GregGry
Member
Any pro gun organization that has to be convinced that they should support the legal ownership of a 50bmg rifle without extra loopholes (Such as NFA) is not a pro-gun org. They obviously made up their mind that people shouldn't own .50s without hoops you have to jump through (For what reason?). Its no stretch of the imagination that they will think the same when it comes to any firearm that they deem to be dangerous to own, such as "assault rifles" "sniper rifles" and even certain ammo.
Whe you get a group of people together to form a org, and the main people involved all have questionable histories when it comes to being pro gun, you can't remotely believe what they say unless it matches their past. Its easy to see there are a lot of things they don't think people should own. I don't know how your going to convince them to change their minds. I have spent hours of my time talking with people that are anti gun, and no matter what stats, personal experiances, etc I try to bring to the table I am always encountered by the person not listening to a word I have said. Dare I bring up 50bmg rifles, I always get "nobody needs that much fire power, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to own it". There is no convincing such a person they are wrong, since they are basing their opinion on emotion. Unless you change their negative emotional opinion on guns that is (And thats near impossible).
I think the point of this thread and organization is this: They have so few members, and they have anti-gun tendencies. There is no point in e-mailing them asking them to change, because your going to just have to babysit them on anything else they decide to be anti on (which is going to be a lot in the future more then likely). If they were a pro gun group they would have spent the 5 minutes of time to look into 50s to find out they aren't remotely a threat to anyone, and that there isn't anything to be afraid of. The fact they were talking about no sporting purpose for a .50bmg tells you right there that they believe firearms should be used to hunt with, and firearms that aren't normally used for hunting shouldn't be owned.
Whe you get a group of people together to form a org, and the main people involved all have questionable histories when it comes to being pro gun, you can't remotely believe what they say unless it matches their past. Its easy to see there are a lot of things they don't think people should own. I don't know how your going to convince them to change their minds. I have spent hours of my time talking with people that are anti gun, and no matter what stats, personal experiances, etc I try to bring to the table I am always encountered by the person not listening to a word I have said. Dare I bring up 50bmg rifles, I always get "nobody needs that much fire power, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to own it". There is no convincing such a person they are wrong, since they are basing their opinion on emotion. Unless you change their negative emotional opinion on guns that is (And thats near impossible).
I think the point of this thread and organization is this: They have so few members, and they have anti-gun tendencies. There is no point in e-mailing them asking them to change, because your going to just have to babysit them on anything else they decide to be anti on (which is going to be a lot in the future more then likely). If they were a pro gun group they would have spent the 5 minutes of time to look into 50s to find out they aren't remotely a threat to anyone, and that there isn't anything to be afraid of. The fact they were talking about no sporting purpose for a .50bmg tells you right there that they believe firearms should be used to hunt with, and firearms that aren't normally used for hunting shouldn't be owned.
Last edited: