Quantcast

Re-training of firearms related information

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by LiveLife, Mar 29, 2019.

  1. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    I prefer to have liberals/democrats/progressives pro-gun gun owners than liberals/democrats/progressives anti-gun non-gun owners.
     
    Hasaf and AlexanderA like this.
  2. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    New face of NRA?

    At 14:00 minute mark of video, Antonia Okafor, an outspoken Second Amendment activist, states "There are blacks passionate about the Second Amendment ... I know how important it is to have the right to defend myself, ... I am a victim of sexual assault"



    Antonia Okafor, founder of EmPOWERed 2a (Gun Rights Are Women's Rights) on Guns, Abortion, and Conservatism (Interview starts at 4:00) - https://www.empowered2a.org/

     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2019
  3. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    "Black, Millennial, Female and… Conservative" - Transformed for gun rights

     
  4. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Let's get back to basics and review the US Constitution and the Second Amendment as a "personal right"



    Gun Rights Are Women's Rights

     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2019
  5. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    What Should We Do About Guns? - Gun bans have not worked.



    Pulse: The Left Vs. The Facts on Guns and the NRA

     
  6. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    President Reagan's Remarks to the National Rifle Association on May 6, 1983.

    His comment at 9:07 minute mark of video brings 50 second standing ovation.

     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2019
    entropy likes this.
  7. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    I chose to become a Christian as a teenager (Foursquare/First Assembly/Calvary Chapel) but have enjoyed many teachings of Dalai Lama and whenever I see Buddhist monks eating at a restaurant (Their food likely paid by others at the table), I quietly pay the bill for the entire table and write "A Christian friend of Dalai Lama paid your bill".

    The Dalai Lama use air rifles to protect small birds from hawks - https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/28/magazine/the-dalai-lama.html

    Dalai Lama: Yes, very much. I also had an air rifle in Lhasa. And I have one in India. I often feed small birds, but when they come together, hawks spot them and catch them -- a very bad thing. So in order to protect these small birds, I keep the air rifle.
    Interviewer: So it is a Buddhist rifle?
    Dalai Lama: [ Laughs ] A compassionate rifle!

    In 2001, Dalai Lama spoke to 7600 Oregon and south west Washington High School students and said this about school shootings and using gun for self protection - http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010515&slug=dalai15m0

    "One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.

    ... if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2019
  8. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,469
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    NRA wants everyone interested in the shooting sports or interested in preserving the second amendment to become a member and sponsor another member. NRA does not impose a litmus test. NRA welcomes everyone; black, white, brown, red, yellow or purple with pink polka dots. NRA does not care if you are male, female, neuter, gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, non-sexual, tri-sexual or extraterestrial. NRA doesn't care if you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Tea Party or no party. (It just so happens that the majority of liberal Democrats have been front and center of the legislative efforts to limit the 2nd amendment, if not its destruction, piece by legislative piece. There has been a small minority of Republicans in on those efforts, too, don't get me wrong. However, they are a very small minority.

    What the NRA DOES care about is that the person be genuinely interested in the 2nd amendment, firearms safety, the shooting sports and the preservation of the American Constitution. Maybe not everything all the time, but at least one thing some of the time.

    And as Robert Hairless said back in 2005: "The NRA is a service organization for all firearms owners and users, and for anyone more concerned with Second Amendment rights than in spouting nonsense about them. It's available to everyone and can't possibly be considered an elitist or exclusive group except by the malicious, the ignorant, or the dimwitted." - Robert Hairless
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
    <*(((>< and adcoch1 like this.
  9. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,352
    Location:
    Virginia
    That should be the ideal, but it isn't. I've been a Life Member of the NRA since the early 1970's, and in that time (actually in the last 10-15 years), I've seen it change, becoming overtly partisan. All you have to do is read Wayne LaPierre's editorials in the American Rifleman. The current leadership of the NRA has made it into an arm of the Republican party. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say this.
     
    HB likes this.
  10. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    825
    ''If more pro-gun people would vote Democrat (or at least split their votes between the parties), then maybe the Democrats wouldn't be as antigun as they are.''

    I choose not to go forward with wishful thinking; click heals 3 times, there's no place like home; if I buy just one more box of chocolates, one more card, Darla will love me.

    I don't know what this seed is but plant it. Water, sun, it'll become only what it really is...wishing that the apple tree is a pear tree is fantasy

    YMMV but whilst whimsical thinking goes on, they are actively planning on the next 2A assault. They are what they are because they WANT to be that; they run harder to the extreme left.
     
    entropy likes this.
  11. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,439
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    You have yet to explain why any sane gun owner would vote for a party which EXPLICITLY attacks not just the 2nd Amendment, but gun owners themselves. Indeed it sometimes threatens us with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. It's pretty obvious that you can't.

