gun owner against gun ownership?

[Ranb]

It might be much more common than you think. I have run into the anti-gun gun owner in almost every gun forum I have posted on. The only exceptions would be SilencerTalk and Subguns. It is usually the kind of person that thinks guns are illegal except for the types he owns. Too many people think nothing of accusing me of breaking the law when I discuss silencers (legally they are firearms) but are not willing to actually educate themselves on the law before libeling me.

Ranb

 

[The B]

I remember buying my first gun from NW armory 15ish years ago and asking the opinion of the guy behind the counter who replied 'I don't know; I don't like guns'. I thought he was in an odd profession to make that statement.

thats awesome

 

[pioneer461]

Except for the NRA part, you have described Senator Diane Feinstein, Rosie O'Donnell, Sarah Brady and many other high profile anti-gun rights folks. They consider themselves as responsible enough to own guns, but not the "common people."

My late father-in-law was like that. He owned a small caliber semi-auto pistol which he kept around the house for home defense. He never loaded it or took it outside because of his gross misunderstanding of law. I asked him if he was responsible and could be trusted to own a gun, and he readily agreed that he could. I then asked him if I could be trusted (I was still a cop then) and he said "Of course." I named other family members, some of whom who were present, and asked if he thought they too can be trusted. Yes, he said, they could all be trusted. I then asked him who he did not trust to own guns. He said, "All those other people." Hummmm. Through question and answer, we whittled it down to the fact that he did not think law breakers should own guns. Now we were getting somewhere!

By the end of the afternoon, we were in agreement that most folks were probably responsible enough to own guns, but that they should be checked out with the police to make sure. I finally asked him if he would be OK with everyone who buys a gun, first getting checked out by the state police and FBI? Sure he says, that should be OK.

I told him he had just described the NICS system and that program is already on the books.

It was the only known time in family memory that anyone ever got him to change his opinion on any subject.

 

[chris61182]

Sounds like you could be describing my brother!

 

[Roadkill Bill]

Long story short, I have a family member who is a gun owner, ccw permit holder (who uses it regularly as well), NRA member. And yet at the same time is AGAINST gun ownership. Ask this person about guns and they will try to talk their hardest to prevent you and everyone you know from buying one. He will tell you protection should be left to the police, and if you want it for plinking just rent one at the range. He even goes as far as saying if you have enemies that would want to harm you, you probably deserve it.

Anyone ever ran across this type of person before?

So you're related to Kate Brown?

 

[kmk1012]

So you're related to Kate Brown?

Dang near 11 year old thread, Kate Brown wasn't even the dictator of Oregon yet, LOL

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Long winded reply to the OP:

Basically (to me) that is what I label a FUDD.
Now, I know thats a pejorative term. However, I reserve that for the guys that are known to say:
"I like to hunt, but no one needs an AR15"
Or
"Back in my day we only needed a shotgun, hunting rifle, revolver with about ____ rounds"

Basically there are gun guys and then there are guys who happen to own guns. This was a point I made in the "Hillsboro man turns in his guns" thread. Just because a person owns a firearm that does not make them a "gun person". Just like being a leo or former service member (vet) does not make a person a weapons expert. Ive got plenty of vet friends and retired leos in my family to prove they arent "gun people", they've simply been around guns and have basic training.

That being said, its their (the OP's family member) right to be confused and to not understand human nature or history. Mainly, no anti gun proposals as of late would have actually stopped anything. However, increasing security, people doing their jobs and enforcing already existent laws as well as following up on reports of crazy activity COULD have. Yet that never happens.

Personally, I feel its immensely ignorant to willingly vote away (or vastly diminish) a right that literally safeguards you're other rights and your ability to fight off a tyrannical government (Fed or local).
^ that is often when people bring up nukes, jets and tanks.. what they fail to realize is, all that stuff needs logistical support and guerrilla warfare makes that very difficult to maintain (god forbid that ever happens).

I also JUST saw the necro dead thread date. Totally missed that. However we've had about 3-4 of these themed threads since the last "mass event".

 

[Yarome]

Many are unaware or often forget... and despite the often seen "good will" propaganda on the side of many LE vehicles, "protect and serve"... LE's mandate is NOT to protect the public and are under no legal obligation to do so. Their only mandate is to uphold and enforce laws. If in the execution of that duty they "happen" to serve a dual role and seen as a potector of some sort, that's just fine, but it's not their job.

Yes, in execution it can be a very fine line, and many LEO's go above and beyond their mandate. (Ever heard of a LEO officer receiving an award for "going above and beyond the call of duty"???) However, the line still exists, not every LEO will elect to go beyond his/her mandate, and should is no way give anyone any sense that they are not, ultimately, fully responsible for their own safety.

Tell your family member to go pound sand.

 

[revjen45]

1) Anybody who says "you don't need (fill in the blank) to kill a deer (or whatever) self-identifies as a Fudd.

2) Anybody who says "You can't birds with more than 3 rounds so that's all you need is saying that violent criminals should be protected like quail or deer. Typical of the Uni-party. If home invaders start getting shot en masse thay will be losing a lot of their voter base.

