China has a problem with assault knives

[LR1955]

You've lost me. How do those events relate to the campaign rhetoric of US Presidential candidates in 2019?

Stan:

Those events are a historical record of populations that did not think their 'leaders' would ever do what they said they would do. And they found out that people most certainly will do what they say they will do.

When you have presidential candidates who believe the Constitution is only a speed bump in their route towards making us a truly 'progressive' (Communist / Statist) society, and who will impeach conservative judges and replace them with leftists who will automatically put a stamp of approval on anything they dictate, only someone who knows nothing about history would believe that they are just catering to their base and have no intention of doing what they say they will do.

LR55

[phishfood]

Yes, I ignore democide. That's because no sane person thinks it is even remotely likely that the US government will engage in democide.

Actually, some say that the US government already has committed democide. Read the first and second paragraphs at this link.
https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM


I don't think one would have to be insane to be conceive of a time and a situation where the US government might become capable of such. After all, there has been a time in our history when the government used military force to take land from the rightful owners, harried, oppressed, and killed said owners, forced the survivors onto reservations against their will. The government has also gathered thousands of people together and forced them to live in camps against their will, based solely on the ethnicity of those people. At the same time, the administration was attempting take control from the other branches of government in order to advance it's agenda. While these people were not then murdered en-masse, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that such a thing COULD have happened.

All governments are made up of people, and people have the capability of horrendous cruelty. Saying that "It can't happen here" is not realistic.

[stanc]

So, what arguments would you make "in favor of our right to own firearms and specifically semi automatic fireaarms" in such a debate with anti-gun people?

Ar type rifles are the most popular hunting rifles in the US today
Sport shooting with many examples such as 3-gun, multi gun, long range and explain the shooting sports are safer than playing football, swimming or riding a bike
Semi autos have been around since the late 1800's
Modern sporting arms are not so modern and less than 1% of all firearm crimes are from semi auto rifles
Even fudd guns used for duck, goose,hunting, etc are semi autos
They are not true assault rifles
The 2ndA is not a right to own antiquated arms
Every firearm is or has been a military weapon
A pump shot gun can fire much more lead quicker than any semi auto firearm
A person is much more likely to die from seeing a doctor than owning and shooting any firearm
Self defence is a right and handicapping civilians with restrictive antiquated firearms will not effect criminals, example Mexico just across the border
Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.
Last but not least, the 2ndA is about division of power, not hunting, sport shooting or collecting. Example: democide https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I would post videos like this one:https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1169958287556657154
https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1169617849444438016

Below are some counter-arguments that I would make if I were on the other side, and some comments.

[1] "Ar type rifles are the most popular hunting rifles in the US today" - Hunters don't need an AR15 and 30-rd magazines (let alone 100-rd drums) to kill a deer, so why do you think you should have a right to own such a weapon, or feed devices that were created for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of human beings?

[2] "Sport shooting with many examples such as 3-gun, multi gun, long range and explain the shooting sports are safer than playing football, swimming or riding a bike" - 3-gun and multi-gun matches are the simulated killing of people. Why do you want to practice killing a lot of human beings?

[3] "Semi autos have been around since the late 1800's" - Slavery was legal until the mid-1800's. Slavery is no longer legal, so why should semi-autos be?

[4] "Modern sporting arms are not so modern and less than 1% of all firearm crimes are from semi auto rifles" - More than 90% of mass shootings have been done with semi-auto rifles or pistols.

[5] "Even fudd guns used for duck, goose,hunting, etc are semi autos" - Nobody needs a semi-auto shotgun to shoot ducks and geese. The waterfowl hunters I know use pump-action shotguns.

[6] "They are not true assault rifles" - Again, that's a technical distinction without a practical difference. And binary triggers and bump stocks effectively erase even that distinction. What you try to dismiss as an "unreliable toy" was used to efficiently mow down almost 500 people in the space of a few minutes.

[7] "The 2ndA is not a right to own antiquated arms" - True. The 2nd Amendment was about the right to own state-of-the-art military weapons.

[8] "Every firearm is or has been a military weapon" - False. Most guns in civilian hands are not military weapons.

[9] "A pump shot gun can fire much more lead quicker than any semi auto firearm" - LOL. No. https://youtu.be/T8uLv0utmDQ?t=111

[10] "A person is much more likely to die from seeing a doctor than owning and shooting any firearm" - That doesn't explain why you should have a right to own a firearm.

