Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Every "compromise" entails us giving up more and more of our civil rights. And they keep coming back for more.
Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Most Gun Control folks haven't a clue !!!
I'm glad you cleared that up and yes, divisions/compromises do exist....
Gun-Control is primarily a political issue and we all know how corrupt and biased it is. ….
2A is sovereign and constantly under attach. 2A is what I primarily go with even though sometimes it's not easy and hurts. ….
I often respond to Gun-Control questions with a 2A questions. ….
Common Sense Gun-Control; What the hell does that mean ????
I'm glad you cleared that up and yes, divisions/compromises do exist....
Gun-Control is primarily a political issue and we all know how corrupt and biased it is. ….
2A is sovereign and constantly under attach. 2A is what I primarily go with even though sometimes it's not easy and hurts. ….
I often respond to Gun-Control questions with a 2A questions. ….
Common Sense Gun-Control; What the hell does that mean ????
First off, of course we are divided, we are all separate individuals and one of our similarities is that we value our individual independent thought.
We have many thing is common, some totally congruent, others less so. We do not require a lockstep group think no deviation from the party line mentality, and indeed generally oppose such even when its on our side.
One of my favorite (fictional) situations is in sci-fi/horror when the evil mutant zombie biker ninja space beasts are eating people and the anti-gun neighbor down the street (who has for years been doing his level best to push gun control) is pounding on the gun owner good guy's door, DEMANDING he be given a gun.
Guess how the gun guy usually responds...he he he
Would I actively help someone who was trying to harm me? I think not.
We have many thing is common, some totally congruent, others less so. We do not require a lockstep group think no deviation from the party line mentality, and indeed generally oppose such even when its on our side.
One of my favorite (fictional) situations is in sci-fi/horror when the evil mutant zombie biker ninja space beasts are eating people and the anti-gun neighbor down the street (who has for years been doing his level best to push gun control) is pounding on the gun owner good guy's door, DEMANDING he be given a gun.
Guess how the gun guy usually responds...he he he
Would I actively help someone who was trying to harm me? I think not.
buck460XVR
New member
No, just as I did not state that religious beliefs were. My question was, if political affiliation is a standard as to whether or not we "help" someone in need, does that also extend to religious affiliation, race, color or sex?
But....aren't you then infringing upon those folk's 1st Amendment rights? Like you, they are just expressing their views. Does this mean we turn our head when they are in need? Are you not alienating them even farther and just presenting a negative impression of what gun owners are? Last thing I thing about when I see someone stranded along the roadside is what their stance on gun control is, nor is a political bumper sticker going to make me drive past. No different when a neighbor has a health issue or has a hard time clearing their driveway after a snow storm because of age.
I grew up up in a household where one parent was a Democrat and one was a Republican. While I saw a difference in opinion, I did not see the hate I see here. What I saw growing up in that scenario was, that many times folks ignored what was the better good, in defense of their political affiliation. Probably why I am still an independent when it comes to voting. The hate I see here is similar to the hate I saw back in the late 50s and early 60s towards other races, other religions and other ethnic groups. Funny, even tho we are supposed to be above all of that now, the hate remains, just redirected.
Irrational fear. Ideophobia. Apparently, both so great, folks feel the need to refrain from helping others in need.
As I said in my first post, the question presented by the OP is much more complex than a straight and instantaneous yes or no.
Mutual Respect
Roberts,
What and how are they using your Knowledge/experience against you? You are never wrong if you are sincerely trying to help someone that is uninformed. If you are referring to how they vote and their opinions, then that's just the way it goes. I have a number of friends who are anti-gun and they are entitled to their opinions. I'm always willing to help anyone even though they don't agree with my "opinions". I guess the biggest factor is "Respect" which is not a one-way street. …..
L.B.C. and;
Be Safe !!!
