You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
....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.
I don't care if they own a gun or not, that wasn't the question. if they support taking away my RKBA (as asked by the OP) given to us by God (for your religious reference) then I do not want anything to do with them if at all possible since they vote to take away my RKBA. why would Jews (other than George Soros) help the Nazis?
Mr. Roberts, I go back to my first response. Why do you even feel the need to ask this question? Why are you Questioning your own motives and morals?
I receive phone calls daily from people I know are pollsters. I do not answer those calls and don't feel bad buy not doing it. On this point my opinion is my own and I don't feel the need to share it no matter which party is asking. I don't ask people what political party they belong to, which church they attend or who or what they are sleeping with. I expect the same courtesy in return.
People come to these forum for many reason and one is to seek help, now if I didn't want to help people with their gun/shooting/reloading problems then I wouldn't come here. Right?
Say for reloading I have a Red press and you have a blue press and during the course of a conversation you make derogatory remarks about me for using that press or just make a remark derogatory about the press. Then why would I or anyone want to continue a conversation and be demeaned? I see that same thing carry out in discussions where say Taurus Firearms are brought up. Sometimes it's just best to keep your thoughts or comments to yourself. I try to do that though sometimes it gets hard.
I guess it comes down to if you do not respond to help someone with a question no one will ever know.
I receive phone calls daily from people I know are pollsters. I do not answer those calls and don't feel bad buy not doing it. On this point my opinion is my own and I don't feel the need to share it no matter which party is asking. I don't ask people what political party they belong to, which church they attend or who or what they are sleeping with. I expect the same courtesy in return.
People come to these forum for many reason and one is to seek help, now if I didn't want to help people with their gun/shooting/reloading problems then I wouldn't come here. Right?
Say for reloading I have a Red press and you have a blue press and during the course of a conversation you make derogatory remarks about me for using that press or just make a remark derogatory about the press. Then why would I or anyone want to continue a conversation and be demeaned? I see that same thing carry out in discussions where say Taurus Firearms are brought up. Sometimes it's just best to keep your thoughts or comments to yourself. I try to do that though sometimes it gets hard.
I guess it comes down to if you do not respond to help someone with a question no one will ever know.
Pathfinder45
New member
Don't worry about it and don't make rules for yourself. Take each situation on it's own merits. Right and wrong don't always fit in the boxes we build for them. Ask Huckleberry Finn how that worked out for him.
buck460XVR
New member
The 'Golden Rule' has been around for thousands and thousands of years..
The Golden Rule might require many things including:
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?
From how I took it, the help requested as stated in the OP had nuttin' to do with gun control, but with something else the OP is proficient in/with. That is why I said, the question is a complex one. I don't know what the needed help was. I know I help folks out in the reloading section here in hopes they don't blow their fingers off, and I do so without asking how they stand on gun control. Could be something as simple as this.
The parable I mentioned was not about the Golden Rule, but The parable of the Good Samaritan.
Buck460 said:From how I took it, the help requested as stated in the OP had nuttin' to do with gun control, but with something else the OP is proficient in/with. That is why I said, the question is a complex one. I don't know what the needed help was.
Indeed. If the requested help is "How do we draft the most restrictive gun law that will currently pass judicial scrutiny?", I would not accept an invitation to assist. Helping in that task wouldn't make one a good Samaritan because the underlying act isn't good.
If someone who whines about "assault rifles" and handguns with more than seven rounds as items that should not have constitutional protection, but he is asking about a good choice for a 22lr rifle for he and his boy to share, I'm happy to assist. A person with bad ideas sharing a good experience with his child doesn't diminish anyone's rights. Moreover, a cordial conversation with a person with which one has a basic disagreement can demonstrate to that person that the difference is a principled one, and not personal expression of ill will.
A lack of good will can make even simple things difficult.
So, why am I wrong? What benefit do I gain by helping out people who will use my knowledge against me when they vote? I should just be nice to them and hope they change their minds later?
You aren't wrong and you can do whatever you want. BUT..if some guy has an opinion I disagree with..and he is constantly in my face, yelling and screaming, I may not vote they way he does. An example was, I owned a bicycle shop. I never put any 'political' adverts in my windows cuz yer gonna tweak 50% or so of the people who see it. Gent came in from that 'organization' supporting the ballot measure..I said no thanks to the window poster and he got all agro with me, yelling and screaming...so..yup, I vpted again the measure.
