Letting them divide us and selling each other out

[Vern Humphrey]

I think the bottom line about much of this is that for the past couple of hundred years the rule of thumb has been that if there's no law specifically regulating or prohibiting something then it's simply not regulated.

Today the elites want to change the social contract so that unless something is specifically allowed then it's prohibited by fiat.

"That which is not required is prohibited."

 

[SilentStalker]

? Of course we have. We've been blocking anti-gun laws for decades and getting pro-gun laws enacted. As a result there is no chance of an AU or UK style ban in the immediate future at the federal level. Let's not get in too much of a panic here.

Originally posted by Cosmoline

Cosmoline, please don't take this the wrong way but I ^^^do not see it your way at all. We might have done some of those things but I ^^^do not feel like we are doing enough. If we were winning or having any effect at all really then we would not even be having this conversation but that is just my opinion. As of right now it seems to me thst our enemies hold the upper hand, for the time being at least. However, the battle is far from over.

 

[huntsman]

Well said.

The way I see it there shouldn't be any background check at all. If someone is too dangerous to own a firearm they shouldn't be let out of prison to begin with. If someone is mentally unstable enough that they might hurt others, they should be cared for in a facility or have a legal guardian who will take the responsibility of making sure they don't do others harm. Would that statement actually work? Probably not but kind of how I see it.

In a country where one of my only freedoms is to own firearms why I should have to do anything but walk in a store and pay cash is beyond me.

+1 unfortunately we live in a time where citizens shirk responsibility in many things like voting, jury duty, care for their elderly and infirmed and worst of all the raising of children.

 

[browningguy]

Sorry, but I don't believe criminals and the insane should have firearms. As a Vietnam Era Veteran (6 years USN) I also deeply resent your calling me a sellout because of my beliefs.

Simply because someone has different beliefs than you is no reason to be insulting, if anything that attitude is what is driving a wedge between gun owners. I own more guns than most people (71 last time I counted), and probably have more 20 and 30 round mags than most people, I shoot 3 gun and IDPA pistol, I worked my first 15 years in defense and aerospace, the last 22 years in offshore oil and gas. So please don't try to belittle my belief system, that's why the Republicans lost the last national election, and why gun owners in America will lose our cause.

The percentage of people that believe that there should be no laws regarding gun ownership is exceedingly small in America. Simply stamping our feet and crying "shall not be infringed" gets us no where, in fact it forces the more moderate people away as they see us as the lunatic fringe, much like Pelosi/Feinstein and their crowd is viewed on the left.

 

[BlueBronco]

Well Spengler was a convicted felon that served 17 years for beating his grandmother's brains out with a hammer. We saw the outcome of that. What about Charles Manson should he get paroled? (That last one is rhetorical since it isn't likely, but there are less famous guys that do get released from time to time.)

 

[leadcounsel]

OP is correct. Well said.

Consider this.

YOU can lose your gun rights if:

*You date the wrong person who is unstable and fights you and cops are involved
*You marry the wrong person and who has a felony conviction
*You are subjected to a Domestic Violence misdemeanor conviction (which is literally no more than an argument)
*You are convicted of theft for over $500 in most jurisdictions (felony)... I've known people who reclaimed their own property and were convicted.
*You are convicted of B&E (exploring an abandoned house for instance)
*Committed briefly

So many disqualifiers these days - it's a tactic to erode gun rights with every generation. Sad indeed.

 

[DammitBoy]

No.

If you want 'us' to say united, you need a Narrative. First is a sympathetic speaker. Second is a Villain. Third is a clear, short, reasonable message.

A woman who protected herself with her gun is a good speaker. A disabled veteran being bullied is a good speaker. Facts and logic don't persuade; emotional appeals from people vested with authority by virtue of their victimhood appeal.

Violent felons and mentally unfit people are good villains. "Band together to protect the gun rights of the mentally unfit" is not a serious policy proposal. Trying to stake out a position so far outside the mainstream will only erode support. In any fight for the Narrative, if you are only willing to say nice things about your enemies, then you accept being cast as the Villain. Protecting video game companies (or their customers) is not a message.

Who is your villain? Pick the wrong one, and you've gone beyond the pale, offending your target audience. In an ideal world, the teacher's union would own the blame for a murder-a-day in Baltimore and Chicago, or the Housing Authority. It isn't easy to pick a good villain. Right now, your bad-guy seems to be shadowy bully bureaucrats who low-information voters don't believe exist.

This message is too far-fetched to get support: Hold certain political beliefs? Mentally unfit, no guns allowed. Disagree with homosexuality? Mentally unfit, no guns allowed. Believe in creationism or some other religious doctrine? Mentally unfit, no guns allowed.. That message doesn't scare enough people. You need a better message. 15 seconds of footage (with statistics overlaid) of baby-nappers, or home-invaders getting paroled, will get you support. Some whacko puts a few needles in a few jars of acetominophen, and middle-America fully backs sweeping inconveniences to opening their medicine. Find the right Narrative, the right reason to convince low-information voters why you having a gun is a good idea, and you've got a product you can sell.

Separately, try to portray yourself as a winner protecting victims, not as a victim. America loves a winner. One commercial proudly showing gun owners as manly men and womanly women will do more to win over low-information voters than a thousand hours of Feinstein and Bloomberg's prattle. Think about how well Charlie Sheen weathered his meltdown, just by being an Alpha Male. Gun Ownership naturally fits with the Alpha image. You shouldn't need to worry about whether hunters or revolver owners will fight for you, you want them rushing to identify with you.

Best post in any thread about fighting gun control on this forum.

---

ps - I cannot count the number of people who have said to me over the years, "You own guns?! You must be nuts!"