GBExpat
Member
Mark Robinson for President! 
Man Wrecks Council Mtg. w/ Passionate Pro-Gun Mtg.
- Thread starter charleslee
- Start date
- Status
JTHunter
Member
BOTH of these men gave excellent speeches. The fact that the man in the first video said all that he did w/o notes or sheets was fantastic !
AABEN
Member
When there is any thing on guns we should be there and speck like these 2 have done we need people to watch and tell gun people when this is coming up so we can be there to speak UP!!!
CapnMac
Member
Nah, see, he's clearly the kind of guy who would buy you a beer if you bought him one. Start buying 12 packs and there'd be a lot of falling down [
]
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,308
CapNMac
Yeah, I see your point. Especially since he's definitely a very stand-up guy (no pun intended), who can articulate his thoughts and beliefs a great deal better than a whole room filled with politicians.
Nah, see, he's clearly the kind of guy who would buy you a beer if you bought him one. Start buying 12 packs and there'd be a lot of falling down [
Yeah, I see your point. Especially since he's definitely a very stand-up guy (no pun intended), who can articulate his thoughts and beliefs a great deal better than a whole room filled with politicians.
entropy
Member
Mr. Mathews' speech was good, but lost some of it's impact in the delivery. Mr. Robinson's speech was phenomenal; straight from the heart, and delivered with a gusto and passion that Cicero himself would applaud.
ontarget
Member
My kind of American!
AR-Bossman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2016
- Messages
- 351
I don't like the part about saying he would turn his guns in.. I find that cowardly and anti second amendment.
Tommygunn
Member
While I understand your opinion, certainly only the man himself can determine what risks he's willing to assume, and what it means to family, his career, and reputation, and we out here cannot know these circumstances. It really isn't very fair to simply dogmatically assert he ought to resist.
AlexanderA
Member
There is one point at which I would quibble with Mr. Robinson's otherwise excellent speech. He draws a distinction between the semiautomatic AR-15 and the fully automatic M16, saying that one is a "weapon of war" while the other one isn't. Actually, the lack of an auto sear does not make the AR-15 that much less effective militarily. Even the army habitually uses its M16's set on semiautomatic.
The larger issue is that "weapons of war" are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing inherently evil about fully automatic weapons. They are tools, just like every other gun. Even the pro-gun side likes to demonize them. This is a huge error, and concedes a lot of ground to the antigunners. If machine guns can legitimately be banned, it's only a short step to banning so-called "assault weapons."
The larger issue is that "weapons of war" are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing inherently evil about fully automatic weapons. They are tools, just like every other gun. Even the pro-gun side likes to demonize them. This is a huge error, and concedes a lot of ground to the antigunners. If machine guns can legitimately be banned, it's only a short step to banning so-called "assault weapons."
Good Ol' Boy
Member
"Only a fool would go into battle with a .22".
Well we have a whole lot of fools then.
"If you pass a law forcing me to turn in my guns then I'll do it.."
Uhhh, no.
Those are the only two issues I had with his rant. For the most part it was what govt needed to hear, although I doubt it will do much good.
Well we have a whole lot of fools then.
"If you pass a law forcing me to turn in my guns then I'll do it.."
Uhhh, no.
Those are the only two issues I had with his rant. For the most part it was what govt needed to hear, although I doubt it will do much good.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,680
This guy was very good. But Robinson's presentation was IMO much more powerful because it came from the heart.
AlexanderA
Member
He had to say that to establish his bona fides as a law-abiding citizen, and to draw a distinction between himself and the "Crips and Bloods." His point was that gangsters won't obey the law while law-abiding citizens will, thereby putting the law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against the gangsters. It's impossible to refute that.
You can't go before a governmental body and start off by saying that you'll defy them. That won't have the desired effect.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I realize that however it could have been worded different.
I may be splitting hairs but I'd never directly say or imply that I'd give up arms because of a law regardless of who am standing in front of or what political influence I might be trying to have.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,247
It added weight to his argument. He is and will remain a law abiding citizen and all that would do is put him in more jeopardy if he were stripped of his right, because people intent on breaking the law will still have their firearms law or no law.
In the matter of what was said, or not said...
Recall from the grave any of the vast millions of disarmed and therefore dead from last century's tyranny. Ask them if they would speak in front of a govt board wherein they could influence themselves not being disarmed and murdered. Just wonder what they would say, or not say.
Lest we forget the historical fact where disarmament can go.
Those who spoke up in the aforementioned videos are HEROES.
No time for breakfast, anyone for coffee?
Recall from the grave any of the vast millions of disarmed and therefore dead from last century's tyranny. Ask them if they would speak in front of a govt board wherein they could influence themselves not being disarmed and murdered. Just wonder what they would say, or not say.
Lest we forget the historical fact where disarmament can go.
Those who spoke up in the aforementioned videos are HEROES.
No time for breakfast, anyone for coffee?
- Status
