We are a Pro Gun site, please stop pandering

[gym]

We are The High Road, We are a pro Firearms site. The recent barrage of threads questioning our rights and the possibility of concessions, are not OK.

This is a place where people of like interests come to discuss a common interest. Not a place where we begin to question the righteous pursuit of firearms and the articles included in our many sports and activities. Let's please be objective and proactive, instead of questioning if we have done something that offended someone.

There are enough headwinds coming our way, without doubting that we are on the right side of this. Any time you doubt yourself remember how long it took to get here and how many people spent their lives and gave their lives so we could enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution. There are those who wish to split us apart, we cannot allow even the slightest doubt that we are one. Discussion is fine, Concession is not. We have done nothing wrong nor do any of us condone what has happened in the past, or unfortunately things that may befall us in the future, it has nothing to do with the GUN. It has to do with a part of society who have lost their way. This is a time of transition, and until the powers that be instill the proper courage and honesty in fixing the core economic and general weak minded mentality of these paper tiger politicians, We may continue to see outbreaks of random violence, because of the times, not the guns.

 

[61Woody]

Great post, I to am getting tired of the"maybe we should...." posts We should be united, I'm sure not everyone who visits this site is pro gun.

 

[hso]

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.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

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.

 

[gym]

Understood, I just want to be sure that it's "our" members. Not an excuse to drive a wedge between us, this guy had been stewing for a long time, and as a brilliant guy in the use of compounds, he could have used something much more efficient, to me it's a political statement or message he is trying to relay in a deranged way. The gun should not be put on trial here thats all . Sometimes in an effort to ease tensions people have a tendency to give up a right here or there that they won't get back again, just to appease someone and feel like they may not need it anyway or it's not really giving up that much. That usually backfires into a greater problem than before. Give them an arm...I get what you are saying and don't mean to steer anyone either way, just want to point out the pitfalls. The danger sometimes lies in the unsaid.

 

[Apple a Day]

We are, or should be, a place where the misconceptoins and outright lies of those who would attack this particular liberty should be shirvelled under the intense light of facts.
(I also seem to remember that trolls turn to stone when hit with sunlight)

I've always been a fan of St. Thomas Aquinas who said that we should never fear doubt because if what we believe is true then our reconsideration of our beliefs will lead us back to a stronger faith.

 

[BullRunBear]

Sorry to disagree, in part. Discussion is fine, especially for persuasion. Compromise in regards the 2A, no more. Every 'compromise' means we lose freedom and the anti's gain power. If we suceed, the anti folks are not harmed. If they win, pro firearms individuals are ever more restricted and potentially threatened. Don't forget, according to Homeland Security, many of us could be considered terrorists because of a legal hobby.

Jeff

 

[mortablunt]

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.

We have to allow debate in order to be victorious over ignorance. Well said, Hso.

 

[hso]

He's a schizophrenic without a message and a couple of degrees in sciences.

Any nutjob that had passed p-chem and o-chem could have done the same thing. Heck, most AP chemistry high school students could as well.

No, there's no message there and no greater meaning than someone that should have been reported and denied access to firearms was able to formulate and execute this plan.

 

[fatcat4620]

Props to the OP!

 

[Hammerhead6814]

If we can't even express an opinion then what's the use of 2A when 1A is being threatened?

 

[fatcat4620]

An opinion is just that and you might want to read up on how the 1A works.

 

[walking arsenal]

The recent barrage of threads questioning our rights and the possibility of concessions....

......proves we aren't doing our jobs educating the masses.

I had an uncle that wondered why I owned an "Assault weapon" AR-15. He would rag on me about how dangerous it was, how no honest man needed one, and how they ought to be illegal.

Then one day I handed him the gun and a full mag. Now he wants one! His response? "I can see why you want one of these. They're fun!"

Don't keep people here from expressing their viewpoints. Instead discuss calmly and intelligently using citable facts. Educate. Be friendly and don't be condescending or hostile. THAT is what THR is about.

 

[fatcat4620]

Not trying to be mean, just wondering why a guy thinks that the 1A might apply in a place where it does not.

 

[Hossfly68]

No, there's no message there and no greater meaning than someone that should have been reported and denied access to firearms was able to formulate and execute this plan.

What should he have been reported for and to who (or is it "whom"?)
He had no police record other than a ticket and purchased firearms and ammo legally, both locally and online like a lot of us here. Many here have 6000 rounds squirreled away or more. If we reported everyone that did these things there'd be nobody left to buy a firearm. You're not suggesting that we turn in our neighbors because they act strange or say something aginst the government are you?
Of course you're not... Rhetorical question. But that would lead to a police state if it came to that point.
Do we punish the individual who chose to commit a crime or do we punish the society that allowed the crime to be committed?

 

[JSpear]

This, an Internet forum, is a great example of the 1st! We, most gun lovers, all have a different opinions, to not share our thoughts, and have discussion, is a silent death to our 1st amendment rights! This is just my view, and I look forward to everyone's thoughts on every subject!

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Just to piggy back on what I believe Fatcat was saying, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution pertain to interaction between the government and the citizen. If you will recall the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law...", it is dealing with the relationship of the government and the governed. It has nothing to do with actions between citizens, business and employees or customers, or internet forums. All are voluntary associations and do not have any power of enforcement over an individual. If you don't like the rules of a business, a forum, or another person you are free to leave, it may be difficult in the case of a job but the door is still open. The courts have constantly misinterpreted this for years. Now, back to your regular blather.....

 

[marksg]

Don't keep people here from expressing their viewpoints. Instead discuss calmly and intelligently using citable facts. Educate. Be friendly and don't be condescending or hostile. THAT is what THR is about.

I think walking arsenal nailed it with this statement.

My wife always asked me why i needed that many guns. I took her to the gun range with me and let her shoot my revolver w/some hbwc low recoil rounds. After the first cylinder she reloaded, reloaded again,and again,went through the whole box. Said it was fun. Now she understands.
Only problem now is she wants guns too. I kind of like that problem

 

[rswartsell]

I don't accept that it is my job to educate the masses, I accept my responsibility to;

1. employ such self discipline as is necessary to insure safety with firearms and to be a responsible member of any community I am part of.
2. excercise my civil rights.
3. obey the law.

It seems that some people get confused about membership and participation in groups sharing a common interest. It is the interest that is common, not political orientation or opinion on anything. Support of the second amendment is a pretty safe bet that we all share similar viepoints on, the key word being similar, not monolithic.

IMHO there is room for independent thought in a civil community without acrimony, and no one person has any right to dictate thought or opion to another, that would be wholly "Un-American" and repugnant.

While there may be members of the community who choose to engage in education and persuasion, no-one has any right implied or otherwise to dictation. That seems to me to be the most fundamental violation of "free society".

I personally subscribe to a fourth responsibility, open mindedness and tolerance of differing viewpoints to the extent that they do not harm or diminish the rights of others.

 

[Deanimator]

A lot of the "The sky is falling, we have to 'compromise' (surrender)!" talk comes from fifth columnists aligned with the now defunct "AHSA".

They say the SAME things no matter WHAT happens.

Despite their lies to the contrary, they are after an absolute government monopoly on the means of armed force.

Where you find them, expose their lies and the as liars.

On another forum, otherwise known for VERY tight moderation, a debate with one of these Quislings was allowed to go on for a VERY long time. I suspect the moderators' intentions were to let the maximum number of people refute both their message and their tactics, which are virtually indistinguishable from those of Holocaust deniers.

The "reasonable gun bans" types prey on the ignorant. Don't let them do so. Show them up for the liars they are.

 

[walking arsenal]

I don't accept that it is my job to educate the masses

Then don't be surprised when controversial interests like ours are outlawed by people who don't understand them. That's what is happening right now and you and others like you are part of the problem.

 

[Deanimator]

I personally subscribe to a fourth responsibility, open mindedness and tolerance of differing viewpoints to the extent that they do not harm or diminish the rights of others.

There's a VAST difference between "open mindedness" and self-destructive gullibility.

I guarantee you that if you go onto a message board aligned with the NAACP, there's not going to be much "open mindedness" about reinstating "reasonable slavery". Nor will you find much "open mindedness" in a professional childcare forum about "reasonable pedophilia".

The "reasonable gun control" types view Chicago and New York City as "models" of "commonsense gun control"... that is the ones who don't think that it's FAR too easy to LEGALLY get a gun in either place.

I've dealt with those liars for 30+ years. I'm not going to allow them to hoodwink and bamboozle the uninformed without a fight.

 

[rswartsell]

In times of crisis it has been proven most effective to "rally round the flag", set differences aside, sacrifice individuality to a common purpose. This fact has never been lost on meglomaniacs, power brokers, would be war-lords and "sawdust-Ceasars".

The creation of percieved "enemies", crisies of catastrophic proportion and extreme urgency can be the stock in trade of would be dictators.

I don't want a pro-gun dictator any more than I would an anti.

It can become fuzzy just what constitutes the defense of freedom and what becomes it's death.

 

[KTXdm9]

I just view it as another chance to exercise critical thinking skills. It's not enough to just dismiss antis as nuts. What better place than here to here to hone your debate skills?

 

[Deanimator]

The creation of percieved "enemies", crisies of catastrophic proportion and extreme urgency can be the stock in trade of would be dictators.

I didn't "create" AHSA and its creepy hangers on as an enemy. They created THEMSELVES.

In my father's day, nobody felt the need to be "open minded" about Quisling, Lord Haw Haw or Ezra Pound.

Do I want their equivalents in the "gun owner" community silenced? No.

Do I want them taken seriously or respected? Not in a million years.

The guy who thinks that the 2nd Amendment GRANTS you the "right" to own a single shot shotgun has a right to have that opinion. He has NO right to have that opinion RESPECTED, much less to state it without contradiction.

Try to state a pro-gun position somewhere where "reasonable gun control" is advocated and see what happens...