Roberts,
What and how are they using your Knowledge/experience against you? You are never wrong if you are sincerely trying to help someone that is uninformed. If you are referring to how they vote and their opinions, then that's just the way it goes. I have a number of friends who are anti-gun and they are entitled to their opinions. I'm always willing to help anyone even though they don't agree with my "opinions". I guess the biggest factor is "Respect" which is not a one-way street. …..
L.B.C. and;
Be Safe !!!
Never compromise your 2nd Amendment rights.
There is no compromise possible when the result only penalizes one side of the argument. One side gets some of what they want and the other has to live with new restrictions and limitations. Often requiring them to get government approval to purchase, own or sell the tool of their choice.
Not sure how that fits into the concept of freedom that so many before us have spilled their blood protecting.
Never Compromise Your Second Amendment Rights!!!!
There is no compromise possible when the result only penalizes one side of the argument. One side gets some of what they want and the other has to live with new restrictions and limitations. Often requiring them to get government approval to purchase, own or sell the tool of their choice.
Not sure how that fits into the concept of freedom that so many before us have spilled their blood protecting.
Never Compromise Your Second Amendment Rights!!!!
There are levels where we react and respond to people based on social and cultural factors. There are other levels where we should respond simply because they are fellow human beings.
If my despised neighbor who forced me to spend thousands of dollars on a fence to define property boundaries were having his leg eaten by rabid ferrets on crystal meth, and I were in a position to stop it, I would.
If his car was broke and he asked me for a ride to the "ban the AR-15" rally, I'd tell him, "you got feet, used them!"
But I wouldn't stop him from getting there.
I think the proper reaction also should involve how much you know about the person asking for help and what help they are asking for.
Suppose a total stranger approaches you and says "I'm a writer, doing research for a book /paper /report and I've checked, you are someone who knows, can you tell me how a terrorist would blow up a bridge??
(or make a bomb, or …..)
NOW what do you do? Judgement call time.
Suppose they work for "Ban them all NOW! Inc." and they ask how you how to properly define gun terms or how this might be converted to that, etc. so they can get the proposed new law's wording "right"??
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to help that guy, with THAT "problem".
If my despised neighbor who forced me to spend thousands of dollars on a fence to define property boundaries were having his leg eaten by rabid ferrets on crystal meth, and I were in a position to stop it, I would.
If his car was broke and he asked me for a ride to the "ban the AR-15" rally, I'd tell him, "you got feet, used them!"
But I wouldn't stop him from getting there.
I think the proper reaction also should involve how much you know about the person asking for help and what help they are asking for.
Suppose a total stranger approaches you and says "I'm a writer, doing research for a book /paper /report and I've checked, you are someone who knows, can you tell me how a terrorist would blow up a bridge??
(or make a bomb, or …..)
NOW what do you do? Judgement call time.
Suppose they work for "Ban them all NOW! Inc." and they ask how you how to properly define gun terms or how this might be converted to that, etc. so they can get the proposed new law's wording "right"??
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to help that guy, with THAT "problem".
May touch your heart but don't let them poison it.
Matters little as they will eventually get frustrated and abandon your relationship …..
"Had" a buddy that I shot with and shared gun-stuff with. We made a deal that we should not let our politics get in the way of our friendship. He just couldn't keep his mouth shut and eventually, did us both a favor by breaking off our friendship. I wish him well …..
Be Safe !!!
Perhaps not your rights but more like your stand on issues.
Matters little as they will eventually get frustrated and abandon your relationship …..
"Had" a buddy that I shot with and shared gun-stuff with. We made a deal that we should not let our politics get in the way of our friendship. He just couldn't keep his mouth shut and eventually, did us both a favor by breaking off our friendship. I wish him well …..
Be Safe !!!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
How? He's not in any way prohibiting them from expressing their thoughts. In any case, JERRYS isn't the government -- the Bill of Rights constrains the government, not you, me, or JERRYS. That said, I would reiterate that a private citizen electing not to interface with another private citizen because that second private citizen is actively trying to persuade the government to infringe the first private citizen's rights does not -- and cannot -- constitute an infringement of the second private citizen's 1st Amendment rights.Buck460XVR said:
Thanks for adding rabid ferrets on meth to my list of stuff to worry about.
