Why not "pass it on" now? What do you think?

[FireInCairo]

That's simply another opinion stated as a fact, which doesn't make it true.

It would only be the most important fact in this thread if the premiss that giving guns to people would generate 2A advocacy, awareness, and activism. That premiss is flawed for many reasons already stated, and many folks do not accept that premiss. That doesn't mean we naysayers are right either. But I say again, you asked what we think. Don't be upset that people don't agree with you.

It is just as flawed as promoting the gifting of holy books as a way to increase awareness and advocacy for freedom of religion in the first amendment.

If your idea works, I congratulate you, and I'll happily eat crow. I wish you luck but if you actually convince people to start giving their guns away, then you should definitely look at a career in politics, because I suspect you could sell binoculars to a blind man.

It's a good idea. It's the simplest, fastest, and most effective way to garner a wider base of support for the 2nd Amendment in our nation.

Within 6 weeks this nation could double it's number of gun owners, thereby doubling it's political voting power.

 

[FireInCairo]

Surveys are complete BS. I can't think of many people that would give honest answers to a random person over the phone regarding firearm ownership.

While I don't really like PEW in general, because of their obvious leftist leanings, there is a measure of truth in those statistics.

 

[silicosys4]

It's a good idea. It's the simplest, fastest, and most effective way to garner a wider base of support for the 2nd Amendment in our nation.

Look at it this way, if you gave me a free subscription to the Kim Kardashian fan club, I'm not going to automatically become a fan. You seem to be missing this point.
Simply giving someone a firearm who would not otherwise pursue owning one, is not going to automatically convert them into a single issue voter focused on the 2nd amendment, or even guarantee they "get" the 2A.

Within 6 weeks this nation could double it's number of gun owners, thereby doubling it's political voting power.

I suspect you meant doubling the political power of the pro 2A movement,
Which isn't going to happen.
There are already plenty of gun owners who have purchased their own firearms with their own money earned with their own hard work, who do not support the 2nd amendment.

You could even weaken support for the 2A by creating a group of people who were given a gun they didn't want or ultimately didn't use and got rid of, who now think they see "our" side of the issue as a former gun owner and don't see the big deal in getting rid of guns.

"yea, I had a gun, someone gave it to me, it sat forever and then I got rid of it. If I don't need one, nobody needs one".

If someone wants a gun, they will buy one.
A better course of action is to introduce as many people to shooting as you can, and thereby increase the amount of people who want a gun.

 

[Jonzer77]

While I don't really like PEW in general, because of their obvious leftist leanings, there is a measure of truth in those statistics.

I don't put much stock into surveys since you can get whatever results you want. I go by what I see and when I go to a range or gun store, I mostly see younger people.

 

[USAF_Vet]

It's a good idea.

Of course you think so. It's your idea. It's something you've convinced yourself will work based on rainbows and unicorn farts for all I know, since you've not posted one.single.solitary. statistic, report, article, op ed, ANYTHING that supports your idea. When asked, you repeat the same PASS IT ON mantra and tell the dissenters they are wrong (again without any way to back up why you think so). I know a number of progressive anti-gun socialists on the left that use this exact same tactic. Curious.

It's the simplest, fastest, and most effective way to garner a wider base of support for the 2nd Amendment in our nation.

Diane Feinstein owns guns and has/had a concealed carry permit, in San Francisco California of all places. Would you consider her, a gun owner, an advocate of the 2A? If so, this grass roots program is a lost cause from the beginning. If you do not believe Feinstein to be a 2A advocate, then you're proving everyone's argument. Mere gun ownership does not equate pro 2A advocacy and support.

Within 6 weeks this nation could double it's number of gun owners, thereby doubling it's political voting power.

No, the voting power remains the same. We're not adding voting eligible citizens, we're redistributing guns. Those same "new" gun owners may not change their voting habits solely on the basis of having a gun given to them. We're not reprogramming brainwashed anti-gunners to pro-2A. We might.... MIGHT move SOME fence sitters over to our side, which can be just as easily done by spending some time at the range with them if they are so willing. Educate them and feed their interest, and their desire to own a gun will be self driven. Gift them a gun if you think it'll do some good. Anti-gunners will generally always vote anti-gun, even if they themselves own one. Pro-gunners will generally always vote pro-gun, even if they don't own any guns. 2A fence sitters don't vote with the 2A as their top priority. They usually have stronger opinions about other topics than guns which drives their votes. If the 2A is of secondary importance to them, they may vote for it or against it based on where their preferred candidate stands on their own higher priorities. So again, this grass roots effort is based on a flawed premise from the very start.

