The problem with the gun rights crowd

[PhotonGuy]

If you ask me, the problem with the gun rights crowd is they fight among each other too much. If we want to win our cause we have to be united and work together, not against each other. We need to remember who the real enemy is and focus on winning against them, not each other. All too often I will see members in gun forums argue over stuff. We should treat each other with courtesy and respect if we want to win the war on gun rights.

[paknheat]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

If you ask me, the problem with the gun rights crowd is they fight among each other too much. If we want to win our cause we have to be united and work together, not against each other. We need to remember who the real enemy is and focus on winning against them, not each other. All too often I will see members in gun forums argue over stuff. We should treat each other with courtesy and respect if we want to win the war on gun rights.

Words to live by. I totally agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rickyrick]

It’s not easy to take our fight outside of our community for a couple of reasons.
1. Gun owners do not all agree that free people should have access to guns. Many in the gun community believe that some guns should be banned. Son believe that some gun accessories should be banned. Some believe that only the privileged, trained, important and licensed should carry guns.

Gun people can give quite an abrasive impression in public.

2. The people that don’t own guns don’t care about out cause at best, but most view the gun community as being part of the morally reprehensible side of the spectrum, they view gun ownership and NRA stickers the same as attending a klan meeting or wearing a MAGA hat.

[PhotonGuy]

It’s not easy to take our fight outside of our community for a couple of reasons.
1. Gun owners do not all agree that free people should have access to guns. Many in the gun community believe that some guns should be banned. Son believe that some gun accessories should be banned. Some believe that only the privileged, trained, important and licensed should carry guns.

True, you will find police officers for instance that believe only they should have access to guns and they don't like guns in the hands of non police officers. You will find hunters who own bolt action hunting rifles but who are against private ownership of scary looking "AR" rifles or they might be against the ownership of all semi automatic rifles and even handguns.

Gun people can give quite an abrasive impression in public.

2. The people that don’t own guns don’t care about out cause at best, but most view the gun community as being part of the morally reprehensible side of the spectrum, they view gun ownership and NRA stickers the same as attending a klan meeting or wearing a MAGA hat.

Not necessarily. I once met this gentleman who didn't own any guns himself but he had extensively researched the gun debate and his position was that he did believe in gun rights. Before I got my first gun I very strongly believed in gun rights although much of the reason I didn't have guns yet was because I was too young. I suppose it also must depend on your geographical location. In states such as NJ and NY and MA you could very well be viewed as morally reprehensible. On the other hand, in most of the midwest and in states such as NV people won't hold it against you if you're into guns, in fact many people might be intrigued.

As for me, I don't have any NRA stickers or anything else that readily identifies me as a gun enthusiast. Such stuff can set your car and/or house up to be burglarized since guns are one of the main things thieves go after.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that us in the gun rights community, we should be courteous to each other and we should respect each other and try not to offend each other. We're in this fight together and we need all the help we can get.

[44 AMP]

we should be courteous to each other and we should respect each other and try not to offend each other.

We should.

But, we won't. Because we are human. And "gun owners" are not a homogenous group. In fact the only thing common is that we own a gun. There are gun owners in every part of the political spectrum. And there are reasonable people and zealots in every part, as well.

Don't confuse gun owners with gun rights supporters, either. Some are the elitist, "gun for me, none for thee" types. OR, "my gun is ok, yours should be banned".

I know one lady, a staunch defender of the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't think "everyone" should be able to have a machinegun.

This is another part of the issue, "everyone" simply isn't going to be safe with firearms. "Everyone" isn't safe with matches...

There are roughly two opposing camps, one is, that since we have a fundamental right, everyone has that right, UNTIL they do something that causes the right to be revoked/suspended. However, since the something that gets the right revoked involves some degree of harm to someone, there is damage done.

The other camp is essentially, that since harm COULD be done, "Everyone" needs to be restricted, to some degree (up to complete prohibition, for some people).

It boils down to trust. One side is "we trust you not to screw up, and if you do, we will punish you" and the other is "we don't trust you at all, so we're not going to give you the chance to screw up".

Or, another way to look at it is, "we believe you are adults, capable of making your own decisions, and responsible for the consequences" and the other is "you are irresponsible children, we know better, and you are only allowed to do what we agree you can do".

