Gun Rights Supporters Are Losing The War on Guns . . . Here’s Why

189 thoughts on “Gun Rights Supporters Are Losing The War on Guns . . . Here’s Why”

1. These are just battles. We’ll win the war. And by war, I mean the literal, kinetic war that IS coming. And by win, I’m afraid it’ll be a historical genocide that the human race has never been witness to, before. We are just currently on a reprieve, since Trump won. And yes, I’m serious.

   • There is no war coming. People claim it all you want, but it isn’t coming. Be real.

     • Oh, it’s coming alright. But not because of firearms issues alone.

       The very quickly advancing socialist/Communist cabal is going to sweep across the nation, emanating out of California, Academia, and the Big Blue Cities. It is already happening.

       Once the jack-booted Stalinists attack flyover country, it will be all over.

       • A demographic of people comprised mostly of old, poor, white, men losing there own personal wars with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, alcoholism, prescription pain management, late and poor retirement planning, divorce and social isolation is not going to be waging a domestic insurgency in this or any other fantasy based role playing universe you drift in and out of depending on your level of intoxication. You know who also has such violent revenge oriented delusions of grandeur? Mass shooters. No one wonder 2A supporters are losing the culture wars. No educated career oriented professional who lives in a metropolitan area and has done any national or world travel would ever view most of the commenters on here as anything more than pathetic jokes to be ignored and avoided.

       • Attack? You think they’re that stupid? They are attacking us but in a manner that is more insidious, pervasive, and takes a lot of discipline and patience to defeat. Think of it like Vietnam… “If they just came out of their holes and fought like men, then we could crush them!”….. ya, they aint going to do that. They’re fighting for hearts and minds and counting on us to go “My Lia” or “Kent State” out of frustration…. don’t play in to their traps. Fight smart and beat them at their own game (its the message of this article). Its like Special Forces or SEALs, “The men with green faces were more like the VC, than the VC were.”

       • When they bused in protestors, we should have bused in our own. Should have bused in more. And the message should be that which is honest (and it is). Injustice. It’s not my fault, or my guns, because some person somewhere else committed a crime. We should not take the rights away from our children and our children’s children and their future progeny because of the failure of our culture to produce quality individuals with character.

       • Walter Mitty, America currently has the most heavily armed and combat trained populous in its history. 20 years of war has done that. You know who fought that war though? Primarily conservatives from red states, who are very pro gun. I know, because I was there. If this hypothetical war over guns ever kicks off, you’d do well to keep your distance from it. Because the ones doing the actual fighting will be combat veterans in their 20s-40s, who will severely overmatch the police, and know exactly how to counter the abilities of the military. Most of the military as its stands, especially those in combat arms, are also made up of conservative leaning folks from red states. Did you see what happened during the 2013 tweak out on guns? Multiple police agencies, state governments, and members of the military all openly said they would not enforce any gun ban, and in fact would oppose it. So who are you going to have left to real do the fighting on your side? The tide pod kids? Antifa? BLM? You think that’s going to work out well? On a good day y’all will be able to hold the cities, and thats about it.

       • Well put.

     • You ouija ball says?

       • And these are the guys who get the video and news interviews….

     • I hope you’re right, but you’re probably wrong. The “it won’t happen here” crowd are going to be screaming just that right up until things completely come apart. The gulf in America between red and blue is growing larger each month. Do you actually think the sides are going to reconcile? Do you see a way forward that is peaceful and happy? Maybe I’m a pessimist, but I do not, and neither does the guy you’re replying to. Eyes on California, it probably begins there.

       • “Eyes on California it probably begins there.” No; eyes on California, it will probably happen to YOUR state (a la Florida, Colorado, Oregon, etc). This stuff happening in California doesn’t back anybody in to a corner, but serves as a template for how they will attack the rest of you where you live. If you “fight” them and beat them in California, then it’ll stop them cold in other places. Look at CCW’s in D.C.; they didnt appeal to the higher court, because an unfavorable ruling would destroy the liberal stranglehold on gun control in other states. They know a “hot” fight would kill a few people, but would ultimately push fence sitters in to the gun control camp, because they own the national propaganda machines.

       • I certainly have no desire to reconcile with anyone who is or was ever actively or passively trying to strip me of ANY of my rights, or punish me for crimes I did not commit. As long as that is the case there will be no reconciliation, nor should there be. There can be no compromise either. We POTG, as the ones under attack, gain nothing from “compromise”. It is only a matter of how much we are willing to allow to be taken from us. Any “compromise” or “negotiation” is just an agreement about how much of our rights will be abolished, in what way, & how many hoops we must jump through at what height to exercise the remnants of those rights. That is until the next session at the “negotiating table” where the encroachment will continue. And so on until nothing remains.
         Fuck those people.

     • Are you aware that even the ostrich doesn’t bury its head so deep? What it really does it put its head under one wing and stand stock still on one leg. It’s pretending to be a bush or tree. But it watches the predator that generated the behavior closely, in case it doesn’t buy the deception.
       Too bad that lots of humans aren’t as sane as the ostrich…. Then they wouldn’t be caught napping all the time. Like all the stories from Venezuela now, twenty years ago in Kosovo, etc. They always say the same thing: we never thought such things could happen HERE…
       But they do. Esp. at he end of an empire as it crumbles from within. Like Pax Romana, Pax Brittania, and now Pax Americana. Only those totally and completely conditioned by TV and movies would have their head in the sand at this point.

     • Exactly! The article is correct as to why gun rights are losing. However the article is incorrect in thinking that somehow getting involved in politics or organized in local social events will stop public opinion at this point. To much ground has been lost. A+ rated republican politicians are on board with gun control. Systematically groups of individuals are being declared not trustworthy, irresponsible or dangerous. This is evident in Florida with 18 to 20 year olds and the new age of 21 to purchase a rifle. Many other groups of individuals are systematically being excluded or attacked by government for the reasons list above. Next liberals will go after other groups, maybe a DUI from 6 years ago, a rehab facility program for drugs, etc. It will get to the point you will have to be squeaky clean and live an almost perfect life.

       • +1

   • I highly doubt that. If you can only get 200 people to a rally, how are you going to get enough people to have an actual armed conflict?

     You’ll get a few quickly put down skirmishes with a handful of people actually willing to act.

   • A demographic of people comprised mostly of old, poor, white, men losing there own personal wars with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, alcoholism, prescription pain management, late and poor retirement planning, divorce and social isolation is not going to be waging a domestic insurgency in this or any other fantasy based role playing universe you drift in and out of depending on your level of intoxication. You know who also has such violent revenge oriented delusions of grandeur? Mass shooters. No wonder 2A supporters are losing the culture wars. No educated career oriented professional who lives in a metropolitan area and has done any national or world traveling would ever view most of the commenters on here as anything more than pathetic jokes to be ignored and avoided.

     • “No educated career oriented professional who lives in a metropolitan area and has done any national or world traveling would ever view most of the commenters on here as anything more than pathetic jokes to be ignored and avoided.”

       And that is just what the so-called educated elitists thought about Trump before he was elected.

       By the way, I happen to be an educated career oriented professional who lives in a metropolitan area that has done national and world travel. I’m just not an elitist fool that completly lacks common sense or concern for the future of this Republic.

       I can live in the low-income inner city, the wealthy suburbs, on a rural farm, or with the horsey set and blend right in. I am a professional engineer and I can work a farm, operate and repair just about any type of machinery or electrical system, design/install/program automation systems, and perform any type of trade labor you can think of.

       I have travelled through “flyover country” and you are vastly underestimating the fitness, skills, patriotism, and common sense of a vast swath of the US population.

       • But can you openly, honestly and fully express yourself to 90% of your peers in 90% of the circumstances / contexts you mentioned? If your comments here are any indication then the answer is no,… of course you can’t. That’s my point! Almost no one would ever, take you seriously, hire you, invite you out for a beer, fishing or too there kids birth day party ever again.

         I am most certainly not underestimating the health, fitness or ingenuity level of America; it’s low, very low, too be fair across all demo’s not just old, poor, white, men. Those stats are easily available and overwhelming convincing, preventable death due to poor lifestyle is epidemic among all races and ages. Even most people serving in the conventional military aren’t all that fit or healthy by conventional metrics even though they are heads and shoulders above the average population. People that don’t have the will to exercise, don’t have the will to wage war, period.

       • Quite a few of the people you think are only old, fat, white guys in poor health are actually fit as s fiddle, in their 30’s, heavily armed, and well trained. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

       • Max
         If you truly are in your 30’s and “fit as a fiddle” then you are in the prime of your life and fortunate indeed, don’t waste it on anti-social fantasy’s and obsessions, it won’t last forever.

         • @Walter Mitty — Maybe you should take your own advice, for once, and stop your incessant projection of all of your ills onto the rest of us sane people and realize that it’s your ilk — and only your ilk — that are for a fact guilty of anything and everything you accuse us of, and then some. Please and thank you for your inevitable cooperation, too, by the way. You are what you hate, not us.

       • The OFW guys however know how to throw grenades, unlike today’s average military recruit.

       • No one in their 30’s uses the term “fit as a fiddle”.

       • @ warlocc
         I’ve never heard it described that way either. I am actually in my 30’s and “Fit as fiddle”, lift 3 times, run at least 15 miles a week and still ruck with 50 pounds our so once our twice a month (yes, you’ll have to take my word for it.) Sounds like something my mom would say, she’s 65 and thinks walking the dog is cardio. Best “gal” in the world though.

     • I applaud your condescension. The left’s sneering arrogance is what gave us a Trump presidency, and since none of you seem to have learned a thing, will likely lead to his re-election in 2020. Keep it up. While you’re not wrong about what ails rural America (and as you pointed out, actually inflicts all demographics, basically cancelling your own argument out) the manner in which you’ve presented yourself here isn’t helping you make your points.
       Culture war? Look at long term trends with gun laws. Aside from a few urban, liberal dystopias, the overwhelming trend has been one of loosening of gun laws. Decades ago, almost no states authorized concealed carry. Now, they all do. Hell, 10 states now require no permitting at all to carry handguns. Liberals screeched that these places would become killing fields, but the exact opposite has happened. Minorities and women are buying firearms at far greater rates then even a decade ago. The overall rate of gun ownership has surged. Meanwhile, the homicide rate has been halved since the 1990’s and is at a near 40 year low. Really, the only problem areas are in your beloved metropolitan areas. So cosmopolitan and sophisticated!
       So how exactly is the culture war being lost by the pro-gun side? By Americans of all stripes buying more guns than ever? By the loosening of gun laws? But as you were….going on about how this all ends when old, fat white guys on opiates and whiskey all die off. 🙂

       • I’m probably not as left as you think. My beef with trump is that he clearly doesn’t mean a thing he says and will shift his opinion as it suits his insatiable need for praise from the media and his supporters, he has no genuine convictions and sees people as existing only to serve him, he’s a text book clinical narcissist and really just an annoying loud mouth insecure douche. There’s no way you would put up with a guy like him in an office or job site. I actually agree with some of the things he claims to stand for, but he doesn’t really, that’s obvious.

         All Demo’s generally are in no way near “Domestic Insurgent” shape, but it’s almost exclusively older, poorer, white males claiming nay threating that they are going to become them. This is an absurd notion to most of America and it’s discrediting to gun culture or second amendment advocacy. It’s a childish fantasy and most people understand that those that over indulge in fantasy do so, because they are deeply un happy with there actual lives. Most people can accept and even pity people like that except that in the context of gun culture the people indulging themselves are literally openly fantasizing about murdering and terrorizing fellow Americans. A lot of that goes on on this forum. It’s not a good look. That will lose you the “culture war” in the long run. Eventually most of those newly panic bought and rarely fired guns will be sold by children or grandchildren that inherit them As to the facts you present I mostly agree: concealed carry does not lead to more violence, reliable unbiased stats exist that show that. Also agree that an increase in legally purchased firearms nationally hasn’t correlated to increased gun violence overall. There should be more discussion of facts and less of delusional conspiracy theories, and out and out indulgence in Homicidal / Genocidal ideation. Many commenters here openly advocate for the murdering of huge swaths of the population in a system of tyrannically enforced Balkanized a partied, and there opinions are excepted as legitimate. That really seems to be most of what gets talked about here honestly, not fire arms, sporting or politics. Most people view that as either frightening or pathetic. I’m not anti-gun, I’m anti civil war and genocide. A lot of guys on this forum strike me as playing at being for those things from there government pension bought couches in between Percocets and beer runs. I have no doubt that much of the irrational vitriol on this forum is prescription and alcohol fueled, I mean let’s be honest with ourselves. You personally seem like an intelligent and reasonable fellow with a sense of humor. I wish you were more representative of this forum, not less.

       • Have you ever been to a NRA annual meeting? It isn’t all OFWGs.

         Who do you think fought the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, the Ivy league boys?

         There are a lot of what the people on this site call “operators operating operationally” training right now in flyover country.

         The Oath Keepers that showed up at the Bundy Ranch are just a few of the millions ready to fight.

         We should all be happy that the left is vastly underestimating the strength of the forces that are pro-2A.

       • Walter Mitty: Your description of Trump in the first paragraph of your attempted rebuttal above is a precise description of Slithering Hillary, her philandering husband, every Democratic politician on the public payroll, most of the Republicans on the public payroll (the ones who are Republicans In Name Only), and every presidential politician in the last hundred years EXCEPT for Trump. Trump has his problems, but he saved us from the Second Bolshevik Revolution planned by Slithering Hillary. He is not as unprincipled as past presidents, but he is, to be sure, a little different: He is not very well educated in the fundamental principles of our nation, whereas the previous presidents haven’t cared. You appear to be rather like them in that respect: A subversive, out to move our nation from not understanding what makes us free to ignorantly giving up what makes us free. But we gun owners are missing the boat in one area, for sure: People of your ilk suckered us into a false sense of civic duty in 1993 when you talked us into giving up our 2nd Amendment at the point of sale by requiring us to ask permission to exercise the right, and compelling us to give up our 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights to get that permission. Yet background checks haven’t prevented a crime since, and were never intended to: They were and are intended to sucker us into waiving those other rights so we won’t have any left to claim when a future administration revokes the permission. But your handlers failed to understand: The U.S. Constitution does not delegate the authority to government to scam us out of our rights, either. So, yeah, your fight is coming, despite your protestations to the contrary. But you have no idea what will happen to your ilk when you push us to that point.

     • Couldn’t of said it better.

       • Hillary is a sociopath like her husband but Trump is obviously a narcissist with no real value structure. He was a Democrat most of his life until he realized the nation was in a receptive mood for his brand of nationalism. He said less than 2 weeks ago that he likes to “take the guns first, due process second” Had a Democrat proposed such a thing articles of impeachment would be written up the next day because it is clearly unconstitutional. You can delude yourself and think he actually gives a care about average people and the 2nd amendment but he literally only cares about himself. It’s just a matter of time until another horrible shooting occurs and he doesn’t want to be seen to associate with the suburban warriors like many folks on this forum. I’d be much more worried about losing rights under Trump than under a Dem president. It’s easy to say no to the other party and be obstructionist, but when the head of the party is saying things like wanting to raise the purchase age, eliminate due process etc it becomes much trickier for Republicans in congress to go against the tide. As a libertarian I simply don’t understand how people can see Trump as anything but a habitual liar and a fool. He lacks any intellectual curiosity as seen by his daily briefings needing to be less than a page or his mind wanders. His temperament is such that almost nobody can work with him and most of his original staff have resigned or been fired in a tweet. Vote for him at your own risk, as public opinion swings against the 2nd amendment Trump will be more than happy to change his opinion if he thinks it will make people like him. It would be better to find a traditional conservative with actual values to run against him in the primaries in 2020.

   • “These are just battles. We’ll win the war. ” don’ t be too sure. lots of folks thought Single Sex marriage would never be legal, but it is. These people are arguing from an emotional pov, facts no matter how accurate will not sway those who are emotional

2. Amen. One of the best 2A articles I’ve read in a long time. It reminds me of Nick Freitas’ talk. Pragmatic and not cliche. Thank you.

3. “Things like “open carry protests” only hurt us, especially among those in the public that may be on the fence with this issue.”

   Bullshit.

   • +1

     Plus, OC protesters carrying their AR’s are doing it legally and they know the law as opposed to people like Karen Mallard and that other idiot who break federal firearm laws (that they are totally ignorant of) while they proclaim their “outrage” and demand more gun laws.

   • I think individual OC, and to a lesser extent OC protests, can be helpful if done correctly.

     The objective should be to get people out of their comfort zones, to see ordinary people carrying guns safely and responsibly.

     The trick is to get them far enough out of their comfort zones so that they begin to question their programming, without putting them into a fight or flight response.

     Going too far too fast will yield a panic response, with negative consequences for us.

     However, OC works best if used slowly and consistently over a long time, and not when people are already worked up into an anti-gun frenzy.

     (As an aside, when I open carry I’ve only had good experiences. And I have seen more and more people OCing in Colorado and New Mexico over the past few years.)

     • Perhaps you haven’t had any negative experiences because you have a gun on your hip and people are unlikely to confront someone with a gun…?
       I don’t really care one way or another with open carry but family members of mine who own lots of scary rifles have let me know how uncomfortable it is for them. Their assumption is that if you are open carrying a handgun while going about daily life, it’s probably because you have a criminal history prohibiting you from getting a concealed carry permit. Right or wrong people make assumptions and they’re more likely to be negative than positive when open carrying.

   • If we cannot openly bear arms without being timid, how can we even begin to “splain” RKBA to the masses? When one is ashamed, timid, whatever when it comes to bearing arms, other people smell bullshit; and rightly so.

     Don’t be a hypocrite. That should be on this pussy-hat to do list for gun privileges.

4. All true. Laws and policies are one thing. The US Constitution is something else entirely. Now we get to see if the 2nd amendment actually means what it says.

   • It only does if the people stand up with it

     • Yup.

   • It doesn’t. There are tons of federal gun laws.

     • +1

5. We should introduce a model bill which would make the qualifications for becoming an elector (voter) and for carrying a firearm identical. Same age. Same criminal disqualifiers. Same misdemeanor disqualifiers. Same restraining order disqualifiers. Same mental disqualifiers. Same everything.

   • That would really hurt the Democrats….

6. The reason that we are loosing is because the vast majority of people DO NOT understand the positive effects of guns in hands of law-abiding citizens.

   Not even our representatives that do interviews bring that up. We will never win public opinion if the benefits are not known.

7. All politics is local…and locally anti-2A scum need to PAY a price. Trump too. Cruz in 2020.

   • “All politics is local”

     Hasn’t been true in almost 40 years. The pro’s on both sides know this, it’s why were even having this conversation.

     • It’s “we’re”, college boy, and the 2016 presidential election doesn’t support your claim.

8. On the up side they pushed for arming teachers. Down side was we are restricting adults. Now having said that…
   I am ok with 18 year olds not owning a gun.

   WAIT WUT??? Trator!!!

   Well I am ok with it, and obviously the politicians have some how figured out with physiologists that 18 year old’s are not old enough to make adult rational decisions.
   So if that is the case, then they certainly can’t be allowed to vote, or make decisions like getting an abortion, or heck driving for that matter. Nope we can’t send them off to war either, because clearly they are to young and immature to make adult decisions.
   If we are going to ban one thing we might as well ban all of it!

   Well you see where I am going with this.

   • I think you’re saying that the Miilenials are a bunch of immature, socially inept, and lazy shut-ins who need a hard dose of real-life experience and cold uncaring reality to shape them up…
     Yeah. We know that. We were all there once too, but most of us outgrew that phase before this current crop seems to be doing.
     🤠

     • Not to mention those fine Tide Hors d’oeuvres they love so much.

     • You do realize that statistically most millennials are in there early to mid thirties now right?

       • (thinks this over…)
         Not sure that’s right but if it is, I still stand by my statement.

       • ’81 – ’95

     • Gotta Say.. according to what they group as GenY/Millenials, and most of my friends are in definitely in that category, but we are definitely not leftist. I believe its the iGen/GenZ that you are referring to. Maybe we’re not the norm… However I’m trying to win some over to the right side. One at a time.

9. Facts don’t matter.

   We’re losing the war because we really suck at persuasion.

   • This right here. rhetoric changes hearts, dialectic changes minds. This argument is about feelz and the one thing Conservatives cant stand is to hurt someone feelings.

   • Your losing because far too many of you demonstrate significant overlap with the behavioral and psychological characteristics of mass shooters. Delusions of Grandeur, along with paranoid and violent revenge fantasy’s in which vaguely defined threats and exaggerated slights to unearned senses of entitlement justify personal and or political violence. More and more people are realizing this.

     • The conversation has moved on. Maybe you should, too. Every time you open your trap, you resemble your delusional nom de plume just a little bit more.

     • Actually, it’s about life and liberty: that’s why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. You’re projecting like a sonofagun.

       • He s very likely being paid to do so.

10. The antis have developed a repeatable strategy in wake of near-constant Trump-related outrage by the American left, a political QRF, if you will. We’ve seen powerful and established corporations bend to the will of shrieking millennials on the internet in the past four years. It was only a matter of time before politics did the same. So long as state organs like the FBI and local PD’s keep up the trend of criminal ineptitude, trust me they will, another shooting will happen elsewhere. The media will spread lies and pounce on the opportunity to demonize gun owners. Another state legislature will pass irrational bills to placate hysterical crowds of so-called “young adults” who have already been co-opted as useful idiots, carefully groomed by decades of Marxist newspeak in school.

    I haven’t given up hope, I’ll still fight the good fight, but I’m getting increasingly worried, because for every proud, individualist American under the age of 35 there seem to be twenty David Hoggs pumped out of high school and college as the old timers continue to age. I weep for my future children.

    • The antis have developed a repeatable strategy in wake of near-constant Trump-related outrage by the American left, a political QRF, if you will.

      + 1

      Every time something like the recent shooting happens, the anti’s have their pre-packaged talking points and pre-packaged legislation ready to go. And, unlike us, they have evolved their strategy over time. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve got some high-priced marketing consultants working for them. And, as recently demonstrated, they had an infrastructure in place, ready to mobilize the victims and other protestors to use as stage props.

      Meanwhile, our side continues to react like a deer caught in the headlights. We repeat the same, tired message that is obviously not working. Every time something like this happens, it is obvious that our side is not prepared.

      The anti’s are running circles inside our OODA loop.

      • They definitely do have high-powered marketing and persuasion consultants working for them.
        Not only that, the contacts and plans and people who make this happen have been actively cultivated over months and years.

        You don’t get big rallies and marches to happen spontaneously just by posting on Facebook, and you don’t get your photogenic crying teenagers on TV everywhere by accident. Oprah and Clooney don’t donate $15 million (or whatever) unless they know exactly who they’re donating to and where the money goes.

        The post-Parkland blitz is only the tip of the iceberg — the visible results of a massive, ongoing psyops-style operation.

        Our side is going to have to get organized in the same way if we’re going to have any chance at all.

        • How is that going to happen? Our side will be too busy conducting second amendment purity tests instead of taking everyone who is willing to join the fight against the grabbers.

11. Way too many gun owners suffer from severe cognitive dissonance…blindly supporting un Constitutional concepts like the Patriot Act which drove some of the final nails into the coffin the Republic. Way too many gun owners blindly accepted unconstitutional transgressions against other individual liberties, as long as their pet hobby remained somewhat intact. Way too many gun owners refused to question the Sandy Hook narrative, which had egregious credibility holes from day 1, because of lack of courage to appear foolish to the herd. This list could go on and on and on…..

    • +1

    • Pssst,… it’s about the guns, not some higher intellectual or moral concept. Guns make insecure, marginalized people “feel” they have power and status. That’s why so many here talk about violent revolution. It’s the political pretense that justifies it in there minds, but really they harbor repressed homicidal rage from past perceived failures and rejections just like a mass shooter.

      • You mean guns make insecure, marginalized people afraid, which is actually why they want to ban them in order to make themselves “feel” like they have power and status. Why, yes. Yes, you do. That’s why so many gun-grabbers, like you, talk about murdering NRA members and their families — they harbor repressed homicidal rage from their real failures and rejections, why is why they literally spawn mass shooters.

      • Well, you know except for the fact that the protestors over the past 10 years or so starting with the “occupy Wall St” clowns down the the BLM inspired protests actually have caused violence whereas I don’t know of a single pro-gun, pro-2A demonstration where any sort of violence occurred.

      • That’s fucking rich. You rave about conservative gun owners showing signs of instability and causing harm, meanwhile a plethora of Democrat-voting mass shooters, antifa whackjobs, and neo-Soviet agitators are the ones actually bringing harm to others.

      • My comment referenced this very forum and those that comment on it, not the broader topics you all deflected too. Its is an objective, verifiable fact that many on this forum spend significant time and energy indulging in fantasy’s of committing political violence against “others” they feel slighted by, but can provide no proof of or moral justification for. Everything else you all mentioned are macro societal issues and highly debatable, but simple observation of this forum is not.

        • Mitty,

          Everything you dwell upon is a thinly-veiled “You old fat white guys have nothing but imaginary power fantasies.” I bet you would have said the same before the American Revolution. History indicates cases where motivated individuals have thrown off oppression from what appeared to be a superior fighting force.

          Not that a condescending individual such as you have ever won a fight anyways. There’s a reason why we “uneducated lowly peons” value our guns, and that is largely because disarmed populations are ripe for being marginalized, starved, and slaughtered.

          Also, we tend to just enjoy hunting, shooting, and freedom even if you find those endeavors distastful.

        • @Walter Mitty — Your comment actually referred to that which you knowingly, falsely accuse us of, and that’s because you can only see these illnesses in yourself as they’re just plain not observable here. They simply don’t happen, and you know they don’t. It’s actually an objective, verifiable fact that many in your own social circles spend significant time and energy indulging in actual, physical acts of political violence — captured on hi-def video for posterity at that — against “others” that you all feel slighted by. And you revel in it. But, can provide no proof of or moral justification for. Everything you mention are actually micro issues that you have within yourself and yourself only, and wrongly assume that everyone around you has, too. That is what’s actually not debatable.

        • @Accur81

          The revolution was fought by 3% of poor people mainly over taxes on the super wealthy. Mean while England abolished slavery two generations before we did, but that probably doesn’t matter to you. I have nothing against old, fat, white guys, provided they don’t advocate for violent succession from the U.S.. That is illegal (an objective fact), and immoral (an opinion, but one shared by the vaaaaast majority of Americans.) Regardless it’s utterly irrational, the belief that it’s possible is some sort of comic book non-sense the damage wrought would far out way any perceived philosophical gains.

      • You really need to get reliably informed. The right of the people is all about responsibility.

        • @Walter Mitty
          why would you say secession is illegal?

      • @ walter…..nicely done astroturfed deflection. No wonder you people get paid more to spam misinfo online than you do saying”you want fries with that?”

12. I haven’t seen anything about a national walk out counter protest or March for our lives counter. Nothing from NRA about it. I haven’t seen anything else either. Anyone know of anything? I will show up but I can’t find anything, I don’t want to just be one dude standing on a street corner alone with a sign.

    • Don’t wait for the NRA.

      • Who then? I have asked the same question couple dats ago, called on GOA, NAGR, SAF, ISRA. Still, crickets.

13. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

    • And the saddest part is, the FUDDs can’t even see the narrative our adversary is pushing. We’re dealing with at least two generations of “progressives” who have been taught helplessness and defeat as virtues. They’d d rather die at the hands of an attacker than defend themselves because the socialist, post-modernist newspeak that gets pumped into kids’ heads at school/college has destroyed once cherished, definitive concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, the rough edges of human nature, and absolute truth. They welcome the death of western culture as atonement for past historical events.

      This isn’t about guns, it’s about eradicating all legal precedence for self-defense of any kind in the name of marxist wealth redistribution and ending “white privilege.” They want this country to be like the UK, where a thief or foreign rapist bludgeoned with a 9-iron has more rights and sympathy from the public than the homeowner who fought back. I might be a boot POG, but being among like-minded folks for the past nine months in the USMC has made these sickening proggy attitudes stand out like a sore thumb, that and reading real history books about state-worshiping tyrannies.

    • You are correct, that the Antis are using the divide and conquer strategy. That’s why the Fudds need to wake-up.

      This is not to say that each gun-type is equally the hill-to-die-on. Recall, not so long ago, that some gun owners cried-out for SBSs, others for SBRs, and plenty for MGs. Prescind from these where each of us have emotional and philosophical attachments. ‘Hear my cry for AOWs! Free me from the $5 tax and registration for lemon-squeezers!!’ Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Consider the political implications for defending bump-stocks; or for repealing the Hughs Amendment. Are these choices really tactical? Which ones are the tactical and strategic choices we ought to be making? I’m NOT arguing here the merits of bump-stocks/Hughs; nor the tactical merits. I’m EXCLUSIVELY arguing against our failure to DISCRIMINATE among hills to fight for. What successful military officer in history failed to discriminate among alternatives?

      I disagree with: “ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.” For two reasons. First, as a matter of principle, it can’t be true. Second, as a political matter, it isn’t going to gain us any traction with open-minded voters.

      How can the text of the 2A possibly be equated with “ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face”? For this to be true it would have to be so that there exists no possible law that relates to “firearms” that relates to someone other than “the People” “keeping” or “bearing” or which does not constitute an “infringement”. If even a single such law exists then the statement is disproven.

      To take just one obvious example: Who is excluded from the class “the People”? If one such person exists then a law excluding such a person is clearly Constitutional. The Prohibited Person law forbids a person who (having once been an American), who has renounced his citizenship, to have arms. It cannot be said that such an ex patriot remains a member of the class “the People” (having renounced citizenship). (Such a person is welcome to come to the US on a tourist visa.) Likewise, we would not admit that an illegal alien can not be charged with the offense of Prohibited-Person in possession. Laws requiring manufacturers to mark their products with maker’s marks and serial numbers is hardly an infringement.

      We would be much better off picking those arguments against the gun laws that are the MOST flagrant (rather than the least troublesome) violations of the “infringement” prohibition. E.g., the laws used by 8 – 10 States to refuse CWPs to women (and other most vulnerables). How can it be said that the NY Sullivan law might be Constitutional when it prevents a woman from obtaining a permit to carry even a derringer in NYC?

      We ought to be able to get traction with open-minded voters that there is a problem with Sullivan. The Donald COULD get a NYC carry permit; but, Miss Melanija Knavs could NOT have obtained a NYC carry permit when she got her green-card in 2001. The Donald went everywhere with a bodyguard; why did he really NEED a permit (since he doesn’t carry much cash)? Whereas Melania had to carry her her modeling earnings – probably the whole of her net-worth – in her purse unguarded. Why is it that Mrs. Melania’s chamber maid can get her DC carry permit but not a NYC carry permit? Do we imagine that our fellow voters can see the injustice in this case?

      The “ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face” argument expects our fellow voters to buy into the idea that there can’t possibly exist any gun law that passes scrutiny; that, in an America where nearly every other Constitutional protection is open for challenge – including speech and religion laws! Why pick a “non-starter” to argue about when we could make progress on increments?

14. “Gun Rights Supporters Are Losing The War on Guns . . . Here’s Why”

    THEY HAVEN’T RESORTED TO ARMS ENOUGH.

    Plant a few MFrs and the conversation’s over. Don’t plant them, and they’ll plant you eventually.

    • A very easy thing to tell someone else to do.

      • I haven’t told anyone to do sh_t.

        • “Your losing because far too many of you demonstrate significant overlap with the behavioral and psychological characteristics of mass shooters. Delusions of Grandeur, along with paranoid and violent revenge fantasy’s in which vaguely defined threats and exaggerated slights to unearned senses of entitlement justify personal and or political violence. More and more people are realizing this.”

          “Pssst,… it’s about the guns, not some higher intellectual or moral concept. Guns make insecure, marginalized people “feel” they have power and status. That’s why so many here talk about violent revolution. It’s the political pretense that justifies it in there minds, but really they harbor repressed homicidal rage from past perceived failures and rejections just like a mass shooter.”

          Seeeee,…

        • It’s about whatever we fing say it is.

          Psssst, we don’t get lectured by females taking the sobriquet of fictional male characters because they can’t muster street cred.

          • We already knew that “Walter Mitty was a subhuman, Liberal Terrorist™️, but how did you determine “she’s” a filthy hatchet wound, too? Not surprising that it would turn out to be a Mom Demands a Good Dicking Bloomberg lackey. Hey Walter, take Michael’s dick out yo mouth.

    • The argument for “politics by other means” and “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” are to be made with grace; or, not at all. I’ll advocate for the former.

      It is important to impress upon our fellow voters that gun laws are growing more futile year by year. No American would take seriously cutlery-control; why then seriously indulge the delusion of gun-control? Gun-smithing is rapidly approaching the craft of sword-making of old; anyone could do it!

      The gun-owning population is comprised of 100 million Americans; most of us will-NOT-comply! We are tired of being disparaged and we will cooperate no longer with gun-controls violating our rights. Non-violent resistance will be our practice just as civil rights have been secured by so many others in civilized history.

      Dream-up all the gun-laws you like; when terrorists and criminals will evade them you will get nowhere. When the peaceable, tax-paying citizens openly denounce these laws and also REFUSE to comply, your efforts will fall apart completely. The failure of alcohol Prohibition is carefully and completely recorded by history. The failure of pot prohibition is playing-out before your eyes.

      If you pray for a reduction in suicides-by-gun, individual homicides-by-guns; accidents-by-guns and mass-shootings-by-guns then you would do better to seek collaboration with peaceable gun-owners. We are eager to work with you on root causes and the few measures that have some hope of mitigating harms (e.g., enforcing felon-in-posession). We will fight you in every way we can so long as you insist in making us out to be your enemies.

15. Would love to be positive and think that these suggestions will work. But as a Florida resident I can tell you the one point that is missing from this post is the one thing that will sink the 2nd Amendment…..and unfortunately this one thing I’m afraid it’s already too late to fight.

    What is it? One world…demographics.

    As our country becomes more urban….and more ethnic(or brown, or diverse, or whatever you want to call it) our gun rights will diminish. California didn’t go anti-gun because all the white native born people there decided one day they don’t like guns. They went that way the same way they went dark blue….the masive influx of immigrants both legal and legal from countries with zero gun culture and a culture that loves big powerful government. (and that’s not racist…if we replaced every hispanic immigrant with a white one from England or Sweden it would be just as bad).
    Same thing with Florida….the democratic controlled parts are overwhelmingly Hispanic and black. And all the polls show that these legal and illegal immigrants(or 2nd or 3rd generation offspring) are overwhelmingly anti-gun. THAT is the big change down here in the last 10-20 years. We’ve always had the East Coast urban liberals but we managed to keep them in check. Look at pictures of the protests in Talahasee and you’ll see mostly hispanic kids in the crowds.

    The waves of immigrants have overwhelmed us. Florida will be purple this next election and then solid blue in 10 years. Texas won’t be the far off. New York state isn’t anti-gun in the rural white parts of the states…only in the immigrant heavy NYC area….same for NJ and Massachussets. Virginia is going blue because of the northern counties and their massive immigration.

    So couple this with the urbanization and indoctrination of the millenials and the kids(see Oregon and Washington State) and the trends all point to a very bad place.

    You won’t change that either. You have as much of a chance of making immigrants being overwhelmingly pro gun as you do flipping 95% of blacks to vote Republican instead of Democrat.

    So in the future we’ll see more and more states go Blue(progressive). It’s like a cancer. Have you ever seen a state go Conservative(and I”m not talking Texas or the South going from Dem to Republican…they were always Conservative)? No….it never happens…the trend goes only one way.

    In the end they’ll be pockets of this country(white and rural) that will resist and try to hold onto our rights. And when that generation dies off the culture dies off with it…..and they win.

    Only way to save it is to fight now when we still have the power. The only REAL long term solution to all of this is to stop pretending we are still one country. To stop pretending we can “convince” the other side to respect the Constitution when they have no intention to. To stop trying to debate people who don’t want to see your side…but only to subjucate and enslave you. To stop trying to vote “our guys” into office when either “our guys” don’t support us or there won’t be enough “our guys” to be the majority even if they do support us.

    The only solution to save our gun rights and the rest of our rights is to have an amicable divorce as a nation(unamicable if it must be) and go our seperate ways. The blue states of the New Amerika can do what they want. The Red states can stop the cancer of immigration from spreadiing…consolidate the power needed to preserve the Constitution and our society.

    Any other actions are just delaying the inevitable.

    • Exactly.

    • And you think those who disagree with you in the neo-confederacy are going to let you amicably establish a new nation? That hypothetical Civil War would be fought in San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Birmingham, etc. Think that’s going to win you allies, killing kids, progressives and non-whites in urban warfare?

      Then again, Russia and China would probably love the chaos and come to your aid.

    • If only it were as easy as splitting states up as “red vs. blue”. As you mentioned, New York isn’t an anti-gun state, but NYC is, and NYC has half the state’s population. Upstate is fire engine red. People aren’t going to pack up and empty out upstate if a separation of the country occurs. Any type of dissolution would be enormously complicated. Probably the easiest thing, while still preserving some semblance of a unified country, would be to let places like NYC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco become autonomous city states. Even that would be hard – not everyone living in those cities wishes to live under the yoke of progressive tyranny. I worry about the future. I don’t see how things are going to get better.

      • “If only it were as easy as splitting states up as “red vs. blue”.

        We don’t have to.

        We only need to separate out the ‘blue’ areas. They are not too many, nor difficult to locate.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/11/report-donald-trump-to-hang-portrait-of-electoral-college-landslide-in-white-house/

        • The only person your violent and clearly racist delusions of grandeur is going to harm is yourself. Your life will be far worse off for harboring them. If you have the time, financial resources and any of your youth still left seek help in dealing with the self loathing that is clearly eating away at you, before its too late and you begin to seriously contemplate violence toward yourself or others..

        • Too bad it’s actually you regressive DemoKKKrat gun-grabbers that are pushing a racist agenda, and that is what will ultimately dismantle the entirety of your movement — and good riddance to the whole lot of you. Now, kindly stop projecting your ills onto the rest of us sane people, please and thank you. It’s quite enough that it’s you leftists — and no one else — that are flying off the rails and shooting up our sk00ls, movie theaters, and inner cities.

        • And yet nightly on this forum the feasibility of organizing a domestic insurgency that drastically restructures the social, political, economic, and demographic reality of a nation of 330 million people through murder and terrorism, forced re-location and segregation is discussed openly and freely as if it is either rational or moral, which 95% of people agree it most certainly is not. It is a vile and childish fantasy.

          • @Walter Mitty — And yet nightly in your own social circles, the feasibility of organizing a domestic insurgency against so-called “conservatives” is what’s actually discussed openly and freely, to include wholesale terrorism and slaughter of those that refuse to relocate, is the vile and childish fantasy that you project onto us. Not the other way around.

        • Walter M. is a female POS (D) poly-sci major needing a safe space.

      • All valid points…..the city/state idea has merits.
        States sepearting may work too. One could argue that if a state like say Texas seceded then clamped down and eliminated the progressive programs/agenda that has led to all of this it might work. This would inlcude things like purging schools/universities of progressive socialists and mandating a return to an education that taught the importance of Constitutional govt, etc…eliminating welfare programs…..mandating by law personal responsibility(you’re a drunk and don’t work? you starve….you have kids out of wedlock? You’re paying for them…..you have 3 kids by 3 baby daddies…you’re getting sterilized….etc)….having a true 2nd Amendment with ZERO gun laws…..banning abortion….allowing Christians to practice their faith….etc etc etc.
        IF you did this I would argue that a large portion of those problem areas would depopulate due to self deportation. Much like conservative people are leaving California in droves progressives would never live under such conditions.

        Would pockets still remain? Yes they would. But even their power could be greatly reduced by limiting autonomous control by these cities or counties(Think of Austin with little or no power of anyting of real importance). Also..since these small pockets are so anti-gun I don’t see much in the way of them putting up any type of armed resistance. And honestly…if they did…..then yes…there would be blood and violence. But I would argue it would be nowhere near the level of blood/violence if we continue down the path we are today.

        Better a reasonable amicable divorce now with a few pitched battles…..then an all out war of a divorce that ends in a murder/suicide.

      • NYC would at least be fairly easy to separate, drop the bridges, seal the tunnels, and let nature take it’s course.

        • The course it would take would lead to a devastating loss to the GDP of the country and likely a global depression which would negatively and inalterably affect your personal health and standard of living and that of all those you know and love,… big league.

        • @Walter Mitty — Not nearly as much as you’d like to think.

        • Which one do you fantasize about being? Mel Gibson or Sylvester Stallone?

        • @ Wilty Maddy

          That’s classic projection.

          Thanks Miss.

    • What is it? One world…demographics. As our country becomes more urban….and more ethnic(or brown, or diverse, or whatever you want to call it) our gun rights will diminish.

      I don’t know how much the ethnic/racial aspects of demographics play a role, but a big problem is the increasing urbanization and suburbanization of America. There simply aren’t enough places to go shooting, so of course the “gun culture” is going to die out.

    • The only person your violent and clearly racist delusions of grandeur is going to harm is yourself. Your life will be far worse off for harboring them. If you have the time, financial resources and any of your youth still left seek help in dealing with the self loathing that is clearly eating away at you, before its too late and you begin to seriously contemplate violence toward yourself or others.

      • Too bad it’s actually you regressive DemoKKKrat gun-grabbers that are pushing a racist agenda, and that is what will ultimately dismantle the entirety of your movement — and good riddance to the whole lot of you. Now, kindly stop projecting your ills onto the rest of us sane people, please and thank you. It’s quite enough that it’s you leftists — and no one else — that are flying off the rails and shooting up our sk00ls, movie theaters, and inner cities.

        • I think ole Walter is actually Chelsa Clinton.

      • Walter Mitty, perhaps you should also expend some effort trying to dissuade members of Redneck Revolt, BAMN, Revolutionary Student Front of Austin, etc to abandon there marxist revenge fantasies while they carry their military style rifles in public, shouting “HEY HEY, HO HO…” and attacking imaginary nazis.

    • You articulate the causes of our demographic problems well; yet your conclusion as to the solution is not NECESSARILY correct. Moreover, it’s probably the least practical proposal to implement.

      I need not re-state your analysis as you did an excellent job of this. We aren’t likely to interest many urban dwellers in hunting or marksmanship. Our best opportunity there is to interest them in self-defense. At present, keeping a gun in the home is a marvelously good idea and not difficult to do legally; but, people feel unjustifiably secure against home-invasions. Until we have right-to-carry (at least Shall-Issue) in urban areas we won’t have a salable argument for urban guns.

      If we could achieve 5% – 15% “penetration” of the urban areas of blue States we would calm the anxiety of urban voters. The only way to achieve this is to get right-to-carry imposed on the last 8 – 10 States. The ideal solution is “National-Reciprocity”. An interim step would be to achieve judicial (SCOTUS) imposition of the Wrenn vs DC decision nationally. I.e., compelling these 8 – 10 States to become Shall-Issue on terms as onerous as they might presume to impose. (A few years after Shall-Issue becomes the law-of-the-land we will have enough bi-lateral State reciprocity to bridge us to Congress giving us National Reciprocity).

      Minorities (Blacks, Latinos, immigrants from India) are each distinct sub-cases of the same solution. Reinforce the Black history of gun-control. Reinforce the Latino history of gun-control. Reinforce the history of India of gun-control imposed by the British.

      The Blacks are “getting it”. See: Colian Noir; Black Guns Matter; National African American Gun Association. There is no question that this sub-set is coming up-to-speed; notwithstanding that there is a really long way to go.

      I don’t see comparable developments in the Latino community. If the Black sub-set can do it I see absolutely NO reason why the Latino sub-set couldn’t do so as well. The Latinos don’t have to read history books to understand the message; they can watch the news in Spanish! Bear in mind that a large fraction of the Latino immigrant population – especially the illegals and their children now coming-of-age – were “campesinos” in their home countries. Guns were a NORMAL part of their rural culture. Granted, they didn’t buy .22 rimfire by the brick; ammo was expensive. Yet, they had guns; or, many of their neighbors had guns. And, they can see on the news from their home countries what life is like when the banditos have guns but peaceable people don’t have guns. It’s NOT a HISTORY lesson for them!

      Immigrants from India and many other underdeveloped and developing countries have had an unpleasant experience with gun-control from colonial masters and from communists or other tyrants. Granted, they didn’t come here with a gun-culture in their blood; but they come with a rich understanding of history and knowledge of being on the receiving end of gunfire from tyrants. Immigrants from countries – other than Latinos – are willing to assimilate to American culture. We simply need to make-the-sale that American gun-culture is just as much a part of American culture as is jazz or rap music.

      American gun-culture is very ecumenical; we will have fellowship with any peaceable lawful person who will join with us in respecting the 2A as well as the rest of our Constitutional form of government. We need to make out-reach to each of these minority communities notwithstanding their reticence. It’s working with the Blacks; it should work equally well with Latinos, Indians, Chinese and lots of others.

    • Outstanding post, Jim.