Maybe I'm just in the wrong demographic for this thread/ ad campaign to be effective. I'm only 35 years old with only 3 pistols, 6 rifles, and 4 shotguns. I am neither old enough to be facing the grave, nor have enough guns collecting dust in the safe.

 

[FireInCairo]

Look at it this way, if you gave me a free subscription to the Kim Kardashian fan club, I'm not going to automatically become a fan. You seem to be missing this point.
Simply giving someone a firearm who would not otherwise pursue owning one, is not going to automatically convert them into a single issue voter focused on the 2nd amendment, or even guarantee they "get" the 2A.



I suspect you meant doubling the political power of the pro 2A movement,
Which isn't going to happen.
There are already plenty of gun owners who have purchased their own firearms with their own money earned with their own hard work, who do not support the 2nd amendment.

You could even weaken support for the 2A by creating a group of people who were given a gun they didn't want or ultimately didn't use and got rid of, who now think they see "our" side of the issue as a former gun owner and don't see the big deal in getting rid of guns.

"yea, I had a gun, someone gave it to me, it sat forever and then I got rid of it. If I don't need one, nobody needs one".

If someone wants a gun, they will buy one.
A better course of action is to introduce as many people to shooting as you can, and thereby increase the amount of people who want a gun.

I really think a lot of you guys are missing something very obvious which has been happening in our nation the last 10 years. Liberalism is dying. Even the most hardcore leftists are beginning to wake up to the fact that anti-gun policies only make things worse.

The problem is they're still carrying these taboo ideas related to firearms that have been pushed on them for decades. Once you get one of these people out to the range, and they handle a firearm and see that it's isn't going to bite them, you will have changed their heart and mind on the matter. Then they will begin to question all their demented beliefs.

Then... PASS IT ON!

 

[USAF_Vet]

Liberalism elected Barack Obama. Twice. In the last 10 years.
Liberalism confirmed two Communist supporting Supreme Court justices.
Liberalism allowed the Supreme Court to over ride state laws and state Constitutional amendments that banned same sex marriages.
Anti-gun legislation has crippled New York, resulting in near total non-compliance, but those who are not complying are doubtfully left leaning liberals.
Anti-gun legislation has kicked many states in the teeth.
Liberalism allowed the Mayor of Baltimore to give rioters space to do their thing.
Liberalism allowed a law that bans selling loose cigarettes in NYC, resulting in the death of a "career criminal" at the hands of police.
Liberalism is what shut down Christian bakeries for refusing to sell wedding cakes to a same sex couple.
Liberalism is what has raised taxes, handed over healthcare to an inept government so deep in debt it'll be a thousand years before we're in the black again, financially.
Liberalism is banning the Confederate flag nation wide and pushing to remove Civil War monuments, grave sites and rename streets and buildings named for Southern Confederates.
Liberalism isn't dying. Not even close. It's stronger than it has ever been.

 

[FireInCairo]

The things that are happening politically in our nation are not because of the majority, but a small minority in power. Gay marriage was decided by 5 people. O has single-handedly decreed countless executive orders.

But it's alright, the truth is guns aren't going to rescue this nation from what's coming. Only God can do that.

 

[45_auto]

Gay marriage was decided by 5 people.

So using your logic (or whatever you prefer to call it) those five Supreme Court justices must not own bibles. After all, that's all that it would take to turn them into supporters. Why not just give them each one? A little basic research on your part would bring some very unpleasant facts ("unpleasant" in relation to your viewpoint) concerning the justice's religious views to your attention.

O has single-handedly decreed countless executive orders.

You do know that Obama has issued LESS executive orders per year in office than ANY president in the last 115 years or so? Chart is here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Here's every executive order issued from John Quincy Adams (1826) through Barrack Obama (2015). Which ones in particular do you have a problem with?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2015&Submit=DISPLAY

Feel free to ignore any actual facts that don't agree with your rant.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I really think a lot of you guys are missing something very obvious which has been happening in our nation the last 10 years. Liberalism is dying. Even the most hardcore leftists are beginning to wake up to the fact that anti-gun policies only make things worse.

Data? Evidence? Even an example?

 

[BSA1]

Two big key points that had not been discussed is firearm ownership brings with it a tremendous LEGAL and MORAL responsibility both of which the O.P. totally ignores with his gun give away scheme.

 

[DM~]

Over the years I've gifted guns to those I've cared about...

I gave a really nice 22 that I owned, to a favorite nephew, it wasn't too long before he sold it for a hundred bucks!!

I guess "he" was more of my fav, then "I" was his!!

He says he needed the money...