    The ultimate goal of the people RUNNING the Democrat party is the disarmament of everyone but themselves and their mercenaries. EVERY recent claim of "support" for the 2nd Amendment has been nothing but taqqiyah theater meant to dupe the gullible. But we've seen this deeply cynical kabuki theater for decades. Nobody's falling for the AHSA disinformation anymore.

    Gun owners voting Democrat makes about as much sense as gays voting for the Muslim Brotherhood or Blacks voting for the Klan.
     
  12. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,352
    Location:
    Virginia
    The Democrats, to get elected nationally, have to appeal to the broad middle. That's why the extreme antigun rhetoric will get moderated by the time of the general election. If they don't moderate on this, they deserve to lose. The political professionals, unlike the emotional base voters, are well aware of this.

    "Nuclear" Swalwell is planning to run for president on a purely antigun platform. He's going to lose spectacularly. O'Rourke, on the other hand, is attempting to walk a fine line between the radical antigun base and swing voters in the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. He's already come out in favor of grandfathering "assault weapons," if and when there is a ban. A ban with grandfathering would be even more meaningless than the 1994-2004 ban, since there are now so many more "assault weapons" in existence.

    A case can be made for voting in Democratic primaries in order to push the party in a less antigun direction.

    The important thing to remember is that for 99% of the people (including gun owners), guns are not the only issue. I would vote on guns, but I would also vote on things like health care, climate change, and public higher education.
     
  13. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,439
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Strangely, they're making not the slightest effort to appeal to that "broad middle". In fact, they're not even appealing to Trotskyites. They're full on Stalinist with their Green Five Year Plan, if not outright Year Zero.

    When you're pushing economic policies that combine the Holodomor, the Hunger Plan, the Morganthau Plan, the Great Leap Forward and Year Zero, there's simply no way to put that into practice as long as you don't have a monopoly on the means of armed force.

    Would you expect gays to vote for the Westboro Baptist "church" candidate if he was for free healthcare?

    Promises of free stuff from people who want you not to be around to enjoy them don't carry a lot of weight...
     
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,352
    Location:
    Virginia
    Of course not -- at this stage. A candidate has to get the nomination first, and that means addressing registered Democrats (in closed-primary states). After the nomination is secured, candidates tack towards the middle. The trick is to run a primary campaign in such a way as to not preclude such a tack toward the middle later. This is not easy to do. The closest we have right now is the Biden-O'Rourke-Klobuchar "moderate" lane.
    This assertion is utterly ridiculous.
     
  15. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,439
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    OR they could just be saying that in which they truly believe. Only a psychopath would endorse the Green Hunger Plan without actually believing in it. That means that those who've signed on are either:
    1. pathologically lying sociopaths
    2. psychotic megalomaniacs
    3. BOTH

    That "assertion" is an accurate description of the GUARANTEED effects of the Green Holodomor which the Democrat party's leading candidates have endorsed. I'll (jokingly) give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you've never read ANY history of command economies, of the left OR right. The Green Leap Forward would kill literally MILLIONS of people and subject many millions more to medieval squalor. And that's just in the United States. You don't impose such a thing on a population which can fight back, hence the monomaniacal obsession with disarming the intended victims.

    When you've embraced Khmer Rouge "economics", there ISN'T any way back. Threatening me with NUCLEAR WEAPONS is a fairly strange way of convincing me of your "centrist" beliefs. What it does tell me is that I need to hang onto my guns, NO MATTER WHAT.
     
    DoubleMag and entropy like this.
  16. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,352
    Location:
    Virginia
    The only Democratic candidate that has mentioned nuclear weapons in connection with gun owners is Eric Swalwell, and he did it in response to a question regarding (theoretical) insurrectionism from the pro-gun side. His point was that having guns to resist a government is rather moot when that government is armed with nuclear weapons. That was a stupid thing to say, and even Swalwell recognized that, and walked it back rather quickly. But Swalwell is not typical of elected Democrats as a whole. He's planning to run for president with gun control as the centerpiece of his campaign. He will get exactly nowhere with that.

    There are many things being put forth by various Democrats, such as the "Green New Deal" and "Medicare for All," that are aspirational talking points. Even their proponents admit that. These things will never see the light of day, as originally proposed, once they hit the brick wall of the inherent practical difficulties. (I would put a nationwide "Assault Weapons Ban" in the same category.)
     
  17. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Perhaps that's due to Democrat party becoming overtly anti-gun over the decades.

    This is 2019 and many in Democrat party have come out openly and said they want to ban guns. When Democrat party pushes for gun confiscation with 2020 front runners pushing for Constitutional change, the American political system, to kill the electoral college (Which would allow the majority to impose on the rights of the minority), expand the Supreme Court, term limits for justices (Anything to get around the seemingly conservative ruling future), what choice does NRA have? None other than to support the Republican party.

    Democrats' New Major Gun Control Bill



    Gun Confiscation is Clearly the Goal - Tucker Carlson & Colion Noir



    What anti-gun crowd is doing is simple.

