Gun owners who argue against gun ownership?

[Ranb]

I have found that gun owners (especially those that post on gun forums) tend to be cannibalistic at times. The main reason we can not overturn various oppressive gun control law is that we are unable to act as a united front. At one extreme we have those who believe there should be no gun control at all, in the middle there are those who want some control to prevent possession by criminals and lastly those who are willing to give up any gun rights to ensure (mistakenly in most cases) their security.

Some people talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. Sometimes when I write to my state representatives, they tell me they are hardly ever hearing about opinions on gun control bills. It can be hard to take effective action; one has to put their back into it. For example I was late writing to politicians about HB 1604 (a bill to allow registered silencer use in WA) this year as it was already dead for the year.. While I had the best intensions, I said too little too late. On the other hand, I am close enough to Olympia to attend meetings at the capitol and listen to those who speak out on both sides of the debate. But taking the time out of one's life (work/pay) can be hard.

The best thing we can do is recognize that guns are not the problem, it is the people. When a person says that a gun is only good for one thing, then it is the road to ruin and that person will never be able to effectively support the right to keep and bear arms. It is the people that decide to use a gun in a responsible or irresponsible manner. It does not matter if it is a rifle, pistol, break-open shotgun, machine gun, silencer or sawn-off shotgun. They all have suitable uses for civilians in this country. Anyone who says otherwise is just helping the bad guys (VPA, Brady Campaign, Feinstein etc.) ruin our way of life.

Ranb

 

[smurf hunter]

It's perhaps ironic that to maintain our 2nd amendment rights we at times need to surrender our rights granted by the 1st amendment.

If a person doesn't feel civilians need to own suppressors, it neither implies they support a restriction, or that they are generally anti-gun.

How did we arrive at such a ridiculous state of affairs?

 

[Ranb]

It's perhaps ironic that to maintain our 2nd amendment rights we at times need to surrender our rights granted by the 1st amendment.

If a person doesn't feel civilians need to own suppressors, it neither implies they support a restriction, or that they are generally anti-gun.

How did we arrive at such a ridiculous state of affairs?

The first amendment says in part;

Congress shall make no law ..... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Notice it does not say "Ranb shall not shout someone down for expressing an opinion that he disagrees with"

I am free to stop (or ridicule) anyone from speaking their mind as long as I am not breaking any laws just as this forum can decide who it will allow to post for any reason. Freedom of speech as stated in the constitution only applies to government restrictions, not to restrictions set in place by private citizens.

A person who argues against legal gun possession or use is helping no one. That a person would argue against a device that makes firearms safer to use and is rarely used in violent crime is just very peculiar. I have never seen any rational reason for prohibiting silencer use; do you know of any smurf hunter? Isn't the desire to ban weapons based on irrational reasons the very definition of an anti-gun mentality?

It is really weird when a person makes up a totally ridiculous reason for prohibiting firearms; like they are used to "kill the ole lady". We arrived at this state of affairs because people are too willing to compromise.

Ranb

 

[mudnducs]

I have found that gun owners (especially those that post on gun forums) tend to be cannibalistic at times. The main reason we can not overturn various oppressive gun control law is that we are unable to at as a united front. At one extreme we have those who believe there should be no gun control at all, in the middle there are those who want some control to prevent possession by criminals and lastly those who are willing to give up any gun rights to ensure (mistakenly in most cases) their security.

Some people talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. Sometimes when I write to my state representatives, they tell me they are hardly ever hearing about opinions on gun control bills. It can be hard to take effective action; one has to put their back into it. For example I was late writing to politicians about HB 1604 (a bill to allow registered silencer use in WA) this year as it was already dead for the year.. While I had the best intensions, I said too little too late. On the other hand, I am close enough to Olympia to attend meetings at the capitol and listen to those who speak out on both sides of the debate. But taking the time out of one's life (work/pay) can be hard.

The best thing we can do is recognize that guns are not the problem, it is the people. When a person says that a gun is only good for one thing, then it is the road to ruin and that person will never be able to effectively support the right to keep and bear arms. It is the people that decide to use a gun in a responsible or irresponsible manner. It does not matter if it is a rifle, pistol, break-open shotgun, machine gun, silencer or sawn-off shotgun. They all have suitable uses for civilians in this country. Anyone who says otherwise is just helping the bad guys (VPA, Brady Campaign, Feinstein etc.) ruin our way of life.