DM

 

[mgmorden]

Do you care about the preservation of the 2nd amendment? Don't you think this would have a huge impact on the next generation? I'm not really talking about giving a gun to someone who is already on board. I'm talking about getting someone who is not a gunowner, but interested, on board.

I think you're overestimating the number of people who can't afford a gun.

If you want a .22 rifle you can find one used for $100 or less.

If you want a shotgun or bolt action rifle, $300 or less. If you want a handgun you can find those easily for under $350 on down to $200 if you search around (and that's filtering out everything that I consider "junk").

Now, look at the cost of other common items: a decent TV will run you $250-500 - everyone has them. A Playstation 4 or Xbox One game system will run about $325-400 and 90% of the guys under 35 that I know have one (including myself). I know (very much non-wealthy) people that trade out cell phones at full price every few months at several hundred dollars each.

The bottom line is that guns are not out of the budget of almost anyone - it's that they're not a priority. People have the money and choose to spend it on OTHER THINGS. If they're interested they will come around, but I'm not about to go down the liberal mindset of giving things out for free to get people on board.

Just as an example - I'm 33 and have a number of guns at this point, but I bought my first handgun at 21 when I was in college working part time and was clearing about $75 per week. Its all in what you prioritize.

 

[22-rimfire]

Pass it on if you want to. Sell it or them if you want to.

If you are talking about the sport, better to take them shooting and of course you provide all the ammo.

As far as afford goes.... I believe if someone wants a gun, they will own a gun. The gun is only part of the equation. Ammunition, accessories, and shooting them involves sometimes just as big as an investment.

 

[Big_John1961]

The things that are happening politically in our nation are not because of the majority, but a small minority in power. Gay marriage was decided by 5 people. O has single-handedly decreed countless executive orders.

But it's alright, the truth is guns aren't going to rescue this nation from what's coming. Only God can do that.

This is the first thing you've posted that I agree with.

 

[justice06rr]

Pass it on now? I like all my guns just to give them away .

But If a family member or good friend did need a firearm for safety/security reasons, I would not hesitate to give/gift them one--along with some instruction of course.

I don't agree that firearm ownership is declining. If anything it is stays consistent or may slowly increase, as younger people turn 18 or 21 and are able to legally buy their own. What may slow down at different times of the year are firearm sales, but it picks up around the fall or holidays when there are good deals i.e. during Thanksgiving/Black Friday. But the decrease of sales doesn't mean the decline in ownership. It could just mean that supply has started to meet demand, or demand has slowed down enough.

 

[buck460XVR]

But it's alright, the truth is guns aren't going to rescue this nation from what's coming. Only God can do that.

God will not rescue us either. Read the Bible. He destroyed most civilizations that did not follow his rules and when he did save folks, they were the very few. We can only rescue ourselves. It won't be just with guns or God, odds are it will be a combination of those along with many others. Odds are next, after all the other nonsense you have told us, you will be telling us God has told us to give away our guns in his name.

 

[Ironicaintit]

...you will be telling us God has told us to give away our guns in his name.

Nah. God would be saying that if you cannot afford one, to sell your coat so you can!

If I see an homest to goodness cause that can be helped by my donating a firearm, I will do it. But first, the cause must be deemed worthy!
There are definitely steps that must be taken first, to insure that the gift wont be pawned, or used hurtfully or negligently.

FireinCairo, I dont think ive seen you acknowledge that part of the equation. Maybe I missed it.
If you do agree, you and the boys in here really dont have a whole lot to argue about.

 

[FireInCairo]

So using your logic (or whatever you prefer to call it) those five Supreme Court justices must not own bibles. After all, that's all that it would take to turn them into supporters. Why not just give them each one? A little basic research on your part would bring some very unpleasant facts ("unpleasant" in relation to your viewpoint) concerning the justice's religious views to your attention.



You do know that Obama has issued LESS executive orders per year in office than ANY president in the last 115 years or so? Chart is here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Here's every executive order issued from John Quincy Adams (1826) through Barrack Obama (2015). Which ones in particular do you have a problem with?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2015&Submit=DISPLAY

Feel free to ignore any actual facts that don't agree with your rant.

There are two kinds of presidential actions: Executive Orders and Memorandums. Obama has enacted more than any other president...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...idential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

 

[USAF_Vet]

O has single-handedly decreed countless executive orders.

Not true. By your own admission and "supporting" link. Just quit already.

 

[hso]

A thread asking what people think is going to get opinions and discussion and those aren't all going to be in agreement.

Why not "pass it on" now? What do you think?

To then claim that it wasn't the stated purpose doesn't change what started the path of the conversation. It only calls the intent of the thread starter into question making their position the weaker for it.

This thread is for those who understand the purpose behind it.

This one was lost pages ago.