Or something like that...

yes, we should all work together against those who want no guns for anyone (possible exception for police & military) but we are individuals, some of whom are only concerned with their individual thing, and who don't care about what doesn't intrude in their personal life, today.

I suggest we all reflect on the words of Martin Niemoeller...

[FITASC]

If you look at the fractiousness of the current Democratic party with some being very vocal and hard core, many being somewhat passive and middle of the road, you can see the parallel. I see the same thing with gun owners - we have the hard core "2A, 'nuff said" to more moderate folks who realize that that won't work in every scenario.

But, we also do not really have a national central figure/leader to rally all of the troops around, so to speak. We need a politician for that, not the head of the NRA or GOA, and a powerful Pol at that.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

If you ask me, the problem with the gun rights crowd is they fight among each other too much. If we want to win our cause we have to be united and work together, not against each other. We need to remember who the real enemy is and focus on winning against them, not each other. All too often I will see members in gun forums argue over stuff. We should treat each other with courtesy and respect if we want to win the war on gun rights.

There is no disrespect in arguing with someone. In fact, there may be real disregard in failing to address an argument offered in conversation.

In any group who hold a position based on principle, members of that group will argue over the principles and refine their view of the position. An absence of that activity can indicate that the members of the group aren't thinking about either their principles or position.

People who argue aren't enemies; they do one another the service of sharpening the other's understanding.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It seems to me that folks who claim that we shouldn't argue, usually it is because they feel, that they have the correct position.

Classic arguments about the performance of the NRA, a member of government, the processes in SCOTUS, whether being a gun rights advocate must trump your other political and social beliefs - are all examples of seemingly intractable debates.

Since the major public advocates of gun rights sometimes seem to demand loyalty to a particular political world view on other issues is a bone of contention.

We can have all these discussions without invective though. That's why some quality gun forms have quality moderation and when it is applied, the poor moderators are insulted as the enemy of the 1st Amendment and probably are communists or Nazis or both.

That's my two cents on the issue.

[Sweet Shooter]

How we argue is important. Not just in terms of manners, but in where we hold stock. It's important to remember that the second amendment is an adjustment (an addition) to a bill which merely records inalienable rights within a larger constitution. It is not in and of itself what awards the right. It is merely recognizing that such a right exists. The problem is that not everyone agrees what awards the right, where it comes from. It reflects that a human has the right to self-defense/preservation and the right to defend their property, family and community. The amendment is not what gives us the right, but is what helps us explain to others where our insistence fits in to our constitution. It’s no different from the right to draw breath, and we do not need a piece of paper to claim that. Our right goes far beyond a list on parchment. I believe in discussions/arguments we put too much stock in the document, and miss protecting the right itself.

[reteach]

We should treat each other with courtesy and respect

There is no disrespect in arguing with someone.

People who argue aren't enemies.

We can have all these discussions without invective though.

Agree with all these statements. We need to listen to the ideas of people who disagree with us if we're going to understand the disagreement and maybe change their thinking.

In war, we choose allies with whom we might not fully agree so that we are strengthened to win the current war. Think of the allies of the U.S. in WWII. None of those countries agreed 100% on the methods or goals, but if the U.S. had waited for allies who agreed 100% the war would have been lost piecemeal.

We need to debate respectfully with those who could be our allies in protecting gun rights. We even need to debate respectfully with those who at first seem like they would never be allies. We're not going to win any converts by treating those who disagree as enemies.

[Pahoo]

If you ask me, the problem with the gun rights crowd is they fight among each other too much.

Some gun-guys are very opinionated, boring and ignorant. They don't like AR-Types or extended mags. I reply, That's fine but would you participate in banning them. That's when they pause and mostly say no. They also believe in extended back-ground checks but when I ask them what specifically would support, they freeze up. Most of the time they should just keep their opinions to themselves. I need support in this world and turn to a higher power for support. …

My wife keeps her Bible close and I keep my 9MM closer. ….

I use to have a good buddy that was very knowledgeable on Smiths, 1911's, reloads and shoots just about every day. He is also a dedicated Union man, far left and wishes that O'bama couild come back and hates the NRA. Like I said; use to be a good buddy. …..