Really trite but you DO get more results with honey than vinegar..or just don't participate in discussions that get contentious...I yak with my neighbors all the time..I have no idea of what their 'political' bend is...
YMMV, IMHO, and all that.
Let me drop a bit of a stinger on you guys: I once supported gun control.
My father taught me to shoot and handle guns safely at a very early age. My grandparents taught me the horrors of the Third Reich and the idea that something like that can very well happen again.
But it didn't stick. By my teenage years, I was smarter than everyone else, and I ended up going into the music business. Imagine my surprise when I met people even smarter than me. They had all the right slogans and everything.
It wasn't until my mid-20's when I left that scene and reconsidered the issue for myself. By that point, I'd seen through some of the intellectual laziness I'd been indulging, and I had a few peers who were patient in convincing me to reconsider.
I worry that we don't have that now. The battle lines are drawn, and heaven help anyone who tries to cross them. We prefer zingers and soundbites over nuanced or complex discussions, and it feels more and more like scoring points on social media has replaced respectful discussion.
Now, there are people who have spent a great deal of time and capital on restricting our rights. They're in political office and in charge of gun-control organizations. Those guys have heard all our counterarguments and they don't care. What's more, they lie. Those people can't be changed, so we have to rely on sheer political pressure.
But the other 99% of the population can. We lose out if we don't engage them.
My father taught me to shoot and handle guns safely at a very early age. My grandparents taught me the horrors of the Third Reich and the idea that something like that can very well happen again.
But it didn't stick. By my teenage years, I was smarter than everyone else, and I ended up going into the music business. Imagine my surprise when I met people even smarter than me. They had all the right slogans and everything.
It wasn't until my mid-20's when I left that scene and reconsidered the issue for myself. By that point, I'd seen through some of the intellectual laziness I'd been indulging, and I had a few peers who were patient in convincing me to reconsider.
I worry that we don't have that now. The battle lines are drawn, and heaven help anyone who tries to cross them. We prefer zingers and soundbites over nuanced or complex discussions, and it feels more and more like scoring points on social media has replaced respectful discussion.
Now, there are people who have spent a great deal of time and capital on restricting our rights. They're in political office and in charge of gun-control organizations. Those guys have heard all our counterarguments and they don't care. What's more, they lie. Those people can't be changed, so we have to rely on sheer political pressure.
But the other 99% of the population can. We lose out if we don't engage them.
J.G. Terry
New member
Defense: How about I'm minding my own business. I'm not breaking any laws. Why is it you come restricting my right to come and go when the violent crimes are committed elsewhere. What gives you the right to dictate how I am supposed to live minding my own business and not breaking any laws.
You may find there is a real difference with firearms owners who are single issue voters and those who are not. Worth a thought. It has been apparent to me that much of the anti-gun stuff is a way to attack the Base. How much does this anti gun movement have to do with gun violence or is it a passive-aggressive way of attacking the right wing?
You may find there is a real difference with firearms owners who are single issue voters and those who are not. Worth a thought. It has been apparent to me that much of the anti-gun stuff is a way to attack the Base. How much does this anti gun movement have to do with gun violence or is it a passive-aggressive way of attacking the right wing?
How much does this anti gun movement have to do with gun violence or is it a passive-aggressive way of attacking the right wing?
Once upon a time a bit more than half a century ago, some politicians of both parties supported gun control as a means to combat CRIME.
The Gun Control act of 1968 was a major attempt to do that. Or so they claimed. Gun makers even supported the law (I believe because it wasn't clear to them everything it would do.
Restrictions on imports (especially handguns) under the buzzwords "Saturday Night Special", ending of direct mail order sale of firearms. Setting national AGE standards for firearm purchase. Creation of the "prohibited person" class for convicted felons. Creation of a required Federal License to deal in firearms, along with record keeping requirements. Even requiring all ammo sales to be logged and recorded (this was later dropped) and some other things I can't recall off the top of my head.
Politicians of both parties supported or rejected gun control based on their personal beliefs and those of the people they were pledged to represent. Party affiliation was not a consideration, really.
