Why should we help gun owners who support gun control?

[Pahoo]

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?

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 !!!

[olddav]

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!!!!

[44 AMP]

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".

[JERRYS.]

best approach I can recommend is with the exception of within a professional capacity (plumbers, doctors...), and no other option is available, have nothing to do with people that are against your rights, I don't see how they will add anything positive to your life.

[Pahoo]

have nothing to do with people that are against your rights, I don't see how they will add anything positive to your life.

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]

Originally Posted by Buck460XVR

But....aren't you then infringing upon those folk's 1st Amendment rights?

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.

[Mainah]

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.

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/...irginia-rally/

[USNRet93]

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.

Agree, particularly on something so impersonal and 'sterile' as a inter web 'forum'...

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

In any case, JERRYS isn't the government -- the Bill of Rights constrains the government, not you, me, or JERRYS.

....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]

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.

[Hal]

Lately, I’ve seen a couple of requests for help from TFL members on issues I’ve got maybe 20 years of professional and private experience with. I didn’t comment because I know those members support additional restrictions on gun ownership and I don’t want to help them.

So, why am I wrong?

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.. .

[langenc]

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.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

....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.

The 'Golden Rule' has been around for thousands and thousands of years..

[pete2]

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!.....

[zukiphile]

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.

[rebs]

sometimes people don't see the Forrest for the trees

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

....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?

[kmw1954]

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.

[Pathfinder45]

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]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

The 'Golden Rule' has been around for thousands and thousands of years..

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Buck460

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.

[USNRet93]

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.

[Tom Servo]

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.

[J.G. Terry]

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?

[44 AMP]

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...