We are a Pro Gun site, please stop pandering

[citizenzen]

1. That isn't a High Road attitude.
2. That isn't amonst the rules of the High Road that only pro-gun opinions are allowed (see Rule #1).
3. That isn't High Road manners (see Rule #4).

I think you may be on the wrong forum, gym.

We should be able to share opposing viewpoints and learn from one another.

I appreciate the support and will try to embrace the High Road attitude as well.

 

[gym]

Once you talk of limiting pro gun rights you are ati gun, it's an easy concept to understand. Again this is a pro gun forum, I will keep reminding you, Take the negativity someware where its appreciated.
Trolls with 18 posts have no business popping in here trying to restrict our right
PS: some of us don't like sharing, especially when your talking about our rights, they are not up for debate from some guy who shows up right after a tragedy, you are obviouslly an anti, who has come here to cause trouble, lets call a spade a spade, I must now block some of these guys as the rest of you should, so as not to waste anymore of my time getting naucious

 

[rbernie]

Seems to me that we should be secure enough in our positions to accept all viewpoints.

Just sayin'.....

 

[Alaska444]

We should be able to share opposing viewpoints and learn from one another.

I appreciate the support and will try to embrace the High Road attitude as well.

Sorry, but I disagree. If you don't like guns, don't buy them or use them. The overwhelming majority of people the own guns do so respectfully and with great caution. I have no fear over law abiding citizens owning guns.

I have great fear over people who no longer have the right to protect themselves, their families and their property. That situation is one played out many times over in the last two thousand years.

 

[gym]

R Bernie you have been doing this a long time and I respect you and the other Mods.But some of these "johnny come latellys who have suddenlly appeared just as the Colorado tragedy occured asking us to surrender this or limit that , and question everything that we have been a part of most of our lives , are just being allowed to cause dissention amoung th members who are trying to give them a fair shot at stating their points, which are designed to confuse subvert, and ulitimatelly destroy the unity of the gun community.
I don't feel that it is necessary to be so kind to those who seek to take away our rights.
You are a bigger man than I am. I just worry that the disruption they cause has permanent effect on new shooters and should not be tolerated.
If they went someware else they would be asked to leave.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have great fear over people who no longer have the right to protect themselves, their families and their property. That situation is one played out many times over in the last two thousand years.

Wow, you are older than I thought!

Once you talk of limiting pro gun rights you are ati gun, it's an easy concept to understand. Again this is a pro gun forum, I will keep reminding you, Take the negativity someware where its appreciated.
Trolls with 18 posts have no business popping in here trying to restrict our right
PS: some of us don't like sharing, especially when your talking about our rights, they are not up for debate from some guy who shows up right after a tragedy, you are obviouslly an anti, who has come here to cause trouble, lets call a spade a spade, I must now block some of these guys as the rest of you should, so as not to waste anymore of my time getting naucious

Okay, you're an anti.

From http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479651&page=4&highlight=under+age ...

Non violent offenders, maybe. If you did a white collar crime maybe. But assault or robbery, no way. You can't take the chance that a violent person with a gun, is somehow safe because they served a year or two in jail. Drug dealers or predicate felons, no way. This becomes an exercise in futility, it won't happen because no one is going to take responsibility to monitor millions of criminals and decide which ones can have a gun. You basically "blew it" when if commited a felonius act, you cannot expect the govt. which is changing every 4 years to put someone in charge of the potentially explosive scenario when one of them screws up and shoots someone. That would set us back ten years, and everyone would suffer because of it.

From http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=603394&page=10&highlight=mental

If you take care of yourself you can carry a tight slided 1911, drive a 6 speed corvette and any darn thing you put you're mind to. We are all going to get older thats' a fact.
Shooting driving well and most other sporting things are all perishable skills, and as you get older, you really need to "show up" for life. If you want to maintain your skillset, you must exercise eat right and do strength building exercises. If not you will find that the bullet the car and everything else is not going in the right place.No reason you can't enjoy shooting sprts untill the day they put you in the ground, as long as everything is working right and you are mentally and physically correct.
Perhaps some folks over 90 should take a self awareness test just to see if they are doing as well as they believe they are. Privatelly of course, have a pro, or someone who you respect, access what they see in so far as your ability, Normally I would be against anthing like this, but you will get the occasional older gent who refuses to stop driving and the like, even after several accidents. It's other peoples lives that concern me.But for most intelligent men, they know when the time has come themselves. My uncles all stopped shooting a year or two before they passed on, still kept their guns for protection at home, but no more hunting and the like.Same with driving, just to the local store and back, no more road trips.