Now skip a lot, jump forward some 40 years and we find ONE political party making gun control one of the planks of their party platform. It became no longer a matter of just Constitutional rights but also a matter or PARTY LOYALTY. Simply put, if you were part of the party, seeking office, and didn't support gun control, the people running the party would see to it that the party didn't support YOU.
SO, yes, TODAY it has become a Left/Right issue, because one side CHOSE to make it so.
Back in the 19th century one party chose the Jackass as their symbol because in those days it was a symbol of a hard working, dependable beast who could be very stubborn when they thought they were right.
Today they still keep that same symbol but it seems other than the stubborn part all it seems to mean is being a JACKASS.
Nor has the other side been significantly better, overall, just different in focus, usually.
So, yes, part of the issue today is people who accept, adopt and promote gun control as right, because they want to be good party members over being individuals with individual rights, who respect ALL the individual rights of others not just those they personally value.
or so it seems to me...
Bartholomew & Augila, a big thank you to both of you. Your insightful posts are one of the main reasons I like TFL. I agree with your position 100%. I'm all for helping people and trying to show people our side of things. I'm all for explaining the merits of our sport and both the right and the need to keep and bear arms. Every example I see cited as a reason for more gun control, I see as all the more reason you need to exercise your right. No one is going to protect you better than you can.
So if someone is looking for information so they can bolster up their gun control stance .... they can take a hike.
So if someone is looking for information so they can bolster up their gun control stance .... they can take a hike.
reynolds357
New member
I agree. I dont knowingly talk to Democrats. Its truly bad that when you boil it all down, I have more in common with the Taliban than I do with Democrats.I don't give donations to any democrat, won't vote for one. Don't sleep with the enemy.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
If I could trust any of our representatives in government, I'd support stricter gun control.
Being a part of this Forum, I have found that most of us are realistic gun owners who are well versed in who,when & why to carry. For those of us in this category I fully support your right to own & carry. But because of the huge political differences on what's what, the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.
Being a part of this Forum, I have found that most of us are realistic gun owners who are well versed in who,when & why to carry. For those of us in this category I fully support your right to own & carry. But because of the huge political differences on what's what, the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.
Limitations in communication make understanding difficult.
Understanding is wisdom.
For people who don't understand, and who it is difficult to communicate wisdom to, there is not a lot the can be done.
That is why we must help them when we can, in the best way that we can.
Understanding is wisdom.
For people who don't understand, and who it is difficult to communicate wisdom to, there is not a lot the can be done.
That is why we must help them when we can, in the best way that we can.
Don Fischer
New member
If I could trust any of our representatives in government, I'd support stricter gun control.
Being a part of this Forum, I have found that most of us are realistic gun owners who are well versed in who,when & why to carry. For those of us in this category I fully support your right to own & carry. But because of the huge political differences on what's what, the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.
The wrong people will have access to weapons long after the government takes your's! For myself, I don't worry about them as that a waste of time. Best way to keep yourself safe from felons and maniacs is to carry your own weapon and use it better than the bad guy!
the wrong people have access to weapons that they should not have. If anyone can come up with a better way to keep us safe from the maniacs & felons please tell me/us how to do so.
The wrong people have had access to weapons they "should not have" since the rock became the first weapon. Though actually it predates that.
Nature equips us all with "weapons". The most important one is the human mind. This is "The Riddle of Steel" in barbarian fantasy stories. The sword (the steel) is nothing without the hand (the will) to use it.
Sheer physical strength is a weapon, if the will to use it is as such is there. There is nothing on Earth that cannot be uses/misused as a weapon if the will is there. This includes gravity.
Next point is, who are the "wrong people"???
The only uniform and fair standard I can see to use is that the "wrong people" are people who have already done the "wrong thing".
In that regard they self identify. And any and all claims about who are the wrong people, when those people have not done the wrong thing is an opinion, a value judgement that mortals are not qualified to make.
What would be your criteria for determining they are the "Wrong people", if they have done no harm? Physical appearance?? Ethnic group? Religion? DNA scan?? No matter what you chose, it's a LIE. And its compounded by the lie that safety can be assured and guaranteed if we "only do. xxxxx"
Less "enlightened" societies had a response to the "maniacs & felons" (and I take issue with "felons" but that's another discussion) their response to people who did harm was to remove them from society. Often permanently.