Ranb

Cannibalistic...interesting. I'd never considered it in that light...only as people more or less informed about Constitutionality or (given that they are informed) people more or less concerned about Constitutionality.


Do you really think it is that 'we don't present a united front', that we are unable to overturn rules/laws that are unconstitutional?
I think we do a pretty good job of it thru the NRA.
I admire your tenacity and willingness to make your voice heard...it's hard thankless work. So....THANKS!!!!!

 

[smurf hunter]

The first amendment says in part;
Notice it does not say "Ranb shall not shout someone down for expressing an opinion that he disagrees with"

I am free to stop (or ridicule) anyone from speaking their mind as long as I am not breaking any laws just as this forum can decide who it will allow to post for any reason. Freedom of speech as stated in the constitution only applies to government restrictions, not to restrictions set in place by private citizens.

A person who argues against legal gun possession or use is helping no one. That a person would argue against a device that makes firearms safer to use and is rarely used in violent crime is just very peculiar. I have never seen any rational reason for prohibiting silencer use; do you know of any smurf hunter? Isn't the desire to ban weapons based on irrational reasons the very definition of an anti-gun mentality?

It is really weird when a person makes up a totally ridiculous reason for prohibiting firearms; like they are used to "kill the ole lady". We arrived at this state of affairs because people are too willing to compromise.

Ranb

I agree with you about the main point, which is gun laws - and how those have become silly to be polite about it. When I express an opinion, that doesn't mean I endorse it as legislation.

As an example, if I say that I don't have a use for a .50 cal weapon - don't flip out and think the anti-gun lobby will use that as propaganda for banning that caliber. Instead, tell me how I might be mistaken in technical terms. Explain how I might one day encounter a rabid gigantic mutant rabbit that requires that ballistic coefficient in order to take it down.

Less paranoia would be a good thing for all of us.

 

[Ranb]

I think we do a pretty good job of it thru the NRA.

We can do better. As far as I know, the NRA has been hesitant to take up the cause when it comes to title 2 weapons (machine guns, silencer etc.) and 50 caliber rifles.

Ranb

 

[2506]

The first amendment says in part;
Notice it does not say "Ranb shall not shout someone down for expressing an opinion that he disagrees with"

I am free to stop (or ridicule) anyone from speaking their mind as long as I am not breaking any laws just as this forum can decide who it will allow to post for any reason. Freedom of speech as stated in the constitution only applies to government restrictions, not to restrictions set in place by private citizens.

A person who argues against legal gun possession or use is helping no one. That a person would argue against a device that makes firearms safer to use and is rarely used in violent crime is just very peculiar. I have never seen any rational reason for prohibiting silencer use; do you know of any smurf hunter? Isn't the desire to ban weapons based on irrational reasons the very definition of an anti-gun mentality?

It is really weird when a person makes up a totally ridiculous reason for prohibiting firearms; like they are used to "kill the ole lady". We arrived at this state of affairs because people are too willing to compromise.

Ranb

I can see the Fish&Game boys not wanting silencers readily available to the general public. There are enough dirtbags out there poaching, a can might just make their effing deeds easier. Just being the Devil's advocate.
Poachers, in my world, are on the same plane as child molesters and politicians.

 

[Ranb]

I can see the Fish&Game boys not wanting silencers readily available to the general public. There are enough dirtbags out there poaching, a can might just make their effing deeds easier. Just being the Devil's advocate.
Poachers, in my world, are on the same plane as child molesters and politicians.

Silencers are already readily available to the public. The feds have never banned them and 37 states allow unlicensed civilians to own them. They are easy to make or buy. ATF approval for silencers is practially a rubber stamp for anyone who can own a gun. I have never heard of anyone being denied as long as they filled out the forms correctly.

A law does not stop poaching, careful game management does. No law is going to stop a person from using any firearm (silencers included) to poach if they so desire.

I rate child molesters far lower than poachers. Poachers and politicians probably sleep together though hahahahaha.

Ranb

 

[torpedoman]

ever hear of divide and conquer or one bite at a time. maybe the one doing the arguing isn't a gun owner at all