Well, you have spoken of limiting pro gun rights and you apparently think you have some idea as to who should and should not be doing things with guns. You some felons should be allowed to have guns but not others. That isn't pro-gun at all, is it? That would be your personal justification for who should have gun rights and who should not. You think people with diminished capacity should be limited in their gun activity. You are an anti - by your own classification scheme. You must not like guns since you are an anti. Will you man up?

If you don't like guns just leave. this is a pro gun forum.

You really do seem to be on the wrong forum.

 

[JagerRanger]

As a gun owner, when you have been attacked for 20, 30, 40, 50 or more years simply because you own and use guns, and at every turn the antis have tried to restrict your rights, or make them harder to exercise, simply because they want all your guns gone, with there being no relationship between your guns and crime, one tends to get less tolerant of the antis and their ultimate agenda, which is total gun confiscation.

No compromise, because the antis are not interested in compromise, only total gun confiscation. The ability to own and use guns if one wishes is a core ingredient of freedom.

I wrote something like that 20 years ago on CNN's forum and got banned. Naturally, you articulated the issue much better.

Yup, it has never been about gun-related deaths or crime, just control.

 

[JagerRanger]

[snip]

Well, you have spoken of limiting pro gun rights and you apparently think you have some idea as to who should and should not be doing things with guns. You some felons should be allowed to have guns but not others. That isn't pro-gun at all, is it? That would be your personal justification for who should have gun rights and who should not. You think people with diminished capacity should be limited in their gun activity. You are an anti - by your own classification scheme. You must not like guns since you are an anti. Will you man up? [snip]

 

[gym]

I never said a thing about felons , I don't know where that came from. As a matter of fact I have argued against that very premis several times in here, check before you lump everything together, I also never said anything about two thousand years of anything. It seems you are trying to make argumnts based on air.
I merely said don't include my rights in your big giveaway sale. Mine are mine, you can give yours up any time you choose.

 

[gym]

By the way I have a sports car and guns so I don't fit into your last paragraph either, stick to the facts, you are free to own guns of not, just not free to give away the rights of others for whatever you agenda is. I love these guys that just appear like a Genie after a tragic affair, and try through 1st trimester psycology to convince us that we did something wrong.

 

[rswartsell]

1st trimester psycology

This phrase refers to the first part of a pregnancy.

P.S. actually the man may be right, some schools do use a trimester system. Just reminded me of the ex's mood swings.

The PS is added as something of a mea-culpa, I just learned something from gym. The day we stop is a sad day for us all.

 

[gym]

No when I went to school for engineering we had trimesters, for engineering, not semesters, there was what's known as a "war" going on.
See you learned somethin new again,http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_trimester_in_college, anything else you care to comment on.
Several colleges in the US use what is known as a trimester calendar for holding classes. In a trimester system, students have three semesters of approximately 10 weeks in each semester. During each of the semesters the student takes three. Another false statement , you just keep piling them on. Sorry for missing your statement acknowleding trimesters. No sense making things worse. What is it you are trying to accomplish here. No one is going to change their stance here, why try to annoy people?

 

[gym]

If some have been active in the gun community for 40 years , give 20 one way or the other, what do you think your rhetoric is going to accomplish? If you don't like something then just don't participate in it.

 

[Flynt]

I'm always troubled by a push for orthodoxy. Usually the advocates are convinced that they have the only true path to heaven or whatever -- and should be the ones appointed to enforce conformity. You can be "pro-gun" and have different opinions about the proper tactics, the definition of "victory," etc. That's just the way the world works. It may be messy and threatening to an authoritarian mindset, but there you are.

Again, I'm very dubious of self appointed censors. How would this work, would we have a board of inquisition to interrogate members for intellecutal purity? Who would define what was acceptable and what was not?

 

[Yelovitz_503]

What should he have been reported for and to who (or is it "whom"?)

To whom

 

[JagerRanger]

[snip] You can be "pro-gun" and have different opinions about the proper tactics, the definition of "victory," etc. [snip]

Regardless, the Second Amendment and the states' constitutions are pretty clear on RKBA. I'm not pro gun, I'm pro Constitution.

 

[hso]

Anybody else remember the "anti with questions" thread from a few years ago?

It gave us an opportunity to give the sound rational arguments why we support RKBA and debunk many of the "myths" told by antis. There's no difference here and now when it is important for all our members to hone their arguments in support of RKBA against those who don't share our perspective. You can't hone against a soft material.

BTW, "1. All topics and posts must be related to firearms or 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' (RKBA) issues." is the first rule and debating and debunking Anti rhetoric is an important RKBA skill. Just preaching to the choir may make people comfortable, but winning these arguments means we're better able to win them politically.