This does not, and cannot prevent harm, nothing can, and they knew that. But it did prevent those people they caught from ever doing it AGAIN.
If you think prohibiting weapons results in guaranteed safety, go camp out in any prison, and see how safe you are.
To me. one of the underlying flaws in gun control is the focus on what people MIGHT do, using up resources that could otherwise be used to deal with what people DID do.
And then there's the whole assumption of "guilty until proven innocent" thing.
It seems an outmoded concept today, but rather than restrict inanimate objects because of what some individual might do, why don't we accept the fact that there is no way to read minds, no crystal ball revealing the future, and nothing we do to people who have broken no laws and committed no crimes has ANY effect on the people who have, or who will?
stinkeypete
New member
We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.
If someone needs help, I try to help. I'm one of those "Liberals". I like to think that we are all interested in the shooting sports and the solution to our problems is talking and discussing issues like the friends we are, not isolating ourselves.
Used to be we could have civilized discussions and friendships even though we didn't agree with each other on everything.
If someone needs help, I try to help. I'm one of those "Liberals". I like to think that we are all interested in the shooting sports and the solution to our problems is talking and discussing issues like the friends we are, not isolating ourselves.
Used to be we could have civilized discussions and friendships even though we didn't agree with each other on everything.
We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.
I actively write and speak against the NFA and Hughes Amendment. I own registered weapons, which have escalated in value because there is a very limited supply which can be owned by civilians. However, I would gladly see those values fall to $300 so that every civilian could own a fully functional, and not a semi-castrated, firearm.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Lots of members of this board support gun control in various ways. It is what they consider to be common sense ore realistic gun control. They don't want children to be able to own guns and they don't want mentally unstable people to have guns (they can't be trusted, right?). They don't want felons, particularly violent felons to have guns after serving their time in prison. Some don't think people who smoke marijuana should be able to have guns, but are strangely okay with people having alcohol and being gun owners.
I dare say, you would be hard pressed to find very many people who don't support some form or forms of gun control because they feel it is the right thing to do. The do not believe the right to keep and bear arms should be extended to those people. Of course, while that have no problem with that form of gun control, they don't like any forms that would affect them.
You mean the Eisenhower-encouraged edit to help bind the US citizenry against the Godless communists? America seemed pretty happy with the Pledge for 70 odd years before it had the addition. Nothing like a little socialist doctrine in capitalist society.
https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
I dare say, you would be hard pressed to find very many people who don't support some form or forms of gun control because they feel it is the right thing to do. The do not believe the right to keep and bear arms should be extended to those people. Of course, while that have no problem with that form of gun control, they don't like any forms that would affect them.
....as for helping out non-gun owners. The Pledge of Allegiance has the phase "one nation under God" in it.
You mean the Eisenhower-encouraged edit to help bind the US citizenry against the Godless communists? America seemed pretty happy with the Pledge for 70 odd years before it had the addition. Nothing like a little socialist doctrine in capitalist society.
https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.
buck460XVR
New member
We all obey the National Firearms Act of 1934 by the bylaws of this forum, so "gun control" is simply a matter of grey... not black and white.
If someone needs help, I try to help. I'm one of those "Liberals". I like to think that we are all interested in the shooting sports and the solution to our problems is talking and discussing issues like the friends we are, not isolating ourselves.
Used to be we could have civilized discussions and friendships even though we didn't agree with each other on everything.
^^^I agree....altho I don't consider myself a liberal. I also don't consider myself a conservative. Nor do I identify with either the Democratic or republican party. Some folks call that being a moderate independent. Been this way most of my 66 years.
There is also the GCA along with it's enhancement in 1993. The noteworthy thing to consider is that the GCA was endorsed by the NRA, perhaps because the gun that shot the President, was ordered thru their magazine, American Rifleman. A quote from NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the President of the United States.
The tide of Gun Control flows and ebbs with the sentiment of the nation. Always has, always will. The above is a very stark example. Much of the recent worry of gun control is, IMHO, the lack of trust within our political system. History has shown us that it is not just the Democrats we can't trust. Still we trust in the 2nd, so why can't we trust in the government that is governed by the same piece of paper? Why will one survive when the all the rest won't? Just sayin'......