted their lives and fortunes to the hope that they could do exactly that -- and then did it. Sure, they eventually developed an army, of sorts, and (also eventually) gained allies, but they knew what they were talking about.

Remember, even after the Revolution the framers never wanted the new US to have a standing army. They relied upon the militia of the people to defend the nation against invading...armies.

 

[Doc7]

Yesterday for some reason I listened to 1600 AM in NYC area which seems to be a far-left station. I finally flipped my lid when a supposed "gun rights supporter" talked about how "AR" stands for Assault Rifle...instead of being short for Arma-Lite, the small American business that developed the "platform". I tried to call in but couldn't get through (they wouldn't have let me on air anyway, I bet).

Judging by Facebook, the vast majority of people wanting to restrict/eliminate guns from the populace have NO CLUE what they are talking about - they are referring to Jason Alexander's "rant" on twitter the other day as this amazing expose, despite inflated statistics and just a complete lack of basic knowledge about how AR-15 type rifle compares to a hunting rifle. "These people" have no idea what various guns are capable of and choose to just make up facts about how they can fire farther, more accurately, and are "only owned by people who want to use them against people; period." Extremely insulting. The media attempt to portray black "military style" guns as evil (compared to, say, a Ruger 10/22 semi) over the last decade has finally come to a head where people who have NO idea how to define an assault weapon want to ban them.

I was going to buy a bolt-action 22 and a 20 ga shotgun next, but I might try and get a 1911 pistol first just in case NJ or USA handgun restrictions get lumped in with whatever legislation may or may not end up passing. An AR is unfortunately way out of my budget range now with the jumps.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk

 

[bikerdoc]

We should be out in droves as the "gun owners of America" wanting to know why the mental healthcare system cannot identify these young people who had been identified and so desperately need help, and how we can make changes to assure whatever is needed gets done.

Bold addition are my words.

Every time I bring this up with an anti they are speechless.

 

[cskny]

I merged these two threads since they had the same basic claim.

Just remember, anyone who is ok with more restrictions than you is a socialist infiltrator seeking to take away your rights or a Fudd.
Anyone who demands less restrictions than you is a militant extremist making you look bad or a socialist infiltrator acting as an agent provocateur.
Only give credence to the opinions of those who exactly agree with you. Everyone else is suspect.

Thanks Jorg, at least some folks here appreciate the silliness of these type of threads.