    They are imposing on the rights of the gun owners protected by the Second Amendment.

    There is a national movement to ban bullying. Well, isn't the anti-gun crowd "bullying" gun owners? The gun owners are not imposing on the anti-gun crowd to force them to buy guns. But the anti-gun crowd want to "forcibly" remove guns from gun owners that are bought legally by criminalizing gun ownership. We need to stop anti-gun crowd from imposing on the rights of the gun owners protected by the Second Amendment.

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun owners in D.C. v Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    YES, THIS IS FACT!

    Why are some of us acting like it's not?

    And why are many "Democrat" law makers and anti-gun crowd acting like it's not?

    We need to keep voting out law makers who are not acting on this Supreme Court ruling and keep voting in law makers who will act on this Supreme Court ruling.

    But you are posting on a GUN FORUM, so let's put other issues aside and focus on gun rights. If you wanted to talk about guns on car/boat forums, they would tell you the same thing and tell you to focus on cars or boats.

    I believe most people spend time on gun forums because gun ownership and issues directly and indirectly related to guns matter to them. If other issues are more important (Like cars and boats), they would spend more time on car and boat forums. But if they choose to spend more time on gun forums, perhaps gun rights and gun related discussions carry higher priority in their life.

    So like car and boat forums would tell you to focus on car and boat issues, I would say the same thing and tell you to focus on guns and not other issues. If you are so concerned, go to those "issues" forums and discuss your "other " concerns there.

    I would like to remind you of one of THR Terms and Rules/Code of Conduct which you agreed to when you became a member - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?pages/code-of-conduct/

    "1. All topics and posts must be related to firearms or 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' (RKBA) issues."
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
    Deanimator likes this.
  18. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,469
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    I, too, am a life member. I guess we will just have to agree that we disagree.
     
    <*(((>< likes this.
  19. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    I have a favor to ask of everyone.

    My original post (OP) was "Re-training of firearms related information", "After getting frustrated by decades of inaccurate dissemination of firearms related information by anti-gun crowd, I decided to do 'something' by posting 're-training' information."

    Could we go back to the OP's intent and help me find information that highlights inaccurate information anti-gun crowd disseminate so we can "re-train" ourselves and others with accurate information?

    Talking about how you will vote in 2020 will not help me achieve my OP intent.

    Thank you.
     
  20. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    19,995
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    National Ammo Background Check Bill | What You Should Know

     
  21. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,342
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    Come on, now.
    You're trying to talk logic to people that think that The New Soylent Green Deal is a good idea.
     
    Deanimator likes this.
  22. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,439
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I have this sneaking suspicion that if a slew of Republican candidates had endorsed an "aspirational" return to slavery, you wouldn't be so blase about it.

    Yet "aspirational" auto-genocide isn't a problem for you... along with racially invidious gun controls, without which it's literally impossible.

    The Green Hunger Plan would kill literally MILLIONS of people. It can only be imposed on those without the means to fight back, hence the racially invidious gun controls which accompany it.
     
  23. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,439
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    For them, it IS "logical". Rational is another story.

    If you're going to reduce the population (except for the proponents themselves) of the United States to medieval squalor and produce mass starvation, you can't do that without first disarming the intended victims. That being the case, disarming the population of the United States is every bit as "logical" as the OGPU disarming the peasants of Ukraine before starving them to death.
     
  24. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,352
    Location:
    Virginia
    I haven't read the details of the Green New Deal, nor do I intend to waste my time doing so, since it isn't going anywhere. In general, though, addressing climate change while at the same time rebuilding outdated infrastructure is a good idea. Linking this to gun control is simply silly. From the point of view of the RKBA, it's not persuasive to use far-out arguments like this. People will dismiss you as a kook.
     
  25. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,439
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Then why are you judging people's assessments about it? "I have no idea what's in it, but what you say about it is wrong" isn't exactly a convincing "argument". Without knowing what's in it, how would you know whether it would take a luddite police state to implement it?

    I thought you didn't know what was in the Green Holodomor. How would you know whether any criticism of it was "far-out"?

    Is BANNING airplanes a "good idea"? Is banning internal combustion engines (which virtually EVERY piece of farm machinery uses) a "good idea"? Is rebuilding EVERY dwelling in the United States (with not a thought as to where people will live in the meantime) a "good idea"? Is mass poverty and starvation a "good idea"? What BESIDES the massive application of governmental armed force could implement all of this? What BESIDES total citizen disarmament could prevent armed resistance to it?

    People in the 20th century thought a LOT of things weren't "going anywhere" too. Ask a Ukrainian or a Jew. Then ask yourself why the "aspirational" types were so motivated to disarm the Ukrainians and the Jews.

    You seem to have a lot to say about things about which you yourself admit you know little.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
    bdickens and entropy like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice