Moral Structuring and Ethical Priorities In Firearms Owners.

[DuneHopper]

Let's not make this thread just like some others gentlemen.

I always stay within the rules, I can not help if others do not. I rebuttled once and pushed the rules and now get lumped in with those who hijack threads I think not. My threads get removed because of others responses, not my own. Perhaps the rules need to be defined as I see constant name calling over and over go excused and one time I tell them to knock it off and you guys call me on it LOL.
I know you as a mod do not agree with my stance on these topics I bring up and are in my opinion unfairly going after what I post.
If I posted half of what Boats gets away with on this site id be banned by now. Not telling you guys how to do your jobs, but threads should be handled neutral. Even you as a mod have made remarks like or here we go again when I post somethings and belittling what topic I chose.. Like its my fault others cant behave ? If NWFA does not want people uniting to fight for our guns rights why not just say that in the rules that discussing unity is not allowed because it hurts others feeling? Because all my topics have done is discussed working together wow what a concept. Pretty messed up Kruejl. In this post I even suggest again Boats get people into his ideas and again you lump me into others problems . I guess might as well move or close this thread once the OP gets nailed by mods no one takes the topic seriously after that as is seen in most of what threads I create, I should apologies however uniting people in one cause would be looked at as a problem ?? Boy cant even get a firearms forum to unite in a cause how are we ever going to save our rights. Geees.. Thanks again Boats you got another thread Hijacked free of charge.

 

[Kruel J]

@DuneHopper I suggest you review the rules here at NWFA and then go back and reread your posts. Rule #1 especially.

Community Rules

 

[Basedgreaser]

not to be too off topic but to speak in terms of "priorities of gun owners"

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
as a community, gun owners seem to talk about this part way too much. constant arguments and statistics with anti-gunners about the individuals rights. anti gunners love to go after the individual due to the general collectivist base of their ideologies.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
Rarely anyone talks about this at large, its like militias are a sensitive subject people avoid. from my observations the reason for this is simple. Anti gunners dont have an argument against it. there position is inherently supporting tyranny. so they ignore the first part and cut straight to the individuals right to bear arms, this naturally frustrated a lot of gun owners and set us on the defensive. years of comprimises, years of dialogue in which THEY control the conversation THEY control the narrative and THEY are winning. Gun ownership is on the defensive. it can not survive for the intentions it was established in the bill of rights unless we get on the offensive. Anti gunners have no arguments aginst the protection of the people from tyranny so they avoid it like the plague. we need to stop talking about the individual, take the narritive back, go on the OFFENSIVE drive everything they avoid straight to them. militias are legitimized by the people, not the state. and the individual right to bear arms is yes a prerequisite to the establishment of militias, but if thats all we focus on then we will keep losing ground. We have an overpowered federal state, state and media collusion, socialist subversion, and many other forces tearing down our society. these oppressives forces do not care about individual rights, and if thats all we can talk about then there will be no individual rights.
they will never take "all at once", instead they chisel slowly knowing that as long as ita not to much at once, we as a community will take it, get frustrated and "just deal with it".
where do we draw the line?
IMO that line should have been drawn before i was even born in 97, oh wait it was in 1791


note: i am not advocating for violence

 

[Heywood]

People do not have to resort to violence. We only need to insist they enforce their retarded laws while openly proclaiming we will not comply. I have and will continue to live my life as I have before the last retarded bill and have sold, transferred, leant my property as I did before to whom I deem acceptable.
The same bit about not doing enough can be said of those that wax philosophical about changing our tune while watching the last 40 years happen and pretending they have the answer.

 

[Kent763]

I'm not trying to be overly cryptic. But in order to effectively teach or debate any subject you must first understand the building blocks;

You're absolutely correct, but there is a limitation to this. For many anti-gun folks, their belief, if you could call it that, stems from a visceral dislike for guns. It's not based on any rational thinking. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. At least, not usually. This comment isn't meant do dissuade firearms owners from becoming better educated on the subject, or to keep you from honing your arguments. Just a caveat that you will run into people who can't be reasoned with, sometimes through no failing of your own. Don't let that discourage you.