Be Safe !!!

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by reteach

Agree with all these statements. We need to listen to the ideas of people who disagree with us if we're going to understand the disagreement and maybe change their thinking.

In war, we choose allies with whom we might not fully agree so that we are strengthened to win the current war. Think of the allies of the U.S. in WWII. None of those countries agreed 100% on the methods or goals, but if the U.S. had waited for allies who agreed 100% the war would have been lost piecemeal.

We need to debate respectfully with those who could be our allies in protecting gun rights. We even need to debate respectfully with those who at first seem like they would never be allies. We're not going to win any converts by treating those who disagree as enemies.

Agree..

[Mike38]

Gun owners / gun rights people will never totally "get along". I consider myself in that crowd. Yet I could have cared less about the "bump stock ban". I think bump stocks are a waste of money and ammo, make accuracy less, and give bait to anti gunners. Those arm braces for AR / AK pattern pistols? I could care less. Again, an AR or AK receiver is not intended to be a pistol. You're just spraying lead and making noise, and giving bait to antis. A rifle cartridge is used for offensive, a pistol is used for defensive. An AR / AK pistol is not intended for defensive porpoises. No one conceal carries an AR / AK pistol. But if what turns you on is spraying bullets and making noise, then so be it, to each his own. I also think states that require FOID cards aren't the evil draconian thing most portray it to be. A FOID can help you in a private sale. You can be reasonably assured the person buying your gun is not a felon, and will not use your gun to commit other felonies. Go ahead, bash me, but I have the right to believe this.

[JERRYS.]

~80 million lawful gun owners in America.
~4 million NRA members that support our gun rights.
~76 million gun owners doing what?

[Mike38]

~76 million gun owners doing what?

Hanging on to their money, sitting back and watching the [spectacle] we call the National Rifle Association. Many people want their hard earned money to go to a good cause. Many people don't feel the NRA is a good cause. Many of those people have a valid point. The President of an organization that operates solely on donations doesn't need to make Millions per year. People see that, most people don't like that. I don't blame them. With that said, I can see deeper into the NRA, see past it's flaws, and see that they do good for our gun rights. I plan to remain a member. Some people don't see the good behind the NRA.

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by Mike38

Hanging on to their money, sitting back and watching the [spectacle] we call the National Rifle Association. Many people want their hard earned money to go to a good cause. Many people don't feel the NRA is a good cause. Many of those people have a valid point. The President of an organization that operates solely on donations doesn't need to make Millions per year. People see that, most people don't like that. I don't blame them. With that said, I can see deeper into the NRA, see past it's flaws, and see that they do good for our gun rights. I plan to remain a member. Some people don't see the good behind the NRA.

so what political 800 pound gorilla are the other ~76 million gun owners supporting to ensure 2nd amendment rights are not be trampled in Washington d.c.? what, maybe half a million GOA and even smaller fractions of other groups, totaling less than 10% combined with the NRA? as a collective group gun owners fail to come together in support of their constitutional RKBA.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Maybe a new gorilla troop leadership is needed. The old alpha male and his buddies need to take their bananas and go off into the jungle. The only game in town can get a new set of competent coaches.

[briandg]

I believe that the biggest thing that is wrong with the gun rights crowd is that we just don't seem to care that the other guys are people too, and are vulnerable to their emotions.

Little old ladies who are afraid of guns are going to be shocked senseless if a 6'5" tall goon who looks like Charles Manson walks up to her vehicle carrying a black rifle in his arms. If this great big scary monster with the gun says "good afternoon, I'd like to give you this pamphlet that explains why I should be allowed to own a machine gun or rocket launcher" it's not going to make her feel better about machine gun legalization.

We should set aside our aggression and our angry rhetoric, such as infowars and sandy hook.

Once, years ago, the NRA published an article that told gun owners to use some common manners and quit offending the average citizen. There's no way that we can get through to the truly dedicated crowd and that's not what this is about.

I'm talking about the guys who have had a successful hunt and stop at olive garden on the way home. three cars outside the restaurant with dead animals tied on the hood and two more in a truck, and five filthy, smelly people wearing blood soaked camo clothing taking up a space.