[11] "Self defence is a right and handicapping civilians with restrictive antiquated firearms will not effect criminals, example Mexico just across the border" - You said that a pump shotgun can shoot faster than any semi-auto, so civilians would not be handicapped by a semi-auto ban.

[12] "Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances." - A valid point, but I'm not sure that dry statistics make a very persuasive argument in a very emotional issue.

[13] "Last but not least, the 2ndA is about division of power, not hunting, sport shooting or collecting." - True. The 2nd Amendment was meant to assure that members of State militias would have access to the weapons they were required to possess under federal law, and the State militias -- not private individuals -- were intended to be a counterbalance to any potential threat posed by the US Army. Since the modern National Guard and the few remaining State militias now provide all required weapons (and prohibit use of privately-owned firearms), the reason for having the 2nd Amendment no longer exists.

Also, the fact that it is not about hunting or sport shooting, negates your points [1], [2], [4], and [5].

[14] "Example: democide https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM " - Again with the democide? If you tell people that you need an AR15 so that you can kill American soldiers or police when they come to drag you off to concentration camps, they're going to think that you're a paranoid nut job who really shouldn't be allowed to have any guns.

[15] "I would post videos like this one: https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1169958287556657154
https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1169617849444438016 " - How are those rants about the NRA being declared a terrorist organization supposed to convince anyone that we should have a right to own an AR15 or any other firearms?

==============================

IMO, if you want to convince "fence sitters" -- let alone anti-gun people -- you'll have to come up with much more persuasive arguments than the above in order to counter the emotional impact of scenes like this:

[stanc]

I have been frustrated that although I bought air-rifles and archery equipment for my two children, they have had no interest in participating in these, what I always considered "normal American," activities.

Wow. That is truly sad.

[stanc]

Hmmm. Kind of like Russia in 1917? How about Germany in 1934. China in 1949. Cuba maybe? Cambodia in 1975? Venezuela over the last ten years?

You've lost me. How do those events relate to the campaign rhetoric of US Presidential candidates in 2019?

Those events are a historical record of populations that did not think their 'leaders' would ever do what they said they would do. And they found out that people most certainly will do what they say they will do.

When you have presidential candidates who believe the Constitution is only a speed bump in their route towards making us a truly 'progressive' (Communist / Statist) society, and who will impeach conservative judges and replace them with leftists who will automatically put a stamp of approval on anything they dictate, only someone who knows nothing about history would believe that they are just catering to their base and have no intention of doing what they say they will do.

Russia, China, and Cuba resulted from the people taking up arms and overthrowing the established government, which could be viewed as a good reason to prohibit the private ownership of guns.

Cambodia was a civil war in which a communist government was overthrown by more radical communists.

Hitler gained popularity in Germany by blaming foreign countries and an ethnic group for his country's problems. I know of only one candidate for POTUS who's done that, and he isn't a Democrat.

In Venezuela, Maduro has been able to oppress the people because the army has been willing to do the oppressing. Do you think the US military would obey a President's orders to oppress the American people?

[stanc]

Yes, I ignore democide. That's because no sane person thinks it is even remotely likely that the US government will engage in democide.

I don't think one would have to be insane to be conceive of a time and a situation where the US government might become capable of such.

Sure, one can conceive of hypothetical scenarios wherein the US government would engage in brutal oppression of the populace. Hollywood movie producers do it quite often. The question is, how many people (who are not paranoid conspiracy theorists) think it's at all likely to happen?

After all, there has been a time in our history when the government used military force to take land from the rightful owners, harried, oppressed, and killed said owners, forced the survivors onto reservations against their will. The government has also gathered thousands of people together and forced them to live in camps against their will, based solely on the ethnicity of those people.

Yup. And there was a time in our history when the Founding Fathers enslaved large numbers of people of another race, treating them as property instead of human beings with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Just because such actions were done in the past, doesn't mean they are likely to happen in the future.

While these people were not then murdered en-masse, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that such a thing COULD have happened.

LOL. Yeah, I guess one could say that an event which did not happen, could have happened.

Except that since it did not happen, I see no real point in saying that it could have happened.

[LR1955]

Russia, China, and Cuba resulted from the people taking up arms and overthrowing the established government, which could be viewed as a good reason to prohibit the private ownership of guns.

Cambodia was a civil war in which a communist government was overthrown by more radical communists.

Hitler gained popularity in Germany by blaming foreign countries and an ethnic group for his country's problems. I know of only one candidate for POTUS who's done that, and he isn't a Democrat.