I thought this was interesting in the context of how to define allies: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/antifa-group-to-march-with-pro-gun-protesters-at-virginia-rally/
buck460XVR
New member
....but who elects those in power? Who makes the choice of who can and does have the power to amend the constitution and make rules restricting what some folks consider rights?
Wait for it.........JERRYS.
It only takes a majority to take away any "guarantees" we have.
....as for helping out non-gun owners. The Pledge of Allegiance has the phase "one nation under God" in it. The Bible has a parable about a man helping another man, who is from a culture hated by his own. Seems they should go together....not against each other.
Mongo_Bongo
New member
If they're so smart that they know better than I do about what restrictions are acceptable, then they're smart enough to solve their own problems.
You aren't wrong.
It goes against your moral code of ethics.
Another person can't tell you what to believe and put pressure on you to "go along".
Anyhow - when it gets right down to it - the people you don't help, in all likelihood wouldn't take your advice anyhow - so screw em..
.Here comes the monkey wrench!!
I guess I better not-yea Im chicken.
PS-Im not supporting many (D) supporters lately. Why should I bust my buns and then get voted against. How do gun laws progress but by those supporting (D)s. Look at the US Senate in MI. Been (D)s forever.
This fall we will have another chance go fix that but!!!!
JOHN JAMES for US Senate 2020 along w/ TRUMP.
Hal just above--you are absolutely correct.
Way back in 1976 we supported a good man for US House. Went around and circulated petitions for nomination etc..
The local gun shop owner, claimed NRA lifer, always bitching about govt etc. Asked him to sign nomination petition. Said NO -dont know the man.
Wopw not asking to vote for him (yet) just get him on the ballot.
Found out later the yahoo wasnt ever registered to vote. Worst part I let him slide and never called him on it.
I guess I better not-yea Im chicken.
PS-Im not supporting many (D) supporters lately. Why should I bust my buns and then get voted against. How do gun laws progress but by those supporting (D)s. Look at the US Senate in MI. Been (D)s forever.
This fall we will have another chance go fix that but!!!!
JOHN JAMES for US Senate 2020 along w/ TRUMP.
Hal just above--you are absolutely correct.
Way back in 1976 we supported a good man for US House. Went around and circulated petitions for nomination etc..
The local gun shop owner, claimed NRA lifer, always bitching about govt etc. Asked him to sign nomination petition. Said NO -dont know the man.
Wopw not asking to vote for him (yet) just get him on the ballot.
Found out later the yahoo wasnt ever registered to vote. Worst part I let him slide and never called him on it.
Last edited:
The 'Golden Rule' has been around for thousands and thousands of years..
Nothing wrong with helping a leftist change a tire or such but I'm not doing anything to help with their leftist agenda. As far as comprise, you best not comprise on your rights or sooner or later you won't have any. There is a Liberal Gun Club forum, wander over there and find out what leftist gun owners believe and how they act. Folks, they are not like us!.....
The Golden Rule might require many things including:
1. Helping others to avoid voting for public policy blunders that abuse people's rights, and
2. Not oneself voting for laws that infringe on people's valid rights.
B. Roberts question is "Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?" These are people who already support a restriction. Does helping one of them enable that person to support a restriction, or to support it more effectively? Does helping one of them offer a promise that they would be less inclined to support such a restriction?
Without some detail to a hypothetical, one can't know whether assisting an individual increases the risk of a harm.
1. Helping others to avoid voting for public policy blunders that abuse people's rights, and
2. Not oneself voting for laws that infringe on people's valid rights.
B. Roberts question is "Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?" These are people who already support a restriction. Does helping one of them enable that person to support a restriction, or to support it more effectively? Does helping one of them offer a promise that they would be less inclined to support such a restriction?
Without some detail to a hypothetical, one can't know whether assisting an individual increases the risk of a harm.