JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I don't see it as a compromise -- I see it as separate independent action aimed at reducing or minimizing school shootings. As gun owners we should be interested in that if for no other reason than the fact that school shootings will tip the bulk of people in the middle, those who aren't yet Antis, into the Anti camp. At that point, you can kiss your guns goodbye or die in a firefight when they come to take them, neither of which are good outcomes. That's why I think we should focus on:
  1. preventing kids from getting guns,
  2. preventing kids who get guns from getting into schools,
  3. preventing kids who do get guns into schools from doing mass damage.
All of these would help achieve that goal:
  1. Secure firearms in such a manner that is hard for kids to get them -- safes for example.
  2. Monitor the things kids bring into schools -- metal detectors, dress code, clear backpacks for example.
  3. Ensure that any kid who gets into a school with a gun is neutralized fast -- arm teachers and if that is too politically charged, have armed guards (and more than one -- the guard should not be 100 yards away).
  4. Harden schools to some extent with items that can be used as cover or architectural features that could serve a similar purpose.
That's not compromise, it as an independent solution designed to protect gun rights from the anti-gun marketing all these school shooters generate by their actions.
No, that is not what I call compromise at all. That is the offensive. That, and a little more, needs to be implemented immediately to stop school shootings. Now try and get that past the left! To be effective, you need all of the above, plus a little more. The problem is that the left won't let you implement a fully effective system. They'll give you part...like criminal penalties for a parent found with unlocked guns, but won't agree to limited entrances with metal detectors, or more teachers/school employees with guns ...now that's unacceptable compromise. You need a complete system to make it work. They don't want it to work. Remember, this is a chip....the whole pot is getting the guns. We had terrorists hijack planes ONCE...then it was fixed. Every time it happens, we tell them how to fix it, they scream political correctness, we back down (compromise), it happens again, repeat until they get what they want - our guns. Then things will get really bad.
 
My guess is, that the responsible fire arm owners already have there guns locked up.

I thought this too until I talked with a buddy who had no security whatsoever on his firearms with kids in the house. I gave him some locks that I had lying around, it was the least I could do without buying him some sort of locking cabinet.... but then again you said "reasonable firearm owners"...

;)
 
[sidebar: you do know all those voters living in apts/rentals/etc. are responsible for raising your property taxes don't you?]

Then complain when their rent goes up because the property taxes went up.

Duh.. and now want subsidized rent and/or rent controls..? really?
 
Depending on who you ask it will be too much religion or not enough religion; too much school or not enough school; too much information or not enough information; too much coddling or not enough understanding and support; etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. These arguments are never ending and will never amount to anything aside from fiddling while everything burns down around us.

The fact is, kids are different now than they used to be and kids bringing guns to shoot up schools is a problem that has serious consequences for gun rights. We can protect our gun rights by preventing kids from getting guns, preventing those who get guns from getting them into schools, and preventing those who get guns into schools from doing much harm by making sure the shooter gets killed almost immediately. These are concrete ideas which are subject to concrete action.
You don't have to be religious to follow the Ten Commandments...and before it was Hammarabi's Code.
 
Not to run this sideways BUT define locked up? How close to the firearm does locked up mean? If the firearm is in a locked house is that locked up? if its in a locked room in a locked house is that locked up and secure? if its in a locked travel box in a locked room in a locked house is that secure? if it has a trigger lock on it while in a locked travel box in a locked room in a locked house is that secure? Or does a Safe I can get into in 10 min bolted to the floor and wall in the garage secure. Or a heavy safe bolted to the floor and wall that might take me 30 mins and some noise to get into is that secure?

How about I worry about my firearms and who has access to them? people visit my house but no one in in my house without my or my wife's supervision. SO why should I have to purchase an expensive Box to keep my firearms in.

I would tell you how I store my firearms and how I believe them to be safe and secure but then they wouldn't be after I told you so you just get to trust me.
 
Bah, it's virtue signalling. And while "secure" storage is a good idea for some folks with children or problem adults in the house, virtue signaling is going to be laughed at by the people ya'll are trying to impress.

I'm not having it. These threads smack of me doing something wrong because they specify "safe", "unsafe", or "improper" storage. That has a judgement built in to it.

My firearms are secure. I have some stored in a large safe. I have some deployed around the house. All the incentivising is not going to get me to lock up all my firearms so that I, or especially my wife, cannot get to them when needed in an emergency. And we certainly aren't going to put holsters on our sweatpants so we can carry our EDC (in the house) and lock up all the others.

IMO if we get into the mode of trying to propose initiatives to show what nice guys we really are, then we have lost already. It's not coming from a place of strength, they have us against the ropes, and they know it. What will they want next time? Because it's never enough. They want the guns gone. Period. They will not stop. Period. Fight them or lose. This is not fighting them.
 
Last Edited:
Like the cut of your jib, tits. Anyone who thinks they will settle for compromise is still wet behind the ears. We need to go on the offensive alright, but not by giving them an inch. Read some Saul Alinsky.

Consider this ^^ statement/attitude for just a moment? It sounds exactly identical to the anti 2nd amendment folks "NOT ONE MORE" statement/attitude.

Understand, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the statement. I'm just saying it makes us look just as crazy to them, as they look to us. Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is. But I fear that if something serious in the RTKBAs comes down the pike that we won't have the votes to keep it from being enacted and made the law of the land.

Just something to chew on.
 
I disagree with any additional power granted to the State, so this is going to be difficult position to move forward. I believe and understand what this is and attempts to do, but I would push hard to keep it out of the States power circles.

I do agree with part of what @etrain16 proposes, and to my mind, this is what needs to be pushed hard, protecting our schools and our children! I don't know why this hasn't become the most central and most vociferously fought for legislation in all areas of this country , but the facts remain, no one is actively doing any thing to push for protections of our children! To me, this is nothing short of a travesty, a absolute failure to act in a decisively and productive manor to ensure the safety of our most cherished children! This cannot be allowed to stand, and I submit we unite to put our full weight and strength toward this goal firstly over any thing else! I also submit th at we need to push for serious mental health reform, and that we demand action in both fronts at the soonest!

Bill post said they have something in the making and that it is good but did not elaborate on what it was.Im sure if he said it'
Good it does not involve any of the antigunners nonsense and stupidity. I hope it pans out. Without getting their idea of common sense involved.
 
Bah, it's virtue signalling. And while "secure" storage is a good idea for some folks with children or problem adults in the house, virtue signaling is going to be laughed at by the people ya'll are trying to impress.

I'm not having it. These threads smack of me doing something wrong because they specify "safe" or "unsafe" storage. That has a judgement built in to it.

My firearms are secure. I have some stored in a large safe. I have some deployed around the house. All the incentivising is not going to get me to lock up all my firearms so that I, or especially my wife, cannot get to them when needed in an emergency. And we certainly aren't going to put holsters on our sweatpants so we can carry our EDC and lock up all the others.

IMO if we get into the mode of trying to propose initiatives to show what nice guys we really are, then we have lost already. It's not coming from a place of strength, they have us against the ropes, and they know it. What will they want next time. Because it's never enough. They want the guns gone. Period. They will not stop. Period. Fight them or lose. This is not fighting them.

If we give a inch they will take a mile . They have pushed so far and imposed laws without our vote . I now disagree with them on anything just on principle. I won' vote for any of them even for dog catcher.
 
Gays did not have their marriages recognized by following the law and compromising. Blacks did not get their rights acknowledged by following the law and compromising. There is a pattern. The government is real and every gift of compromise makes them stronger and the people weaker.

2A is not a gift from the government. It limits the government from overreach, in theory. That said, it's a right you already have. The compromise suggested is the government whipping you with a cotton belt instead of a leather belt. But you've still GIVEN them the ability to whip you. That's never a compromise I'm down with.
 
Last Edited:
Here's an article from the New Yorker magazine that tries to explain the mind set of young men that commit these acts.
It's a long read but it covers a lot of ground. I heard a radio broadcast yesterday on NPR's New Yorker Radio that goes over the salient facts in the article.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4mtrylabbAhUDX60KHXqVB80QFggnMAA&url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence&usg=AOvVaw2YqDnA6iA2aPJjOiZUk7Va

NPR Podcast.

Malcolm Gladwell on School Shootings, and the Return of Paul Schrader

I listened to the Malcom piece. I don't wholly agree but he did make a valid point about the large span of time when there was lots of access to guns and little to no school shootings. The interviewer also immediately jumped on him for going off script on gun control and had to smack his nose with a rolled up paper (bad boy). I think my views are largely known but wiser, more educated people are bound to a lower level of corruption that they may lose their 'space'. Maybe status is more important than money to them. They have to stay in-line with the collective or hive.
 
Consider this ^^ statement/attitude for just a moment? It sounds exactly identical to the anti 2nd amendment folks "NOT ONE MORE" statement/attitude.

Understand, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the statement. I'm just saying it makes us look just as crazy to them, as they look to us. Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is. But I fear that if something serious in the RTKBAs comes down the pike that we won't have the votes to keep it from being enacted and made the law of the land.

Just something to chew on.
Years ago, I may have agreed with you. Now that I've seen how the left operates, I'm solidly in the "No Compromise" camp. I'm sick and tired of being blamed every time some crazy a-hole decides to go on a murdering spree. I had nothing to do with it and am in no way responsible - period. There is absolutely no reason for me to give away my rights because of the actions of a lunatic or because the left is having a hissy fit.
 
The fact is, kids are different now than they used to be

I disagree. IMO kids are what they always have been: bundles of self-centeredness and need. What has changed is the environment they live in. That environment is what needs work/fixing... for the children.


Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is. But I fear that if something serious in the RTKBAs comes down the pike that we won't have the votes to keep it from being enacted and made the law of the land.

One of the tactics of a cultural war is to sow fear. Fear is the mind killer. False Expectations Appearing Real. Stay strong brother!!!
 
Consider this ^^ statement/attitude for just a moment? It sounds exactly identical to the anti 2nd amendment folks "NOT ONE MORE" statement/attitude.

Understand, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the statement. I'm just saying it makes us look just as crazy to them, as they look to us. Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is. But I fear that if something serious in the RTKBAs comes down the pike that we won't have the votes to keep it from being enacted and made the law of the land.
Just something to chew on.
Consider this ^^ statement/attitude for just a moment? It sounds exactly identical to the anti 2nd amendment folks "NOT ONE MORE" statement/attitude.

Understand, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the statement. I'm just saying it makes us look just as crazy to them, as they look to us. Unfortunately I don't know what the answer is. But I fear that if something serious in the RTKBAs comes down the pike that we won't have the votes to keep it from being enacted and made the law of the land.

Just something to chew on.
I'll try to be brief. A few well selected words make a point better than too many. First, I like to use an analogy to stimulate thought. One for this case might be : " sometimes you have to fight fire with fire". Second, why are we worried what they think of us? Don't we already know? If we continue backing up, will they change what they think of us? You are trying to apply reason to people who don't know the meaning of the word. Read Saul Allinsky's books, and give it back to them. It was Obama's bible for his administration. Third : "there comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand." Defense is not a long term strategy for success. Early in my career I was very trusting. New restrictions, regulations, laws were proposed to my industry. I, still being wet behind the ears, believed the lies of why we needed them. The old-timers said...don't give an inch because we'll never get it back...I said, don't worry, be reasonable, when conditions get better, they'll give it back to us. Well, we're still waiting. I became an old-timer. Now, my beliefs are based on experience. Going on too long. I too know not what the answer is, but we need to be pro active, go after the enemies weak points, embarrass them where we can ( gun free zones, self-defense successes, expose their blatant lies ) take away their offense and use it against them. Once we can point out and document the fallacies of their arguments , and back up ours with successful solutions ( end school shootings, curtail random shootings,bust gangs ), the "reasonable" people on THE FENCE , will come to respect and support us. One more analogy...from Duluth Trading...you can figure it out.
 
Saul Alinsky tactics: Saul Alinsky - Discover the Networks

Quotes from Rules For Radicals: Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

IMO Alinsky's America is well under way... The Anti-gun movement is just one tenacle. The above are good, but long, reads. However, IMO well worth the time for conservatives and liberals alike. Sun Tsu advised to know they enemy. And I do think many liberals would be surprised to know how they have been guided to their ideology.

Disclosure: I am ideologically libertarian, which is also known as classic liberalism. I was surprised to learn that Alinsky founded "community organizing" and despised liberals as do-nothing thinkers. He created progressive radicalism and favored incremental, slow-moving change thru infiltration of classic bastions of conservatism and capitalism... churches, businesses, and media outlets.
 
Disclosure: I am ideologically libertarian, which is also known as classic liberalism. I was surprised to learn that Alinsky founded "community organizing" and despised liberals as do-nothing thinkers. He created progressive radicalism and favored incremental, slow-moving change thru infiltration of classic bastions of conservatism and capitalism... churches, businesses, and media outlets.
Shades of how Hitler viewed Commies... also, don't forget the influence of Capone right-hand man Frank "The Enforcer" Nitti as his mentor, a man who the world would've been a much better place if he actually *had* been thrown off a building by Eliot Ness as depicted in The Untouchables.

Back on topic: If our government were serious about safety, it'd make Gun Ed (the four rules) as much a Health Class curriculum component as Sex Ed--seriously; we have to teach kindergartners about every sexual preference under the sun except "traditional" but can't teach "Stop, Don't Touch, Tell An Adult" or "Boogerhook off Bangswitch, Don't Point Muzzles At Anything You Don't Intend To Destroy"? That, and making vacant slots in police firearms-training classes available to the citizenry on a Space-A basis...
 
Last Edited:
We were off topic? o_O

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."


13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...


"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top