It's Time to Choose a Side

My choice was made in 1968. i will not agree to any gun control-period.

The anti-gunners have been able to drive a wedge between hunters, shooters and us awful folks who support the NRA.

We have people on pro-gun boards who are willing to subject themselves to governmant mandated regulation in order to sell their guns. We have others who are willing to outlaw those awful high capacity magazines. Some don't like those awful black guns that "spray and spray" bullets.

The anti-gunners are doing it right this time around. They are hitting hard at the onset of a new administration. They will pass some of their useless feel good gun control schemes and get away scot free at election time because many gunowners will not remember or will not care which political hack voted to take away their gun rights.

Then we have the "me" folks. These are the ones who only care about "me". i've personally heard gunowners say: "i've got my AR-15, why should i care if they pass an AWB". Politicians can mandate registration of semi-auto guns later simply outlaw them. That has happened in CA and NJ.

Do not ever assume that because a national politician belongs to a certain party that he/she will support your Second Amendment rights. The AWB passed the US house by a vote of 216-214. 38 Republicans voted for the AWB, 76 Democrats voted no.

i'm bent out of shape because our previously pro-gun OK senator Coburn and senator Schumer are formulating a plan to take way our gun rights.
 
I picked my side decades ago. I am on the side of the Bill of Rights, all of the amendments, and will fight in anyway I can to preserve these.
 
The power of people is very strong. The ability to get them united is another story. If people could unite we could win this whole battle,
Please all of us need to stand together for this fight for our rights. Just once people lets do this together
 
The reason for these current issues is that we have become a country of takers, and not makers. We are relying on others to fight the fight for us. We are too quick to say “it won’t happen to us” or “I don’t own an AR-15, so I’m not worried about it”.
Click to expand...
I saw this in action at a small, local gun shop a few weeks ago. It's on my normal Saturday chores route, so I was hanging out and chatting with a couple of the regulars. The two proprietors were VERY busy.

In walked a guy I had never seen before. He was wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the name of a nearby shooting club, so he wasn't a newbie. He started complaining about all the new anti-gun laws being proposed and he asked why the NRA isn't "doing something" about it. I pointed out that the NRA IS doing something about it, but the NRA's position is so well-known that many politicians routinely tune out the NRA. I told him what we really need is for each of us, as individual citizens, to write or e-mail or call our elected representatives and tell them we don't want more anti-gun laws.

I said, "Today is Saturday. You can write the letters tonight and drop them in the mail to go out on Monday."

His response? "Yeah, whatever," whereupon he turned his back on me and proceeded to ignore me completely. In other words, it was too much trouble for him to write a letter or even to fire up the computer and pop off an e-mail. He expects the NRA to do it all for him. And when the NRA does its best and that isn't good enough, you can bet he won't blame himself for not having written those letters. He'll blame the NRA for not having done "enough."

As the saying goes, "With friends like that, who needs enemies?"
 
I have written, e-mailed etc. I got a few (not many) replies back.
Even from strong 2A folks (Sen.Mike Lee for example) the responses were so weak in their wording that you had no idea where they stood. Rob Bishop was the one exception to that rule.
They were all very obviously form letters, which didn't bother me that much, but the responses made me wonder whether anyone was actually paying attention to anything more than the general topic.
In other words, did anyone actually note where I stood on the topic? I'm not going to stop, but it does make me wonder if something else would be more effective.
 
In other words, it was too much trouble for him to write a letter or even to fire up the computer and pop off an e-mail. He expects the NRA to do it all for him. And when the NRA does its best and that isn't good enough, you can bet he won't blame himself for not having written those letters. He'll blame the NRA for not having done "enough."
Click to expand...
That echoes my experience in 1994. I was pretty jaded and cynical for a long time after that.

I got better for awhile, and given all the gains we've made lately, I started to get optimistic. The problem is, I'm hearing all the same drivel I heard from gun owners 20 years ago. In the last couple of supposedly pivotal elections, voter turnout has been pathetic. Joe Bob wants to yell at me about "the ban," but he doesn't know which one. He hasn't made even the most perfunctory attempt to contact his representatives. Heck, he can't even name them.

Sorry gang, but when the vast majority of gun owners can't be troubled to so much as get off the couch, we deserve what we get.
 
Tom Servo said:
Sorry gang, but when the vast majority of gun owners can't be troubled to so much as get off the couch, we deserve what we get.
Click to expand...
Correction: They deserve what THEY get.

