Guns & Ammo Supports Gun Control

[Martini_Up]

"I cannot personally or philosophically believe that refusing or forbidding discussion of significant issues of any kind because of fear that somebody else might take advantage of it or hold it up as a matter of political weakness should ever close peoples' minds or close the door to reasoned discourse."

- Metcalf

He really doesn't have a clue. It's really amazing he didn't get tossed long ago with his complete lack of understanding.... that is unless he recently had a serious head injury or something which has turned him into such an obtuse try-hard.

 

[Dave Workman]

- Metcalf

He really doesn't have a clue. It's really amazing he didn't get tossed long ago with his complete lack of understanding.... that is unless he recently had a serious head injury or something which has turned him into such an obtuse try-hard.

Well, now wataminute.... Are you suggesting that we cannot have a discussion of a significant issue of any kind because we're afraid someone might use the conversation as an example of political weakness?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[chariot13]

Well, now wataminute.... Are you suggesting that we cannot have a discussion of a significant issue of any kind because we're afraid someone might use the conversation as an example of political weakness?

Is that what you're saying?

No I think what he was saying is, having dialogue about 'gun control' isn't ever going to yield a product in favor of 'gun rights'. To give the enemy any ground let alone assert themselves as having any rational thought on the matter, is not only weakness but defeat. Don't fool yourself, the people that want to limit/restrict/infringe the 2nd amendment rights of Americans in any way, is the enemy & have done far greater harm to our way of life than Iraq or Afghanistan ever will. Unless they want to talk about ways we can do away with all of the current infringements, there really isn't anything that needs to be said. Not from them or their apologists. They can weasel their way into our magazines and talk gibberish and then they can be fired. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Sstrand]

Dave
Do is your income in any way influenced by the so called mainstream media/ I presume you know that if you get too close to those people it begins to rub off on you . . .

Sheldon

 

[Dave Workman]

Dave
Do is your income in any way influenced by the so called mainstream media/ I presume you know that if you get too close to those people it begins to rub off on you . . .

Sheldon

Nope. Believe me, my income isn't influenced by the MSM, and it's not dependent upon the MSM.

That's an odd question. What does it have to do with anything?

 

[Dave Workman]

No I think what he was saying is, having dialogue about 'gun control' isn't ever going to yield a product in favor of 'gun rights'. To give the enemy any ground let alone assert themselves as having any rational thought on the matter, is not only weakness but defeat. Don't fool yourself, the people that want to limit/restrict/infringe the 2nd amendment rights of Americans in any way, is the enemy & have done far greater harm to our way of life than Iraq or Afghanistan ever will. Unless they want to talk about ways we can do away with all of the current infringements, there really isn't anything that needs to be said. Not from them or their apologists. They can weasel their way into our magazines and talk gibberish and then they can be fired. I don't see the problem here.

Alas, people who do not agree with you or me still have a right to an opinion and they can express it, and if they want to talk...and listen...then good manners suggests we at least ought to afford them the opportunity to talk.

It is better to know what your enemy is thinking than to presume what you do not know.

We don't have to agree with them, we don't have to do anything to accommodate them, and we do not have to give any ground, but there's nothing really wrong with listening to someone.

See, talking requires that they listen to us, too. Now, if they don't want to do that, heck with them. But until that occurs, I don't really have a problem with listening to them. You'd be amazed at the stuff you can learn by listening to someone.

 

[slingshot1943]

Metcalf was opening the door of gun control a tiny bit and it needed to be slammed shut. This is how they creep in and he was using a megaphone compared to my voice.

 

[Martini_Up]

No I think what he was saying is, having dialogue about 'gun control' isn't ever going to yield a product in favor of 'gun rights'. To give the enemy any ground let alone assert themselves as having any rational thought on the matter, is not only weakness but defeat. Don't fool yourself, the people that want to limit/restrict/infringe the 2nd amendment rights of Americans in any way, is the enemy & have done far greater harm to our way of life than Iraq or Afghanistan ever will. Unless they want to talk about ways we can do away with all of the current infringements, there really isn't anything that needs to be said. Not from them or their apologists. They can weasel their way into our magazines and talk gibberish and then they can be fired. I don't see the problem here.

This... and the fact printing something isn't really a dialog. To have that, others need a chance to share their opinions (conversation, anyone??) and I don't mean over weeks or even months of writing letters to the magazine and hopefully they publish a choice two or three.

Moreover, he still has his freedom of speech and may write all he likes about curtailing any freedom he likes but me and those like me won't pay to read it. Since we won't and G&A values our $$, they got rid of him.

G&A isn't a place I go to read about more gun regulations being an acceptable idea. It's where I want to go to see what's new in that particular market or see some old favorites.