In Venezuela, Maduro has been able to oppress the people because the army has been willing to do the oppressing. Do you think the US military would obey a President's orders to oppress the American people?

Stan:

Your buddies in the 'Democrat' party seem to like using the term 'white privilege' a lot. In fact, the whites running for the Dem nomination all apologized for being white. That is pure racism, plain and simple.

Quite a change from the Democrats of the 50's and 60's who opposed every single piece of civil rights legislation that Republicans authored and pushed through the Congress.

Not to mention the two Democrat anti-semites in Congress. Or the various communists who openly hate capitalists and capitalism.

The Democrats have for decades divided the population in order to cater to voting blocks. Mostly the 'wealthy' verses the 'poor' and more recently whites verses any other racial group they think they can manipulate for their benefit.

No Stan, you want to talk about dividing the country -- look at your buddies in the Democrat party. That is how all of the tyrants in history gained power. Divide and conquer.

I see you are also one who believes in 'open borders'. I believe in the law and if someone enters our country illegally, they have broken our law are criminals. Note that every sanctuary city is run by a Democrat. They are the ones telling their LEA not to enforce federal law and not to cooperate with the feds when it comes to people entering our country illegally.

You are spouting out the same leftist garbage most of us have heard for decades. Can't you think up something new?

LR55

[stanc]

Stan:

Your buddies in the 'Democrat' party seem to like using the term 'white privilege' a lot. In fact, the whites running for the Dem nomination all apologized for being white. That is pure racism, plain and simple.

Quite a change from the Democrats of the 50's and 60's who opposed every single piece of civil rights legislation that Republicans authored and pushed through the Congress.

Not to mention the two Democrat anti-semites in Congress. Or the various communists who openly hate capitalists and capitalism.

The Democrats have for decades divided the population in order to cater to voting blocks. Mostly the 'wealthy' verses the 'poor' and more recently whites verses any other racial group they think they can manipulate for their benefit.

No Stan, you want to talk about dividing the country -- look at your buddies in the Democrat party. That is how all of the tyrants in history gained power. Divide and conquer.

I see you are also one who believes in 'open borders'. I believe in the law and if someone enters our country illegally, they have broken our law are criminals. Note that every sanctuary city is run by a Democrat. They are the ones telling their LEA not to enforce federal law and not to cooperate with the feds when it comes to people entering our country illegally.

You are spouting out the same leftist garbage most of us have heard for decades. Can't you think up something new?

a. I have no buddies in the Democratic party.

b. Where in my previous post did you see me talk about dividing the country?

c. Where in my previous post did you see me say I believe in "open borders"?

d. What "leftist garbage" did I spout in my previous post?

[montana]

Below are some counter-arguments that I would make if I were on the other side, and some comments.

[1] "Ar type rifles are the most popular hunting rifles in the US today" - Hunters don't need an AR15 and 30-rd magazines (let alone 100-rd drums) to kill a deer, so why do you think you should have a right to own such a weapon, or feed devices that were created for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of human beings?

[2] "Sport shooting with many examples such as 3-gun, multi gun, long range and explain the shooting sports are safer than playing football, swimming or riding a bike" - 3-gun and multi-gun matches are the simulated killing of people. Why do you want to practice killing a lot of human beings?

[3] "Semi autos have been around since the late 1800's" - Slavery was legal until the mid-1800's. Slavery is no longer legal, so why should semi-autos be?

[4] "Modern sporting arms are not so modern and less than 1% of all firearm crimes are from semi auto rifles" - More than 90% of mass shootings have been done with semi-auto rifles or pistols.

[5] "Even fudd guns used for duck, goose,hunting, etc are semi autos" - Nobody needs a semi-auto shotgun to shoot ducks and geese. The waterfowl hunters I know use pump-action shotguns.

[6] "They are not true assault rifles" - Again, that's a technical distinction without a practical difference. And binary triggers and bump stocks effectively erase even that distinction. What you try to dismiss as an "unreliable toy" was used to efficiently mow down almost 500 people in the space of a few minutes.

[7] "The 2ndA is not a right to own antiquated arms" - True. The 2nd Amendment was about the right to own state-of-the-art military weapons.

[8] "Every firearm is or has been a military weapon" - False. Most guns in civilian hands are not military weapons.

[9] "A pump shot gun can fire much more lead quicker than any semi auto firearm" - LOL. No. https://youtu.be/T8uLv0utmDQ?t=111

[10] "A person is much more likely to die from seeing a doctor than owning and shooting any firearm" - That doesn't explain why you should have a right to own a firearm.

[11] "Self defence is a right and handicapping civilians with restrictive antiquated firearms will not effect criminals, example Mexico just across the border" - You said that a pump shotgun can shoot faster than any semi-auto, so civilians would not be handicapped by a semi-auto ban.

[12] "Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances." - A valid point, but I'm not sure that dry statistics make a very persuasive argument in a very emotional issue.

[13] "Last but not least, the 2ndA is about division of power, not hunting, sport shooting or collecting." - True. The 2nd Amendment was meant to assure that members of State militias would have access to the weapons they were required to possess under federal law, and the State militias -- not private individuals -- were intended to be a counterbalance to any potential threat posed by the US Army. Since the modern National Guard and the few remaining State militias now provide all required weapons (and prohibit use of privately-owned firearms), the reason for having the 2nd Amendment no longer exists.

Also, the fact that it is not about hunting or sport shooting, negates your points [1], [2], [4], and [5].

[14] "Example: democide https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM " - Again with the democide? If you tell people that you need an AR15 so that you can kill American soldiers or police when they come to drag you off to concentration camps, they're going to think that you're a paranoid nut job who really shouldn't be allowed to have any guns.

[15] "I would post videos like this one: https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1169958287556657154
https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1169617849444438016 " - How are those rants about the NRA being declared a terrorist organization supposed to convince anyone that we should have a right to own an AR15 or any other firearms?

==============================

IMO, if you want to convince "fence sitters" -- let alone anti-gun people -- you'll have to come up with much more persuasive arguments than the above in order to counter the emotional impact of scenes like this:

I'm not going to argue every point since it would go on forever, but I would produce my own emotional pictures. https://allthatsinteresting.com/holocaust-photos#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCiADFjQG0 https://allthatsinteresting.com/cambodian-genocide
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gab...nniversary
https://apimagesblog.com/blog/2019/4/2/a...-from-hell
https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-...g-massacre

[stanc]

I'm not going to argue every point since it would go on forever...

If you can't even defend your positions with me, how can you hope to defeat the anti-gun crowd and convince undecided people?

...but I would produce my own emotional pictures.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/holocaust-photos#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCiADFjQG0 https://allthatsinteresting.com/cambodian-genocide
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gab...nniversary
https://apimagesblog.com/blog/2019/4/2/a...-from-hell
https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-...g-massacre

So, what kind of emotional pictures would you produce that would effectively counter video and photos of mass shooting victims?

[stanc]

I'm not going to argue every point since it would go on forever, but I would produce my own emotional pictures.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/holocaust-photos#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCiADFjQG0
https://allthatsinteresting.com/cambodian-genocide
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gab...nniversary
https://apimagesblog.com/blog/2019/4/2/a...-from-hell
https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-...g-massacre

Sounds like a good idea. So, what kind of emotional pictures would you produce that would effectively counter video and photos of mass shooting victims?

[stanc]

I'm not going to argue every point since it would go on forever, but I would produce my own emotional pictures.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/holocaust-photos#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCiADFjQG0
https://allthatsinteresting.com/cambodian-genocide
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gab...nniversary
https://apimagesblog.com/blog/2019/4/2/a...-from-hell
https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-...g-massacre

Sounds like a good idea. So, what kind of emotional pictures would you produce that could effectively counter video and photos of mass shooting victims?

[LR1955]

a. I have no buddies in the Democratic party.

b. Where in my previous post did you see me talk about dividing the country?

c. Where in my previous post did you see me say I believe in "open borders"?

d. What "leftist garbage" did I spout in my previous post?

Stan:

Dividing the country Open borders -- "Hitler gained popularity in Germany by blaming foreign countries and an ethnic group for his country's problems. I know of only one candidate for POTUS who's done that, and he isn't a Democrat."

Every one of your arguments and comments we have heard over and over again and all from the Democrat party.

I do not believe I have ever seen you argue in favor of our gun rights. Not once.

LR55

[montana]

Sounds like a good idea. So, what kind of emotional pictures would you produce that could effectively counter video and photos of mass shooting victims?

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8...ves-ar-15/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/okl...rs-n739541
https://www.military.com/video/guns/rifl...6401790001
https://nypost.com/2017/04/04/man-who-ki...e-charged/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wounde...-15-rifle/
https://www.mic.com/articles/64663/5-peo...heir-lives
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/veteran...z5z29SRqBc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zfysHwGVJo
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2...916643001/
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justi...ce-america
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190...with-ar-15

I enjoy a good debate and find I can learn more from criticism than an eco chamber. What I find rather peculiar are people such as yourself and DNS who have endless complaints and criticisms about the pro gun information I post on this forum, yet can post a plethora of anti-gun talking points at a moment's notice. . When I pressed for solutions or counter opinions for pro gun solutions, DNS goes silent and all you could muster is: "I like to shoot them"... We have a member in our shooting club who came from out of state and is a die hard democrat. When I tried to have a friendly discussion on the subject with him, "all he could muster was" he was too liberal to ever vote for a Republican. This guy has a gun collection of the most expensive and customized STI pistols and JP rifles, "with so called high capacity magazines" of any member in Montana I have ever seen. He is what I call, a hypocrite: : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings : : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.

[Fess]

People are much more complex than just Democrat or Republican. There would need to be thousands, even millions of parties for there to be a perfect match for everyone. All political parties are made up of people with varying concerns and priorities. I think that it is unfair to call anyone a hypocrite just because they disagree with one espoused opinion of some people in their party. If that were the case, every single person on this forum would qualify a hypocrite because it is truly impossible to agree with every differing opinion of each leading member of his/her* political party. You only have to look at Congress (if you have a strong enough stomach) to see that there are disagreements within the two major parties.

It is logical that people who spend a significant amount of time on firearms-related forums would consider gun-rights to be a defining issue. To many people, it is not. There are a lot of other things in this world to be concerned about.



* welcome, Krizia/ FemmeFatale!

[montana]

People are much more complex than just Democrat or Republican. There would need to be thousands, even millions of parties for there to be a perfect match for everyone. All political parties are made up of people with varying concerns and priorities. I think that it is unfair to call anyone a hypocrite just because they disagree with one espoused opinion of some people in their party. If that were the case, every single person on this forum would qualify a hypocrite because it is truly impossible to agree with every differing opinion of each leading member of his/her* political party. You only have to look at Congress (if you have a strong enough stomach) to see that there are disagreements within the two major parties.

It is logical that people who spend a significant amount of time on firearms-related forums would consider gun-rights to be a defining issue. To many people, it is not. There are a lot of other things in this world to be concerned about.



* welcome, Krizia/ FemmeFatale!

When a person "labels them self" as A, but their actions supports B, I call that the very definition of being a hypocrite. Kind of like Congress and out spoken movie stars who support and pass laws, "they themselves" never intend to live by ..

[LR1955]

People are much more complex than just Democrat or Republican. There would need to be thousands, even millions of parties for there to be a perfect match for everyone. All political parties are made up of people with varying concerns and priorities. I think that it is unfair to call anyone a hypocrite just because they disagree with one espoused opinion of some people in their party. If that were the case, every single person on this forum would qualify a hypocrite because it is truly impossible to agree with every differing opinion of each leading member of his/her* political party. You only have to look at Congress (if you have a strong enough stomach) to see that there are disagreements within the two major parties.

It is logical that people who spend a significant amount of time on firearms-related forums would consider gun-rights to be a defining issue. To many people, it is not. There are a lot of other things in this world to be concerned about.



* welcome, Krizia/ FemmeFatale!

Roger but this is a pro gun forum so when someone comes across as being anti gun or anti 2A, there will be fire.

In Stan's case, he has been here since this started due to his profession as a firearms historian and the place where the Grendel fits in as a intermediate cartridge.

Doesn't necessarily mean he believes the 2A guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. And he doesn't.

Stan has never agreed with any pro gun opinion on this forum that I can recall. And his comments have been against any conservative who chooses to defend our right to keep and bear arms. He has never to my recollection criticized a single Democrat for any sort of infringement on our rights and particularly those who vow to ban and confiscate all of our firearms.

So if someone is going to post a pro 2A comment on the forum, expect Stan to disagree. If anyone responds to his criticism or disagreement, the thread will go on and on until I lock it.

That said, folks have asked me to throw Stan off the forum permanently. Sorry about that. Ain't going to happen with me unless Stan says something really stupid about the President. I didn't tolerate it with Obama and I won't with Trump.