 

[tac]

Long story short, I have a family member who is a gun owner, ccw permit holder (who uses it regularly as well), NRA member. And yet at the same time is AGAINST gun ownership. Ask this person about guns and they will try to talk their hardest to prevent you and everyone you know from buying one. He will tell you protection should be left to the police, and if you want it for plinking just rent one at the range. He even goes as far as saying if you have enemies that would want to harm you, you probably deserve it.

Anyone ever ran across this type of person before?

He's obviously in two minds about this. In fact, he's undecidedly ambivalent. He likes to be a teller, and not a doer.

Blatant sarcasm aside, how does he regularly use his CCW permit? Has he got one of those faces you just can't help but want to hit?

Let's just run a little scenario here.

Coming out of a store, you get into your car.

Goblin mooches up to you and sticks a gun up your nose - gimme your money kinda thing.....

Do you -

a. Give him the money he so desperately needs?

b. Draw YOUR CCW and stick it up his nose?

c. Call the police for protection.

This is not a test.

As for his last comment, the word a$$hole was coined specifically for those of that opinion.

 

[RVTECH]

Ask this person about guns and they will try to talk their hardest to prevent you and everyone you know from buying one. He will tell you protection should be left to the police, and if you want it for plinking just rent one at the range.

BUT did you ever ask him how or why HE rationalizes or justifies HIS ownership of guns - and if so what was his answer?

 

[tac]

I just found this - please recommend where I might re-post if for best audience coverage.....

 

[FALshot]

Long story short, I have a family member who is a gun owner, ccw permit holder (who uses it regularly as well), NRA member. And yet at the same time is AGAINST gun ownership. Ask this person about guns and they will try to talk their hardest to prevent you and everyone you know from buying one. He will tell you protection should be left to the police, and if you want it for plinking just rent one at the range. He even goes as far as saying if you have enemies that would want to harm you, you probably deserve it.

Anyone ever ran across this type of person before?

Everything you mentioned about your family member's beliefs are contradictory to their real-time actions and deeds.

Most often people demonstrate their belief's by their actions,....

They are against firearms ownership yet they themselves own firearms? This person is clearly irrational. (So give up, there is no reasoning with the irrational.)

I would not be on an overnight family trip with this person unless the rest of the family agreed to sleeping in shifts so that someone could keep en eye on this person, seriously.

 

[ma96782]

Long story short, I have a family member who is a gun owner, ccw permit holder (who uses it regularly as well), NRA member. And yet at the same time is AGAINST gun ownership. Ask this person about guns and they will try to talk their hardest to prevent you and everyone you know from buying one. He will tell you protection should be left to the police, and if you want it for plinking just rent one at the range. He even goes as far as saying if you have enemies that would want to harm you, you probably deserve it.

Anyone ever ran across this type of person before?

Sure.

There are plenty of gun owners that will compromise the 2nd A. And, some believe that they have "the superior know how" thus, gun ownership should be reserved for only them (and the likes of them). Pointing out that they have gone through "training, etc...." Call them, "ELITIST".

Rrrrright......so, shouldn't the same attitude apply when voting? Testing to ensure knowledge of economic issues etc...., common sense, mental competency?

Next......you'll want "PROOF OF LIFE."

Aloha, Mark

 

[Rkangel]

Definition of hypocrite. And example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[arakboss]

Long story short, I have a family member who is a gun owner, ccw permit holder (who uses it regularly as well), NRA member. And yet at the same time is AGAINST gun ownership. Ask this person about guns and they will try to talk their hardest to prevent you and everyone you know from buying one. He will tell you protection should be left to the police, and if you want it for plinking just rent one at the range. He even goes as far as saying if you have enemies that would want to harm you, you probably deserve it.

Anyone ever ran across this type of person before?

Reminds me of another turd.

 

[Ranb]

I know some people are not going to like this post, but here goes.

I have noticed an extreme shift in attitudes towards the 2nd Amendment since 2018. Gun owners, even those identifying as conservatives, have turned their backs on the 2A in order to support politicians they favor. I have not changed my stance on the 2A one bit, but my attitude has fallen out of favor in the last four years.

I'm the guy who loads ammo, makes silencers, coaches a rifle team, travels to Olympia to speak in committee on gun bills, has face to face meetings with WA politicians to push pro-gun bills. I vote the issues and have ZERO party loyalty and have always been this way since 1982 when I voted in my first election. I will speak to even the most rabidly anti-gun person in the legislature and do it in a respectful tone. Anyone who is willing to have a meeting with me so I can push a pro-gun bill gets my full attention and polite behavior.

Acting like this has been especially good for me from 2009 up to 2018.

In 2018 Trump turned his back on American gun owners when he used the power of his executive office to order the BATFE to classify bump stocks as contraband machine guns. He could have let Congress ban them, possibly with a buyback like WA did, or a grandfather clause. But Trump wanted his own gun grab so he stepped in and did it the only way he could which resulted in no buy back or grandfather clause. He knew it would not save a single life, but he knew his legacy would be in part, the gun grabber.

That was not enough. While discussing red flag laws with VP Pence in front of others like Diane Feinstein, he objected to any due process taking place prior to ANYONE losing their firearms if they were imagined to be violent. Without due process, no one can be certain, so it all comes down to biased unsupported claims and prejudice. Pence favored careful due process, but Trump made it clear due process was inappropriate prior to losing your firearms.

So what does a reasonable gun owner like me do? I object to these anti-gun actions and statements like anyone who believes in the 2A would; but at a cost. I did not change my stance on gun control a bit, but criticizing anti-gun politicians has cost me membership on several forums including two gun forums and a few political forums.

It is nothing new that a person would be more loyal to a politician than to their civil rights. But I was not expecting conservative gun owners to insist upon being lumped into a group like this. It is very shameful indeed, but those kinds of people do not see it that way at all. Some of them try to tell me that a Trump is better than Biden, but they fail to see that both are unworthy of representing us in the government and they both were not even worthy of being nominated.

I have questioned many people as to why they support Trump even after his proven, proud, anti-gun attitude is on display for everyone to see. They say that they approve of Trump even though they do not approve of the bump stock ban or his "take the guns 1st" insanity. So I ask, "Where do you draw the line on gun control?" and "What would it take for you to stop supporting Trump?"

NOT A SINGLE TRUMP SUPPORTER HAS EVER TOLD ME WHERE THEY DRAW THE LINE ON GUN CONTROL. I think this means they are willing to give up any civil right to prove they are loyal to their favorite politician, whoever it might be.

The anti-gun gun owners are all around us and they are willing to stab anyone in the back to prove they are right.

 

[cigars]

He sounds like one of those "guns for me, not for thee" people.

 

[arakboss]

I know some people are not going to like this post, but here goes.

I have noticed an extreme shift in attitudes towards the 2nd Amendment since 2018. Gun owners, even those identifying as conservatives, have turned their backs on the 2A in order to support politicians they favor. I have not changed my stance on the 2A one bit, but my attitude has fallen out of favor in the last four years.

I'm the guy who loads ammo, makes silencers, coaches a rifle team, travels to Olympia to speak in committee on gun bills, has face to face meetings with WA politicians to push pro-gun bills. I vote the issues and have ZERO party loyalty and have always been this way since 1982 when I voted in my first election. I will speak to even the most rabidly anti-gun person in the legislature and do it in a respectful tone. Anyone who is willing to have a meeting with me so I can push a pro-gun bill gets my full attention and polite behavior.

Acting like this has been especially good for me from 2009 up to 2018.

In 2018 Trump turned his back on American gun owners when he used the power of his executive office to order the BATFE to classify bump stocks as contraband machine guns. He could have let Congress ban them, possibly with a buyback like WA did, or a grandfather clause. But Trump wanted his own gun grab so he stepped in and did it the only way he could which resulted in no buy back or grandfather clause. He knew it would not save a single life, but he knew his legacy would be in part, the gun grabber.

That was not enough. While discussing red flag laws with VP Pence in front of others like Diane Feinstein, he objected to any due process taking place prior to ANYONE losing their firearms if they were imagined to be violent. Without due process, no one can be certain, so it all comes down to biased unsupported claims and prejudice. Pence favored careful due process, but Trump made it clear due process was inappropriate prior to losing your firearms.

So what does a reasonable gun owner like me do? I object to these anti-gun actions and statements like anyone who believes in the 2A would; but at a cost. I did not change my stance on gun control a bit, but criticizing anti-gun politicians has cost me membership on several forums including two gun forums and a few political forums.

It is nothing new that a person would be more loyal to a politician than to their civil rights. But I was not expecting conservative gun owners to insist upon being lumped into a group like this. It is very shameful indeed, but those kinds of people do not see it that way at all. Some of them try to tell me that a Trump is better than Biden, but they fail to see that both are unworthy of representing us in the government and they both were not even worthy of being nominated.

I have questioned many people as to why they support Trump even after his proven, proud, anti-gun attitude is on display for everyone to see. They say that they approve of Trump even though they do not approve of the bump stock ban or his "take the guns 1st" insanity. So I ask, "Where do you draw the line on gun control?" and "What would it take for you to stop supporting Trump?"

NOT A SINGLE TRUMP SUPPORTER HAS EVER TOLD ME WHERE THEY DRAW THE LINE ON GUN CONTROL. I think this means they are willing to give up any civil right to prove they are loyal to their favorite politician, whoever it might be.

The anti-gun gun owners are all around us and they are willing to stab anyone in the back to prove they are right.

It is rare to have a candidate that is solidly pro 2A and has a chance at winning an election. Most of the time we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. What Trump did was awful but I would've still rather had him instead of Brandon.

 

[Ranb]

arakboss,

That is what almost every Trump supporter tells me. Where do you draw the line on gun grabs or other gun control?

I would like to know what it would take for you to deny a politician your vote.