Sadly, whatever they get, we get too.
 
rc said:
I think we are reaching a tipping point in favor of gun ownership. Guns are being sold at an alarming rate. I saw a gent the other day at the gun store who had a double barrel antique at home and was looking to buy a pump or semi auto while he still could. These fringe gun buyers are normal every day people who are part of the current frenzy to buy guns and ammo of all kinds. The -- want people to believe only criminal types are buying up all the guns and ammo. They want to put out a cover story to impune the reputation of those who believe in freedom.
Click to expand...
This is true, but the problem is such first (or second) time buyers aren't up to speed on the issue, and don't have any recognition of the anti-gunners' long-term plans. These new buyers are drinking the Kool-Aid. They think all they have to do is get in the door and buy their one rifle/pistol/shotgun before the next AWB gets passed and they'll magically be grandfathered forever.

What we need to do ... somehow ... is get through to these people that their new home defense Megablaster X27 is NOT grandfathered forever. It's only safe until the antis choose to ban it. Heck, in New York many people even on the gun forums don't understand that an 8-round 1911 magazine is only grandfathered for one year. I don't know how to get people to wake up and (as the late Ann Landers used to say) smell the coffee.

Note - the post that this responds to, was deleted as it had some problems. So let it go. It is a shame that folks cannot abide by some simple rules. Sigh. - GEM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What we need to do ... somehow ... is get through to these people that their new home defense Megablaster X27 is NOT grandfathered forever. It's only safe until the antis choose to ban it
Click to expand...

This!!
NY state residents will soon be required to dispose of their evil semi-auto rifles.
 
Its time to choose a side

"We must all hang together or we will hang seperately" Benjamin Franklin! The attack on our Constitional rights is in full swing. Someone said if guns are banned he would be on the side of the law. The law of our land is that we have the right to bear arms. PERIOD! Any law taking away our rights is invalid. Passing a law capping the maximum number of rounds allowed in a magazine is as stupid as passing a law capping the maximum number of people one is allowed to kill! Criminals don't follow laws. How about a law stopping criminals from being out of jail! Maybe someone in our government will enforce the 20,000+ gun laws we already have and keep dangerous criminals where they belong! More laws are not needed. MORE enforcement and keeping criminals off the streets will do more good than passing an endless list of more laws that punish law abiding citizens!
 
The original article describes a phenomenon I have observed with frustrating frequency; most gun owners believe that their arms are protected while the arms of different sorts are on necessary or not protected by the Second Amendment.

I have found this most egregiously amongst the clay and trap expensive shotgun owners. To be charitable, they analogize the use to which they put their own arms, a highly social sport, to all legitimate use of all arms everywhere. To be less charitable, the discomfort they feel at people unlike them possessing firearms is exactly the kind of discomfort that drives gun bans politically.

They are not the only group to display this pattern. I have known competitive rifle shooters who can't quite wrap their minds around private possession of semiautomatic firearms. Perhaps they are so enthralled by the beauty and challenge involved in landing a single round precisely that other uses seem to distant in terms of utility.

Often, the deer hunter who shoots one or two dozen rounds per year with some friends does not consider himself a "gun guy" and does not see himself as exercising a right in any way connected with three gun competitions.

Although I read these sentiment less frequently now, I can remember 25 years ago reading articles by "experts" that maintained that a permit to carry should only be issued to the highly trained and subsequently state certified user.

Part of the preparation work for defending a civil right involves explaining to the people affected the nature of the right involved. Only if they understand that they all engage in a specific exercise of a broad and general right can they then come to understand that infringement of a specific exercise they may oppose is also an infringement of the right they share.
 
Using the term 'modern sporting rifle' is a step on the road to losing them.

Said this many times. The guns exist for their lethal potential for SD and protect against tyranny.

They are too dangerous for simple sports.

They are constitutional protected because they are that dangerous.

They are not bowling balls (sports) or hammers (tools).

NO antigun person is deceived by 'modern sporting rifle'.
 
That was 1994. Nowadays I'm hearing, "well, I got my AR-15, so let the ban come."
Click to expand...
I have been trying to get the ones saying that to rethink it. I have been pointing out the newly proposed law in Missouri would require them to turn in, destroy, or remove their banned gun from the state within 90 days. They then point out to me that we are not in that state and it has little chance of passing and being held as constitutional. I agree. But then I point out that they should be outraged that such a thing is even contemplated let alone submitted for consideration as a new law. Some then get it and some shrug and move on.

For the most part, gun owners I'm talking to are apathetic and disinvolved. Saddest are the ones who remember the AWB, seem resigned that it will happen, and don't take the trouble to engage in even the most rudimentary civic involvement on the matter.
Click to expand...
I can not agree more. I currently have more contact with younger people in our college shooting club. They listen politely to me, the old timer, agree that it is wrong to infringe on the 2nd but will not do anything about it. Some of them vote but so far I have not found one that will send a letter or email to the legislators. They do not seem to think anything can or will happen that will impact them much. I tried to get them and some older people involved in the Guns Across America rally a few weeks ago. One of them said they were afraid they might get in trouble or even shot if they went. The rest had, what I consider, trivial activities that were more important. I had many other pressing matters that needed my attention also but me and my younger daughter went anyway.
 
NO antigun person is deceived by 'modern sporting rifle'.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I do think many rather neutral people are being deceived with terms like "assault weapon", "weapons of war". and "military use weapons". I have had a number of conversations with people that ask why I would need to have access to weapons of war. I explain that the terms are being deliberately misused and that I do not have access to modern weapons of war. I also explain that when I was in the military I did have access to and used weapons of war and that as far as I am concerned the guns currently under scrutiny do not qualify.

EDIT: I know that there is some overlap in the hunting / sniper rifle category. But I do not think there is in the semi / select fire category currently being scrutinized.
 
For what it is worth, my take is that when the neutral person gets two presentations for the AR:

1. Sporting gun
2. Weapons of War

- they will go with #2. They certainly if buying into sport, will go for the mag ban.
 
We're all remembering that the first country to ban "military style weapons" in the modern era was Nazi Germany right?

"The Gesetz über die Entwaffnung der Bevölkerung (Law on the
Disarmament of the People), passed on August 7, 1920, provided for a
Reichskommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population.
He was empowered to
define which weapons were “military weapons” and thus subject to seizure.
The
bolt action Mauser rifles Models 1888/98, which had 5-shot magazines, were put in the
same class as hand grenades.
Persons with knowledge of unlawful arms caches
were required to inform the Disarmament Commission."
Sounds almost identical to a number our opponents proposals doesn't it?

I've found quoting from these laws, without sourcing the quote initially, then asking an anti if they agree with these measures to be very effective when I inform the entire room that the source of the quote and the context afterward.
The purpose of the law was to disarm political opponents and make it possible to violently suppress opposition.

More on these laws.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513066
 
For what it is worth, my take is that when the neutral person gets two presentations for the AR:

1. Sporting gun
2. Weapons of War

- they will go with #2. They certainly if buying into sport, will go for the mag ban.
Click to expand...

Again I do not disagree in general terms. I have had success sorting this out on a one to one basis with people that are on the fence or only provisionally in the anti camp. The ones firmly in the anti camp, that I have talked with, have no tolerance for reason, logic, or differing points of view. Many of the people that know me are probably tiered of my relentless talking on the whole gun control subject, but I am not giving up anytime soon.

I have a harder time with the magazine capacity issue. I do not currently have any of the long guns under scrutiny and not many hand guns with high capacity magazines. But I am doing my best to advocate for all gun owners not just the guns I own. When asked about the need for the magazines I am at a bit of a loss. I can not think of many reasons I need one that do not sound like I want to be prepared for an armed insurrection, I try not to scare the receptive people in the middle or give ammunition(pun intended) to the anti crowd. But I also can not think of any reason I should not have them.

If someone could help me clarify my arguments on the magazine issue I would be grateful.
 
We're all remembering that the first country to ban "military style weapons" in the modern era was Nazi Germany right?
Click to expand...

People should be careful with this one. Many jump from what you referenced to saying Hitler confiscated guns to control the people. Being the modern poster boy of all that is evil it is a natural jump but not completely correct. He in fact passed some laws that increased civilian access to firearms.
 
Chaz, you and I posted at the same time, try my methods listed above.
It will make your whole day to see the look on some anti's face when you've provedto an entire roomful of people that they are perfectly okay with following in the footsteps(goosesteps?) of Nazi Germany.
I'm particularly fond of the shade of eggplant purple one man's face turned when I used the phrase "well then you and Hitler are solidly in the same corner on this issue aren't you", then was able to prove what I said. It is a particularly effective argument against people who talk about "you're being paranoid"." I'm sure lot's of the Nazi's opponents were told exactly that, look how that attitude turned out.", causes a lot of frowns and reconsidering faces on people who will listen.
 
I think we posted at the same time again.
Yes, Hitler increased access to guns for the people who supported him.
If you read through the entire article I referenced above (click through the the thread link) as I recall it addresses this.
The majority of people who are for this sort of gun laws won't be affected by them.In other words, for the people who don't own guns, only shoot skeet, hunters etc. who don't own, or plan to own, this type of weapon all that's happening is their opponents are being disarmed.
Anti gun politicians have a long history of not feeling like these restrictions apply to them, so this is only disarming the opposition, that for the most part, stands in the way of their plans.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top