2020 Chaos has more anti-gunners buying guns

[nwslopoke]

It isn't necessarily just new gun buyers. Not all, but some areas are a real mess. I believe as more homeless, lower elements creep closer to white picket fence neighborhoods those home owners may not buy guns but are now less against them.

 

[SouthWillRise]

It isn't necessarily just new gun buyers. Not all, but some areas are a real mess. I believe as more homeless, lower elements creep closer to white picket fence neighborhoods those home owners may not buy guns but are now less against them.

This is truth. It be kinda foolish as longer time gun owners who care about the 2A to turn our backs on new owners over petty issues when it's an opportunity and resource for more 2A freedom.

 

[Kruel J]

Voting against our rights isn't petty.

 

[SouthWillRise]

Voting against our rights isn't petty.

Ok.

 

[titsonritz]

Voting against our rights isn't petty.

I want my free stuff.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Petty....I like Tom Petty...sure do miss him...Err...wait....

Voting is important to consider when speaking of the 2nd Amendment.
What you vote for , who you vote for ....Hell , even getting folks to vote in the first place is important.

One can vote pro gun / pro 2A and be of whatever party one likes...
With that said...
What is done by those who are elected by one side , the other side or any of the third sides , may or may not be inline with pro 2A interests.

In any event....
If one is a new firearm owner...I urge you to look at who you vote for and understand that how they vote and what they represent , may not be inline with pro 2A interests.
Andy

 

[SouthWillRise]

In any event....
If one is a new firearm owner...I urge you to look at who you vote for and understand that how they vote and what they represent , may not be inline with pro 2A interests

Yea, this is the point. Each new gun owner is an opportunity to explain and educate on how to know what you are and aren't voting for. Simply turning your back on someone for not being educated as a new owner and may not know enough to better inform their voting is petty. As I understand it that is one of the main missions of this website…

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Each new gun owner is an opportunity to explain and educate

Possibly they are , but only possibly.

I would not say "each"...as everyone has their own perspective....
And some folks do not want to change theirs...so saying "each" , might imply all or every , which is not true.

So for some folks...you may have a chance / opportunity to explain and educate...for other people , who do not want to learn / grow / change etc...
No amount of explaining or educating will matter or change a thing.

Spend your time with those who want to learn...and avoid engaging with the others , is my suggestion.
Andy

 

[SouthWillRise]

Possibly they are , but only possibly.

I would not say "each"...as everyone has their own perspective....
And some folks do not want to change theirs...so saying "each" , might imply all or every , which is not true.

So for some folks...you may have a chance / opportunity to explain and educate...for other people , who do not want to...no amount of explaining or educating will matter or change a thing.

Spend your time with those who want to learn...and avoid the others , is my suggestion.
Andy

Ok.

 

[Kruel J]

Exactly this. All these "new gun owners" aren't going to support the 2A when they vote. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care one bit about them and refuse to take them out shooting unless I KNOW they are going to start voting for our rights.

Just to be clear, I NEVER said I turned my back on all new gun owners. "…unless I KNOW they are going to start voting for our rights"

Reading is fun!

 

[SouthWillRise]

Just to be clear, I NEVER said I turned my back on all new gun owners. "…unless I KNOW they are going to start voting for our rights"

Reading is fun!

Ok

 

[Bob D]

Most of these new gun owners, and most voters in general, are doing what they believe is best for protecting all our rights, regardless of what party they vote for.

If you turn it into "A is 100% good, B is 100% evil" you contribute to the problem.

Almost all of us, regardless of the box we check on the ballot, are doing their best to protect the rights and freedoms that they view as inherently American. We all believe we are protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. We disagree on the best approach to that, we even may disagree about what the constitution means and allows, but at the end of the day two people can see the same information, have the same basic goals, and yet draw two different conclusions about the best course of action.

Holding the view that all voters for a political party are your enemy means you've made an enemy of half of "We, the People," which is very helpful for those who actually do want to restrict our rights and end our freedoms.

Evil doesn't have a political party, evil does whatever is convenient, and keeping us all as divided as possible is incredibly convenient for evil.

New gun owners are good for gun rights regardless. Good people can make decisions different from ours, none of us dictate absolute truth, and most of us are just doing our best with what we have.

 

[SouthWillRise]

Just to be clear, I NEVER said I turned my back on all new gun owners. "…unless I KNOW they are going to start voting for our rights"

Reading is fun!

Sorry, I'd respond more but I'd be breaking rule 7

 

[SouthWillRise]

Most of these new gun owners, and most voters in general, are doing what they believe is best for protecting all our rights, regardless of what party they vote for.

If you turn it into "A is 100% good, B is 100% evil" you contribute to the problem.

Almost all of us, regardless of the box we check on the ballot, are doing their best to protect the rights and freedoms that they view as inherently American. We all believe we are protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. We disagree on the best approach to that, we even may disagree about what the constitution means and allows, but at the end of the day two people can see the same information, have the same basic goals, and yet draw two different conclusions about the best course of action.

Holding the view that all voters for a political party are your enemy means you've made an enemy of half of "We, the People," which is very helpful for those who actually do want to restrict our rights and end our freedoms.

Evil doesn't have a political party, evil does whatever is convenient, and keeping us all as divided as possible is incredibly convenient for evil.

New gun owners are good for gun rights regardless. Good people can make decisions different from ours, none of us dictate absolute truth, and most of us are just doing our best with what we have.

Nice to see some critical thinking.

 

[Kruel J]

Sorry, I'd respond more but I'd be breaking rule 7

Not true. Have you actually read our rules?

 

[American123]

Actually we do get to pick and choose. That's what America is about. I may vote one way to support gun rights, but doesn't mean I by default support every piece of nonsense a conservative legislature or politician promotes or voted on. That's just plain simplistic thinking that doesn't actually represent real people. I love my guns, and will vote to keep them always, but doesn't mean I'm gonna continue to support things I don't agree with from those same politicians.

Not to mention we as citizens get to vote on many different aspects of how our country and state are run, I think for myself. Even if a politician is gun friendly, but is also promoting ridiculous legislation, I'm not gonna vote for him just cause he or she is telling us gun folk what we wanna hear. That's just not realistic for a lot of voters.

Nope, wrong - when you put your name behind someone, you are responsible for their political choices and the support they give to their colleague and what actions they take against their opposition, because you voted for them, they are representing your vote. Can't detach the responsibility no matter how you try.

 

[Kruel J]

Yes, true. I already told you I can't separate you as staff here and being against the mission statement. So anything I say is breaking rule seven in disagreement or criticism to you. You warned me for doing exactly that and I was warned in PM. So it feels like you're trying to bait a new member into breaking rules. Sorry, not interested in breaking rules to head butt with you.

Well since you just joined today and are already having so many issues, maybe NWFA isn't the site for you.

 

[SouthWillRise]

Nope, wrong - when you put your name behind someone, you are responsible for their political choices and the support they give to their colleague and what actions they take against their opposition, because you voted for them, they are representing your vote. Can't detach the responsibility no matter how you try.

Ironic.

 

[American123]

Ironic.

How so?

 

[SouthWillRise]

Well since you just joined today and are already having so many issues, maybe NWFA isn't the site for you.

I'll make the distinction for myself, thanks very much.