Fire with Fire.....idle thoughts...AWB and Mag cap

[zukiphile]

So we don’t acknowledge that 30 round magazines allow a gun to fire more time before reloading than a 10 round?

That doesn't follow from anything anyone has written in this thread. Who has suggested that you should not acknowledge a true statement?

The point is, I don’t think we should have any limits on firearms. So to me there should be no discussion.

The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. How are other people supposed to learn that you believe in no limits if you never discuss it?

People that want to make guns seem fun and warm and fuzzy are part of the problem.

If you ever find such a person, bring him to our attention.

If it is your absolute right to own a gun, why are we even worried?

Governments that don't recognise peoples' rights are prominent in history. That one has a right doesn't mean he should not worry about keeping it.

No compromise means no discussion.

That's clearly false. Do you need examples of people who've discussed a matter but not compromised?

If you decide to have a discussion, you should have something a little stronger than “its fun”

That's a solid response to the argument that one should say nothing stronger than "it's fun". Happily, no one urged that.

 

[rickyrick]

I’m just playing devils advocate here. My stance is no restrictions on firearms.
I live amongst Americans so I try to understand my fellow citizens. I talk to anti gun people all the time. I hear what they tell me, I listen to conversations that they have.

The basic response here to every anti-gunner’s position has been basically to shoot it down.

If we don’t want to compromise, then why are we trying to appease them by sugar coating and trying to qualify it based on the recreational aspect of guns.

Now the “fun” aspect of gun ownership is what makes them the most angry, yet we keep on doing it.
The last thing they want to hear about guns is that they are just grownup toys, especially when there’s dead kids involved.
If wasn’t for the constitution, our guns would have been gone years ago.

Edit to add:

The constitutional aspect is the only thing that’s working in our favor, why dilute it? Are we ashamed so we try to add something else to make gun ownership legitimate?
I don’t think recreation adds any legitimacy to the gun debate. They say there’s no legitimate reason to own an AR for sporting reasons. Only the reasons why it’s in the constitution are legitimate, whatever they may have been originally.

 

[zukiphile]

If we don’t want to compromise, then why are we trying to appease them by sugar coating and trying to qualify it based on the recreational aspect of guns.

Who is doing this? Can you quote someone doing that?

Those are not rhetorical questions.

Now the “fun” aspect of gun ownership is what makes them the most angry, yet we keep on doing it.

Are you trying to appease someone by omitting the recreation use of arms?

The constitutional aspect is the only thing that’s working in our favor, why dilute it? Are we ashamed so we try to add something else to make gun ownership legitimate?

Do you believe that reading a good book for the joy of it dilutes the 1st Am? (hint: it doesn't)

Do you believe that stating that you read for fun is a feckless attempt to make free speech legitimate?

I don’t think recreation adds any legitimacy to the gun debate. They say there’s no legitimate reason to own an AR for sporting reasons. Only the reasons why it’s in the constitution are legitimate, whatever they may have been originally.

Emphasis added.

Rick, I don't think you are a bad person, I understand that much of what you've written in this thread is intended to be challenging, and that you aren't a gun control advocate.

Immediately above, you've repeated a belief that the 2d Am. was included for a fairly specific reason, and that you know that reason despite no such language in the amendment itself. I'm happy to kick the point around with you. I find your position not well reasoned, not supported by the decision in Heller, and not an especially useful position for 2d Am. advocates.

There is no personal animosity in that; you just seem to have a strong sentiment on this that you might like to explore more.

 

[fredvon4]

OK since I started this exercise I need to admit I was just frustrated by much current hatred for a particular rifle and what might be a way to defend against an out right ban on just that one weapon.... an effort I believe should fail for all sorts of common sense and logistical problems

No way the Thousands of them we already own, are gong to be confiscated or bought back...in this society

I have many HOBBIES... Model Airplanes and Amateur Radio are, relative to gun owners, a VERY small group..so my experiences do not easily relate

HAM radio is regulated by the FCC. Amatuer radio guys have a entity to help defend against loosing our Frequencies and Privileges.. a hobby NOT codified as an Constitutional Right

Model airplanes are recently heavily regulated by the DOT FAA as lumped n with Drones and we also have a entity to help defend new draconian limitations ...again not codified as a Constitutional Right

Not sure how effective any of our efforts were trying to increase membership or total USA citizen participation but we tried.... seems when you lobby your state or federal rep...they focus in real fast on your group size..(voters)

I am aware there are many competitions where the AR 15 is one of the rifles
I am aware that ma and pa tax payer is unaware of even local fun/competition clubs, ranges, and firearms sports

Missed in my original though and my fault not written well...BIG PRIZES

Yes requires deep pockets

Bob Carver (yes they guy with superb Stereo Equipment) was a sponsor for years of a Model Airplane Combat Match in Seattle called the Bladder Grabber...2018 will be 40th event

When Bob sponsored with $10,000 worth of prizes the participation, 70+ contestants were from all over USA and 2~3 foreign teams...This year, like last, will be maybe 13~15 old guys

During the 80s it was such a big event, local papers and TV covered it. Each year saw more and more spectators.....

Big Block Fast Combat is a relativity dangerous event... and requires a lot of space and it is very NOISY..... There were always safety and noise pollution efforts to kill the event

Most failed (locally) due the the good will of a lot of non participants telling their council man to lay off..they only do it once a year and it is GREAT FUN

NOT sure what I proposed would work on any national scale to garner GOOD WILL for the HATED GUN

And I am ashamed to admit I am cheap and Lazy... so I apologize for throwing out an Idea with no intention to do any of the hard work to organizes such events and find the $$$$$

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Agree to disagree, folks. What actually works as an argument to defend gun ownership is an interesting empirical question.

There is the popular excuse route:
1. 223 isn't powerful
2. ARs are for sport. Don't take my toys!
3. They aren't fully auto so don't call them assault boom-booms
4. They are tools like pliers and only people are dangerous
5. Well, Johnny could have made anthrax or Sarin and killed more people. A bomb did that - so no action is needed if you only kill 20 kids.

Do we know if that works? Did the NRA or other gun organizations do some legit research to test those messages?

Then there are the legalistic, Constitutional, real purpose arguments.
1. Shall not be infringed - Enuf said.
2. We are the militia - Enuf said
3. God said so
4. Defense against tyranny and self-defense. Debate if that was the purpose as you can find various old political sources saying this or that.
5. Defense against foreign invasion. Funny, that used to be a popular theme. 50,000 Chinese in California or Mexico on the way to TX to take our guns. Here comes the UN! Remember those. Really heated. Say that today and you would be seen as an idiot by a majority of gun folk and antigun folk.

Use what works. If you think you have it nailed, good for you. I see merit in many of the statements if used in a manner that would be convincing. Any of them can be stated in a way that only appeals to the choir.

So let's lay back a bit. If it gets personal, we all lose.

 

[rickyrick]

I’ll admit that I’ve failed in my attempts to point out where our arguments are falling short.
That’s my only intent.

I don’t have the greatest writing ability and I am multitasking when I’m posting lol.

People can change their opinions on guns.

When I was young I didn’t think civilians needed the assault boom booms either. Because logically, I didn’t think you needed one.
I was a gun owner, just the recreational type. I was also a soldier for my first tour of adulthood. Didn’t think civilians needed ARs.

I changed my opinions when some fellow explained to me why we have the second amendment.

 

[Tom68]

"Usually a progun demonstration is an embarrassment."

Glenn, I'd submit that the reason is that by nature we are not the demonstrating type. Gun owners come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and political preferences, but one key thread I often experience in gun owners is individuality and self-reliance, at least in my part of the world anyway. Folks who take pride in their individual liberty aren't easily persuaded to travel to participate in a demonstration.

I would bet that many of the folks on this board view gun ownership as a personal decision and are not inclined to advertise themselves in such a way.

 

[fredvon4]

Tom68

your quote above sparked a thought---- but I can not find who you are quoting to see context..

No matter---- it made me remember the Recent Texas Open Carry debates

I live in Lampasas near fort Hood and as imagined, a very high rate of gun ownership population...Susana Hupp is from here, and we sent her to Austin as our rep...she is solely responsible for the Current Texas Concealed Carry Law

Many years later we debated Open Carry....now passed (with a license/permit)

What struck me during the debates leading up to the Texas House session--- was several dozens...of "Demonstrators" made a point to march on the Capitol a few times with long rifles on their backs.....

As I watched on TV most seemed to be Rickey Rambo with a AR ...... ready for a fight..... NOT a group of people who seemed harmless and non threatening

NOT sure how I can describe this with out ticking off the 2A folks too much

If I was to gather a group to Demonstrate. I would have all dressed as Hunters, with a long gun and Belt Holster Revolver....

A great argument that worked in the debate was:

Hunting in remote Rural counties is BIG business in Texas... so City guy gets all set up. Moves into hunt camp... need supplies...heads to local town to get deer corn, beer, food, ammo, gun supplies... has to leave his side arm in the vehicle... might forget... should not be arrested for having a six gun on his hip...Open

Fortunately this logic worked but was compromised with the need of a permit to open carry

Back to the point... I thought-- all around Texas the hard core "Demonstrators" the way they dressed, and the weapons they carried.. looked to much Rambo-ish TO ME

and made me shake my head and think... You All Are Not Helping

 

[SIGSHR]

How many of these people concerned with school shootings are concerned over teen drug use, or texting while driving ?
The basic idea is to create a Surveillance and Snitch society, sow mistrust, fear and paranoia.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry, this kind of statement is not productive. While the gun control advocates may not be sensible on why we need the 2nd Amend. to assignment such a motive of societal control to folks who saw their children killed or were a survivor of a rampage is not going to convince anyone.

The major parties just use gun control as totems to rile up their bases - Ban Guns vs. No controls - say what gets me votes. They don't really care - you are naive to think the party head honchos do care. They just care about trashing the other party.

At the grass roots of the antigun movement that specifically sprung up around this one - they are not trying to have your kindergarten teacher make you a socialist that surveills you and sows paranoia.

The gun world makes a terrible mistake if it thinks it can defend gun rights with such rhetoric.

 

[fredvon4]

Glen

HUA!

Heard
Understood
Acknowledged
!!!!

 

[Lohman446]

I still think the OP is onto something. I don't care if we like it or not one of the premises that the anti-gun rests on is something to the effect of "there is no legitimate sporting use for those types of guns and they are only there for war to kill people"

Harming that premise does not harm our argument.

 

[fredvon4]

Thanks Lohman446

I truly do side with Right Shall Not Be Infringed crowd on a very fundamental level

BUT I am also aware that perception and beliefs can fuel love or HATE for some object or activity

I am sincere in the notion that IF I won some 100 million dollar lottery this week a bunch of it would be sent on several passions of mine:

Very good shooting range and club in my county

Very good Model airplane facility and twice a year contests focused on Fast Combat ( a dying sport and personal passion) with giant assed prizes....with that much money I can even get Henry nelson to produce a large run of N36c engines again

Sponsor a National championship multi tiered competition where the HATED gun with high cap mags was needed ----with exponentially larger prizes

Back in the late 70s...my experience, from observation...
Noted Stereo Electronics producer Bob Carver was also a avid model airplane guy ...mostly Combat and he was distressed that American Model Academy (AMA) was moving away from Fast combat to a more safer benign speed limit combat...

In the Seattle area he approached the sponsoring club and offered unheard of prize size...they advertised in National magazines and for a few years got 70 + participants from all over the USA and foreign

I have no clue why Bob stopped sponsoring... I assume his accountants told him (during the later years) economy sucked and his expenditure did NOT promote sales of his product...very good stereo equipment

BUT I do know that the giant prizes took a 20~30 person event to well over 70 and the loss brought it back to 15~20

OK a micro ....not Macro example....but my take away was IF the prizes is big enough a LOT of folks will try

My local competition shooting clubs all are a relevant example in a left handed way

Three gun
Steel Challenge
IDPA

you name it

each has the experts and the new guys try to emulate WHAT IS THE BEST OF THE BEST TOOL

I tend to think a call to ban a Yugo or Corvair as unsafe could pass.. but try to ban a Jeep Wrangler.... REALLY?.....
Come on grin and think about it....

BUTT ugly..not really a good highway car...not a great MPG vehicle, did I say ugly...... They simply exist becaus they are FUN>>>>

disclusure

Wife loves the Wrangler but has a Grand Cherokee
I hate the wrangler buy have a Jeep Cherokee