I wouldn't call them our worst enemies, but they certainly do not help the cause of gun owners trying to present themselves as responsible adults. It's kind of like the good drinking drivers pointing out the reasons they are good drivers by pointing out the drunk drivers having accidents, you cannot make yourself look better by making others look worse. On the other hand, everybody pointing out mistakes a few gun owners make and cover up the illegal acts of anti-gunners is awkward at best. Best to keep yourself in line and help others improve by privately mentioning it to them.
Are some gun owners our worst enemy?
- Thread starter sliponby
- Start date
Our right to keep and bear arms is given and protected by the 2nd amendment to the constitution. That right can be, at least theoretically, taken away by another amendment. Ture that such thing is next to impossible, but not absolutely impossible. More gun owners doing more stupid things with their guns will shift public sentiment. It would be too late when chipping away becomes a land slide.
Our right is given, but it is up to us to keep.
They are no different from our worst enemies, as they are helping our worst enemies to achieve their goals.
-TL
Our right is given, but it is up to us to keep.
They are no different from our worst enemies, as they are helping our worst enemies to achieve their goals.
-TL
Shafter is right
Stupid is as stupid does. Idiots will always be with us. It has been said that you can't build a "foolproof" gun. There will always be a bigger fool to defeat whatever's been engineered to stop them. These idiots need a dose of "chlorine" added to their "gene pool".
Back in the day, they were buried and forgotten. Now society caters to them. *barf*
Welcome to Obama's "perfect society". (Their "special snowflake" status needs a padded room so that they can't hurt either themselves, or others).
Stupid is as stupid does. Idiots will always be with us. It has been said that you can't build a "foolproof" gun. There will always be a bigger fool to defeat whatever's been engineered to stop them. These idiots need a dose of "chlorine" added to their "gene pool".
Back in the day, they were buried and forgotten. Now society caters to them. *barf*
Welcome to Obama's "perfect society". (Their "special snowflake" status needs a padded room so that they can't hurt either themselves, or others).
You can bet that they would be worrying if there were a concerted and organized effort to pass legislation banning pools, restricting their use, increasing the cost to own and operate pools, etc.
If they do enough damage by saying stupid things, their actions might result in the public calling for additional restrictions on the 1st Amendment. That certainly wouldn't make them friends of those who support the 1st Amendment.
In theory this should be an end to the discussion. In practice, we can all clearly see that it's not. Some idiot goes out and does something sufficiently newsworthy and negative with a gun and it can result in gun rights being further restricted regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says.
Well said.
Pond James Pond
New member
The problem often is that the perpetrators of such dumb-isms just don't think.
Now they may get caught, they may not. They may get smacked by the courts. The problem there is the only person who's learnt from the experience is the do-er. Droves of others are waiting in line to commit the next inane act...
Sometimes, I think prime-time full-disclosure name-and-shame is a better deterrent than the risk of fines or even incarceration (complete with inout from the most acerbic comics for added bite).
The risk of looking stupid to the wider public is a powerful motivator for the self-obsessed (something you need to be if you don't think about the impact on others of your actions, IMHO).
Not a cure, but I bet it would make some think twice who ordinarily would not....
Now they may get caught, they may not. They may get smacked by the courts. The problem there is the only person who's learnt from the experience is the do-er. Droves of others are waiting in line to commit the next inane act...
Sometimes, I think prime-time full-disclosure name-and-shame is a better deterrent than the risk of fines or even incarceration (complete with inout from the most acerbic comics for added bite).
The risk of looking stupid to the wider public is a powerful motivator for the self-obsessed (something you need to be if you don't think about the impact on others of your actions, IMHO).
Not a cure, but I bet it would make some think twice who ordinarily would not....
I've seen many folks who bought guns for "self defense" who were of more danger to themselves or other innocents than to the aggressor.
Problem is similar comments can be made about those who buy high performance cars, motorhomes, or cycles and no one wants restrictions on purchasing those items.
When I took my CCW class(15 years ago), there was an older man attending who had not held a handgun since WW2. To tell the truth, I(and others) were somewhat concerned with his inept and unsafe handling of the GLOCK. I laid my pistol down and backed away from the firing line leaving him and the instructor to finish his qualification target.
A woman brought a tiny .25ACP into my business one day and asked if I'd "teach her to shoot". She was carrying it between thumb and index finger held out in front of herself like it was a dead mouse. I told her I'd "teach her how to safely handle it" and THEN we'd discuss actually firing it.
Problem is similar comments can be made about those who buy high performance cars, motorhomes, or cycles and no one wants restrictions on purchasing those items.
When I took my CCW class(15 years ago), there was an older man attending who had not held a handgun since WW2. To tell the truth, I(and others) were somewhat concerned with his inept and unsafe handling of the GLOCK. I laid my pistol down and backed away from the firing line leaving him and the instructor to finish his qualification target.
A woman brought a tiny .25ACP into my business one day and asked if I'd "teach her to shoot". She was carrying it between thumb and index finger held out in front of herself like it was a dead mouse. I told her I'd "teach her how to safely handle it" and THEN we'd discuss actually firing it.
you can add these guys to the list of idots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6V0S1m5a7U
Lets not forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LE32Riyugg
There are sooo many examples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6V0S1m5a7U
Lets not forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LE32Riyugg
There are sooo many examples.
Hell yes, gun owners can be our worst nightmares. I can't believe how many gun owners believe politicians' feigned loyalty to the Second Amendment. The Bush family has a long rap sheet for being anti-Second Amendment. And there's a reason why Lyin' Ted is known as Lyin' Ted. He's the definitive neocon insider who'll take your guns as quickly as will Hillary. Yes, propaganda does dupe gun owners.
Keep in mind that the end game is the New World Order, which is code for one-world-government. Neocons and Democrats (they're really one-in-the-same) can't transition us to the New World Order as long as we keep our Second Amendment.
How many times has the NRA gone sideways on gun owners by supporting gun control? It's propaganda is so effective that it has gun owners believing that it is the definitive defender of the Second Amendment. I'll give my money to www.jpfo.org before I'd give it to the NRA.
Keep in mind that the end game is the New World Order, which is code for one-world-government. Neocons and Democrats (they're really one-in-the-same) can't transition us to the New World Order as long as we keep our Second Amendment.
How many times has the NRA gone sideways on gun owners by supporting gun control? It's propaganda is so effective that it has gun owners believing that it is the definitive defender of the Second Amendment. I'll give my money to www.jpfo.org before I'd give it to the NRA.
Pull up a chair, folks, and let Uncle Servo tell you a story.
There's a popular website called Reddit. They have a pro-gun control forum. It has very few subscribers, and when they got tired of fending off cogent pro-gun arguments, they banned such things altogether. The result was that traffic pretty much slowed to nothing.
In response, one of their members decided to rebrand the idea. He started another forum, in which they make fun of incidents exactly like this and use them to push for more gun control.
It's obnoxious, sure, but it's just an internet forum, right? Wrong. The founder decided to start a meme in the public mind that mass shootings are on the rise, and he even claimed that we've had at least one per day since Newtown. He made a slick website to present "data" to "prove" this allegation.
Of course, a skeptical person would (and has) realize that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than the official FBI definition. He includes erroneous reports, gang violence, injuries with pellet guns...the list goes on.
Again, no big deal, right? Wrong. That "one mass shooting per day" claim has been used by every gun-control advocate I can think of, as well as by politicians up to and including the President.
Yes, the founder of that site is a liar, but his lie is big enough that the general public believes it.
And that all started because a guy thought it would be good to demonize gun ownership by making fun of gun owners who had oopsies like the one discussed here.
There's a popular website called Reddit. They have a pro-gun control forum. It has very few subscribers, and when they got tired of fending off cogent pro-gun arguments, they banned such things altogether. The result was that traffic pretty much slowed to nothing.
In response, one of their members decided to rebrand the idea. He started another forum, in which they make fun of incidents exactly like this and use them to push for more gun control.
It's obnoxious, sure, but it's just an internet forum, right? Wrong. The founder decided to start a meme in the public mind that mass shootings are on the rise, and he even claimed that we've had at least one per day since Newtown. He made a slick website to present "data" to "prove" this allegation.
Of course, a skeptical person would (and has) realize that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than the official FBI definition. He includes erroneous reports, gang violence, injuries with pellet guns...the list goes on.
Again, no big deal, right? Wrong. That "one mass shooting per day" claim has been used by every gun-control advocate I can think of, as well as by politicians up to and including the President.
Yes, the founder of that site is a liar, but his lie is big enough that the general public believes it.
And that all started because a guy thought it would be good to demonize gun ownership by making fun of gun owners who had oopsies like the one discussed here.
A few weeks ago, on a Facebook gun page, a guy posted a picture of him teaching a new shooter. There were a few things wrong, and myself and a few others encouraged him to do it properly. We were chastised, called idiots, and told to shut up. As more new shooters are taught by inexperienced shooters, this will get it worse, and it's not good for the rest of us.