One of the most important points was that if you can't behave, don't drag the NRA into it. If you drive like a jerk, make a nuisance of yourself, take off your bumper sticker. If you own a gun and if you preach that owning a gun makes you respectable, then be respectable.

[Mike38]

so what political 800 pound gorilla are the other ~76 million gun owners supporting to ensure 2nd amendment rights are not be trampled in Washington d.c.? what, maybe half a million GOA and even smaller fractions of other groups, totaling less than 10% combined with the NRA? as a collective group gun owners fail to come together in support of their constitutional RKBA.

Both sides have valid arguments. I can not argue with a gun owner / second amendment supporter that doesn't want to see his hard earned money go as a donation when he sees a President of an organization wear $1000 suits, riding in a limousine, and on a + million dollar payroll. Joe the gun owner is having a hard enough time paying the mortgage and sending his daughter or son to collage. The economy is better, but the economy is not great.

[Mainah]

On the other hand a true measure of successful democracy is the ability to disagree (even stridently) peacefully. I'd say we do a pretty good job of that. Especially for a group of folks who are often portrayed as being armed to the teeth and irrational.

IMHO the worst thing we could do is to declare certain (forum related of course) subjects off limits because of our feelings. I think that healthy debate is like a whetstone. The mods do a fantastic job here. But I also think that many regular members deserve credit for their ability and willingness to read something that ticks them off without posting a response.

[Mike38]

Little old ladies who are afraid of guns are going to be shocked senseless if a 6'5" tall goon who looks like Charles Manson walks up to her vehicle carrying a black rifle in his arms. If this great big scary monster with the gun says "good afternoon, I'd like to give you this pamphlet that explains why I should be allowed to own a machine gun or rocket launcher" it's not going to make her feel better about machine gun legalization.

Perception. Walking down Main Street of My-City-USA with a locked and loaded AR15 may be your constitutional right, but is it going to win over people that are anti gun or neutral? No, no it's not. You'll make the neutral person anti. You just made things worse.

[reteach]

~76 million gun owners doing what?

Waiting for a leadership that does not include someone who encourages shooting down liberals like rabid coyotes.

[briandg]

There was a rally here in missouri, I believe that it was, and civilians all marched through the streets with their black rifles. Dressed in swat uniforms, hunting camo, putting the absolute worst image possible out there to prove that people who own them are just ordinary dudes who go to church and coach soccer. Man, that wasn't the impression that the public got.

The photo in the paper showed a woman in a skin tight and very revealing black top, black glasses, blond hair, marching with a frown on her face. Dude, she was wearing a terminator costume for halloween. My hair literally stood on end.

How did that help?


A few years ago one of the halloween pop up stores opened and they put a guy out on the sidewalk wearing a scary costume. So here this knucklehead was, swinging a plastic machete at traffic, and four people called 911. Officers who arrived put him on the ground at gunpoint.

Think carefully, everyone, if a minimum wage earning doofus swinging a toy was dragged to the ground by armed police because he scared people in traffic, It's obviously not a great idea to walk around in full paramilitary costume while carrying a rifle and tactical backpack. The citizens are asked to report anything that is disturbing or suspicious. How does a passer by know that the guy on the street is just picking it up from the gunsmith, rather than taking it into the next building, a church, intending to make a political statement?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Problems with the gun rights crowd? We’ve got two “gun rights” people IN THIS THREAD who support registering firearms owners or universal background checks and are happy to say so.

What’s the upside of encouraging people who don’t believe what you do and think they can survive by feeding the alligator feet first to join you? You can’t trust or rely on them. At best you convince them to occasionally side with you in tight on the margins issues.

Look at New Zealand. Gun owners there bent over backwards to accommodate “reasonable gun control” and went far beyond what people here suggest. They agreed to restrictions and licensing that would never fly here. Then their own government granted a gun license to a known, unstable, dangerous immigrant - and when he misused the “privilege” the government granted him, they used that as an excuse to further disarm their own law-abiding citizens - despite the fact that the terrorist stated that this was exactly his intention.

We need more jellyfish to support gun rights! Why? They’re jellyfish.

[JERRYS.]

I agree with the sentiment about the current NRA leadership, there needs to be several changes at the top.