Real Steel

My wife and I have a viewpoint that ALL gun owners in this day and time are under an assault on our freedoms by all directions. She came back from the shop rather disconcerted this morning after a conversation with a few of her lackey employees on the issue of why anyone "needs" a 30 rnd mag., or the "need " of a rifle like ours. Also the belief that people that hunt are different because of the weapons that they use, and how any and all of this new legislation will leave them totally untouched. She and I are having a hard time informing idiots with blinders on what is really happening. She and I have lived in the south our whole existence except for my service to this country, but the viewpoints of these morons is really striking a nerve with me. It has become hard for me to express my honest feelings and the truth of the issues without my anger getting in the way. The normal path to reason does not seem to take hold on these people seemingly due to the false sense of security they have been lulled into by our liberal media and they can't see this. One would think that those with a general distrust of the government would not let this be the case. How can we better make the case for the freedoms of all gun owners with such uneducated simpleton morons? Please don't take me wrong. I have absolutley nothing against any hunters out there, never have and never will, but why do the hunters ( seemingly here) here have negative feelings about what I have and do? We all have a say in this fight but all I see around here is division between those that feel thier traditions rooted in food and sport (not the 2a) outweigh others cherished beliefs by our founding fathers. They seem to project that they are "better" than the rest of the gun owners. I am currently looking for information to help me formulate an argument clearly and concisely for the sole purpose to educate the ones around me with these eletist viewpoints. I am having a hard time pooling everything together in one source in order to fight these viewpoints. Any help in locating facts, educating myself and the proper means to instruct intelligently will be greatly appreciated.

cruciantime

I think you write really well. I added some paragraphs. What your thinking and saying is spot on from my point of view. It just hasn't been getting the play it needs.

Maybe it took something like this to get the ball rolling.

Real Steel

Thank you Cruciantime, I really appreciate your input. I am aware of the paragraph thing, and was basically ranting to you guys in anger. The presentation that will be given specifically to these people will be verbally and I wish to have it stated clearly and concisely with proven facts and undeniable details backed by not only my viewpoints, but by those with greater knowledge. Many thanks!

Viking

Mention that high powered scoped rifles will most likely be the next target for a ban due to their sharing all of the characteristics of a sniper rifle, and their being used in political assassinations and mass killings (ie: Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, MLK and James Earl Ray, and Charles Whitman at UT Austin.).

Mention that the ultimate goal is total disarmament of the US population and what they are seeing now is part of an attempt to do so incrementally by demonizing a specific type of gun and then show how each piece of gun legislation has taken away specific type guns over the decades.

cruciantime

I believe this WILL continue incrementally until the final conclusion of everything taken.

It started many years ago. It has just taken a long time to get this far.

1934 NFA
1968 GCA
1986 FOPA

were the big ones.

geeck

I tell them, it won't stop with the semi-auto magazine fed rifles... after those are illegal... they'll be back for your "Sniper Rifles"

To which you may get the response: "I don't own no sniper rifle just a couple deer rifles"

To which your response should be: You gonna explain the difference to the same folks who think all AR's are machine guns ?

Not that I think machine guns are a bad thing... but it can open a dialogue on incrementalism... and how they won't stop until Jesus will get a "DENIED" on a NICS background check for a pea-shooter... that's of course if they even believed in Jesus to begin with.

Oldsigncutter

As a hunter I never looked at owning weapons for sporting purposes because I did not consider hunting a sport. Weapons are like tools in your shop, they all have specific purposes. Mine are to harvest game for food or protect. In order to be proficient with those weapons I practice/train. Maintaining proficiency is rooted in a desire to survive, not excell at sport. The importance of our right to bear arms is that it allows us to become as indepedent and self-sufficent as we chose. This administration fears a populace that rejects their agendas of establishing greater dependence and control!

timrb

The danger of using that argument is that many liberals have no problem with total disarmament of the population. The reality of the situation, as the OP has discovered, is that anti-gunners are almost NEVER swayed by logical arguments--they believe what they read in the papers, and operate on emotion only. Here is a boiled-down version of a conversation I have had with a liberal:

Lib: No one needs an "assault weapon". Their only purpose is to spray lead and kill as many people as possible.

Me: The police carry them. Is that so they can spray lead and kill as many people as possible?

Lib: No, they need them to defend themselves against the NRA-armed criminals that are out there.

Me: So in the hands of a police officer an "assault weapon" is a valuable self-defense tool, but in the hands of an ordinary citizen it's simply a weapon of mass destruction?

Lib: Well, I just hate them and I want them all confiscated.

You can't reason with such people.

Tim

cruciantime

Viking

But Tim, he is talking about discussing this with current gun owners (ie: hunters) and not people who advocate total disarmament. He wants to do this to unite gun owners against the wedges the gun banners are driving between us.

russ0861

I hunt with and have shot a deer with grandads levergun. I also own one or more of those evil rifles. I can see it from both sides. I see it from both sides so much, I next time I can afford the tags and whatnot, I am taking my M1A with me instead of the levergun.

Look up the history of gun control in the UK. I beleive they went after semi-auto rifles in the late 80s after a mass shooting. Handguns wetn away in the 90s. Nearly impossible to get a rifle or shotgun now without "need", note that "self-defense" is not a need. Bring up crime stats. While they have few mass shootings, they still have high violent crime. This can show the incremental goal of the left.

Bring up gun control in Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC. There are no provisions for "hunting guns." It's near impossible to own or buy frearms there of any type. It has done nothing to curb gun violence.

Try and make the point there is no "need" to be able to exercise a right. It is a right, not a privilage. I do not have to show a "need" to go to any church I want, or publish any idea I want, it is a right. No one "needs" a Corvette. Very few people (ranchers and farmers excluded) actually need that Ford F-250 Powerstroke. The little Kia will get you to work just the same. It is a right, not a "need" to buy whatever kind of vehicle you want, publish what you want, and worship as you choose or not to worship. I don't think you can pitch that idea to a leftist, but I think you can pitch that idea to "Elmer Fud" gun owner with only his lever gun.

Make note the the people in the UK are "subjects", not citizens. There is a diffrence. Also make note that throughout most of European history, except the last one hundred years or so, most Europeans have been "subjects," and not citizens. People came to North America to escape it. If they try to bring up Australian gun control, make note that they too are still "subjects." They are in the common wealth, and "Her Majesty" still appears on their currancy. They are the same as the people living in the "home isles."

timrb makes the best point of all. Libtards don't care what others think. If you disagree you are either racist, stupidd, or intolerant. Think "your intolerance will not be tolerated."

geeck makes a great point. The libtards are clueless about firearms. Explain to "Elmer Fud" gun owner that the anti's are clueless about firearms in general and their bolt gun with a scope on it is a "militray sniper rifle." Especially if it is a Remington 700. Who needs a militray sniper rifle to hunt deer? Also let them know that their .30-06 is a far more powerful round than 5.56x45 NATO.

Let "Elmer Fud" gunowner know that it is a simple divide and conquer stradegy. Oldest trick in the book. The left hates anybody with tradional values. Black rifle or "hunting rifle," it does not matter. Who has more tradional values than "Elmer Fud"?

Hang together or we will all hang seperatley. When it comes to fighting tryanny there is not three side(antis, freedom lovers, and hunters) there are only antis and freedom lovers.

Note that I mean no offense to "Elmer Fud" or people that only own "hunting firearms." It is an anology that I think everyone can understand, that is why I use it. I myself am a "evil" rilfe owning "Elmer Fud." I hunt with my late grandfathers levergun and his shotgun, but I love the "evil" firearms just as much.

jodi

When Hitler came for the Jews, I was not a Jew; therefore, I was not concerned.
When Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic; therefore, I was not concerned.
When Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions; so I was not concerned.
Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.

Likewise…

When Obama came for the assault weapons, I did not have an assault weapon; therefore I was not concerned.
When Obama came for the rest of the evil gun owner, I was good liberal with no guns; so I was not concerned.
When Obama came for my Freedom & Liberty; there were no patriots to be found.

jodi

moral of the story, everything starts somewhere... I say not here, not ever, call your legislators, your politicians, make a stand, and do not let the criminals own this country.

Oldsigncutter

The ammo I use to fine tune compared to actually hunt is probably a 10/1 ratio. I'm frugal and hate waste. Punching out the X ring requires discipline. Minute of bad guy works for me when response time is critical. Our responsibilities as freedom loving Americans and gun owners are intertwined. Those that fail or refuse to understand are the problem. Liberals are the greatest threat to our 2nd Amendment and it is only in their hands that an assault style weapon becomes a dangerous weapon.

Iggy

I like to use this argument to show how ridiculous their argument can be:

I think we should ban cars such as the Chevrolet Impala and Toyota Camry - they are RACE CARS and have no purpose on the public roads. They sould only be used by NASCAR drivers on sacioned tracks and must be kept there when not in use. We should also restrict the size of fuel tank on other cars to 5 gallons. I see no reason why anyone would need more than 5 gallons at a time to go to the grocery store. By restricting vehicles to 5 gallons there will be more time the cars are off the road because it takes at least 20 minutes to fill up a car thus cutting down on congestionn. Besides, why does anyone need a RACE CAR to buy groceries?

Then I explain that the average individual cannot purchase an Assault Weapon unless they have a Class III license - basically these are already banned! The AR15 may look like a bad rifle, but it is not an M16 just like an Impala may look like a NASCAR, it is not a RACE CAR!

The usual response I get after they get done laughing is "You mean this has to do with how a gun looks, not how it operates"?! I say "you got it"!!

I do not try to explain that the Second Ammendment has nothing to do with hunting - that wold cause overload at that point. Once they realize what it is about, they change their mind.