LR55

[stanc]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8...ves-ar-15/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/okl...rs-n739541
https://www.military.com/video/guns/rifl...6401790001
https://nypost.com/2017/04/04/man-who-ki...e-charged/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wounde...-15-rifle/
https://www.mic.com/articles/64663/5-peo...heir-lives
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/veteran...z5z29SRqBc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zfysHwGVJo
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2...916643001/
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justi...ce-america
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190...with-ar-15

Apparently you miunderstood my question. I asked what kind of emotional pictures would you produce that could effectively counter video and photos of mass shooting victims, not what dry statistics and news reports you would link to.

And why on earth did you link to so many copies of the same two home invasion stories??? One of each would've been sufficient.

I enjoy a good debate and find I can learn more from criticism than an eco chamber. What I find rather peculiar are people such as yourself and DNS who have endless complaints and criticisms about the pro gun information I post on this forum...

Hey, it's not our fault that some of the "information" you link to contains significant flaws or errors.

...yet can post a plethora of anti-gun talking points at a moment's notice.

Says the guy who posts an article which supports the anti-gun talking point that a gun ban would prevent mass shootings and save lives.

When I pressed for solutions or counter opinions for pro gun solutions, DNS goes silent and all you could muster is: "I like to shoot them"

Not only did you take that remark out of context, it was part of a response to LR55, not you.

And BTW, in another of your threads, I did offer a suggestion for a pro-gun "solution" to the problem of mass shootings, to which you were strangely silent:
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...post237617

We have a member in our shooting club who came from out of state and is a die hard democrat. When I tried to have a friendly discussion on the subject with him, "all he could muster was" he was too liberal to ever vote for a Republican. This guy has a gun collection of the most expensive and customized STI pistols and JP rifles, "with so called high capacity magazines" of any member in Montana I have ever seen. He is what I call, a hypocrite: : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings : : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue.

He reminds me of the Republican gun guy who claims to be pro-2A, but advocates a law requiring people to get government-mandated training in order to buy and own firearms, in effect implementing government licensing of gun owners.

[stanc]

Dividing the country Open borders -- "Hitler gained popularity in Germany by blaming foreign countries and an ethnic group for his country's problems. I know of only one candidate for POTUS who's done that, and he isn't a Democrat."

Okay, you've lost me again. By what train of thought do you go from:

"gained popularity by blaming foreign countries and an ethnic group for his country's problems"

to:

"Stan talks about dividing the country and believes in open borders"?

Every one of your arguments and comments we have heard over and over again and all from the Democrat party.

My arguments and comments are from my own mind. Any perceived similarity to Democratic party positions is purely coincidental.

I do not believe I have ever seen you argue in favor of our gun rights. Not once.

I have never called for any new gun laws. As I recall, you advocated "red flag" laws, which is something the Democrats want.

[montana]

Apparently you miunderstood my question. I asked what kind of emotional pictures would you produce that could effectively counter video and photos of mass shooting victims, not what dry statistics and news reports you would link to.

What did you want, the would be victims and family members walking over the criminals dead bodies ?? The stories of would be victims that used firearms to stop the bad guys and the photos of the dead victims of regimes who banned guns was insufficient for you??

And why on earth did you link to so many copies of the same two home invasion stories??? One of each would've been sufficient.

Is there a rule of only one??

Hey, it's not our fault that some of the "information" you link to contains significant flaws or errors.

Remember opinions...

Says the guy who posts an article which supports the anti-gun talking point that a gun ban would prevent mass shootings and save lives.

Yes, I do acknowledge the oppositions opinion. Is that a bad thing?? There are two sides to that story, funny how you focused only on the oppositions.

Not only did you take that remark out of context, it was part of a response to LR55, not you.

LR55 had nothing to do with what I stated from my observation of you.

And BTW, in another of your threads, I did offer a suggestion for a pro-gun "solution" to the problem of mass shootings, to which you were strangely silent:
http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...post237617

How is government soldiers carrying m-4 rifles pro gun???

Pro Gun definition:
: favoring the right of civilians to own guns and opposing legislation restricting this right.

He reminds me of the Republican gun guy who claims to be pro-2A, but advocates a law requiring people to get government-mandated training in order to buy and own firearms, in effect implementing government licensing of gun owners.

Nice try Stan, "but once again" no cigar. "I stated, "if we (had) to have,("not I want to have") restrictions" I would rather they require training for individuals and be allowed to (own and carry any firearm) but could never pass a firearm register law. Now explain to me about your logic where all of your anger and energy is completely focused on one guy, but never the yahoos running for president who would completely ban every firearm except single shot muskets. Your complaints about the pres are legit, but you never direct that focus on the much bigger potential threat from the opposition, why??