16. We can start by NOT using the word “Assault Rifle” !! This is a term that the anti-2A crowd came up with to confuse the public about a particular style of firearm. Those people that are not familiar with it want to ban it, because it looks like what the Military uses or what they have seen in television or movies. We all know there is a big difference between Semi Auto and Select Fire.

    We have also seen these headlines before “Man arrested with Assault Style Rifle” or Diane Fienstlen tweeted today “With assault weapons on our streets our schools aren’t safe, our police officers aren’t safe, our communities aren’t safe. We must get these weapons of war off the streets NOW!” Even The Truth About Guns uses the word as well.

    These are not “Assault Weapons” they are modular self loading rifles. If we continue to use this term we are only helping the anti-2A with there agenda. Think about when you see Headlines about “Banning Assault Weapons” what is really means or what it should say is they want to ban modern self loading rifles!

    So the next time someone asked you “Do you think we should ban Assault Weapons?” I would answer no I do not think we should ban self loading rifles!! because that is the truth!!!

    • Also mention that the assault weapon term was coined by their hero Adolf Hitler after witnessing a demonstration of a new machine gun, full auto. One trigger pull, many bang bangs.

      • No, you are repeating a fallacy that others are trying to correct–to no avail, it seems, as POTG keep using it.

        The original term was ‘Sturmgewehr.’ It translates to ‘storm(ing) rifle.’ Or, Anglicized, ‘assault rifle.’ THAT is the correct name for a shoulder-fired individual rifle that fires an intermediate-power (between pistol and full-sized infantry rifle) cartridge and is capable of selective fully-automatic fire.

        ‘Assault weapon’ is a coined phrase, created by a California politician, in 1985. The man was Art Agnos of the State Assembly; It was presented in a bill he wrote to ban ‘assault firearms’. In his speech to the Public Safety Committee, he said, “The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people.’

        The term was further used and repeated in 1988 by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”

        ‘Assault rifle’ is a correct descriptor. ‘Assault weapon’ is an artifice of propaganda.

        We may lose battles; We should NOT lose them by falling willfully for the tricks and lies of our opposition.

    • Absolutely! “Assault-“anything doesn’t do us any good. Dwelling on the distinction between “Assault-Rifle” as a “thing” vs. “Assault-Weapon” as a term of New-Speak is probably unwise as well.

      What the Anti’s want us to do is to take-the-bait and run-out-the-line on it. Do we really want to do that? Why? The more we talk about “Assault-“anything the more we stir anxiety in the mind of our listener.

      Do we want to play into the Anti’s divide-and-conquer? If that’s not constructive then why spell-out: “This is a fully-automatic; that is a semi-automatic; here are other types of ‘repeaters’ pump-action, lever-action, bolt-action; and finally, there are the single-shots and double-barrels”. Our listener is likely to think: “Ok, they y’all can get by quite nicely with those single-shots and double-barrels”. Then, we have to say: “No no no! We want to draw the line somewhere else, like between full-autos vs. all others. On second thought, no, we don’t want to draw any line anywhere! We want you to think about guns as all enjoying equal-protection-of-the-2A.” Just how DUMB do we want to be in running-out-the-line?

      Our argument would be much better stated as follows: “All guns are lethal weapons. Just a question of degree. Those of the least lethal degree are plenty lethal enough to kill one person, rob a 7/11, and even to kill a lot of people in a school or mall in the 5 – 15 minutes it takes for the cops to ride in on their white horses. If we want to deal with: suicide; homicide; accidence or mass-shootings then we have to think of other approaches than drawing lines between different types of guns.”

      • When law enforcement has an AR-15, it’s called a “Patrol Rifle”. See how that works?

17. Does any of this sound/look familiar ? Is there a conservative corollary ? What are we waiting for ?

    Alinsky’s 13 Rules for Radicals:

    1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.“ Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

    2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.“ It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

    3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.“ Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.“ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.“ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.“ They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

    7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.

    8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.“ Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

    9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.“ Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

    10.“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

    11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.“ Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

    12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.“ Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

    13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    • You; or perhaps I should say Alinsky, are correct. I think we all should know that but you deserve thanks for reminding us. Now, why aren’t we doing these things?

      Clearly, NRA ought to be in the leadership position in implementing these tactics; albeit I wouldn’t advocate that they give Alinsky intellectual credit. I don’t see NRA doing this; what am I missing?

      I see lots of e-mails from NRA asking for donations and invitations to join the “consumer-good-of-the-month-club”. I don’t see them doing as much along other lines. E.g., as one point of comparison, GOA routinely sends e-mails inviting members to fire-off a pre-written e-mail to one’s Representative or Senators. NRA does so as well, but with much less frequency.

      I don’t see NRA, nor our other organizations, gearing-up to apply the other techniques. E.g., why aren’t we personifying Bloomberg as THE enemy of gun-rights while he surrounds himself with a Pretorian Guard of 15 LEOSA-carrying ex-NYC cops?

      And, where do we apply pressure?

      More than anything else, we all ought to see that we are NOT trying to persuade Bloomberg, the Moms, the Joyce Foundation, et al. to see-the-light. Our real audience is the AUDIENCE, not our debate-opponent.

      Where are the battlefields?

      First, I think that SCOTUS (and the Circuit Courts) is the place where we will eventually win-back our RIGHTS. As badly as our overall system works, it is the judiciary that is most amenable to seeing the law and the facts objectively and doing the right thing. We need 1 or 2 more Trump-appointed SCOTUS justices and the tide will turn. It will help to fill the Circuits with 2A friendly judges. (In contrast, legislators are mere political prostitutes. They are not the least bit interested in the law or facts; they are only interested in winning elections.)

      Second, I think that the US Senate is the place where we can stop gun-control; and, when we STOP gun-control we render the issue moot politically because (by definition) people see that nothing can happen politically. Incidentally, the US Senate is the place to stop bad Federal judges and confirm good Federal judges. We have 40 right-to-carry States. If 1/2 of these States elected both Senators (or all elected both Senators) as 2A-DEFENDERS then we could STOP EVERY BILL that controlled guns. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

      Suppose a typical right-to-carry State is 45%-gun-RIGHTS / 55%-gun-CONTROL. What do we have to do to WIN? Move 6% of the voters from Control –> Rights.

      Suppose a typical Won’t-Issue State is 5%-gun-RIGHTS / 95%-gun-CONTROL. What do we have to do to WIN? Move 46% of the voters from Control –> Rights.

      Can we PotG do the math? It’s much easier for us to get our neighbors to be a little more gun-Rights-concious then it is for our long-lost brothers behind the iron-curtain to flip a rabid gun-hater. Moreover, we only have to tip 6% of our neighbors; our brothers have NO HOPE of timing 46% of their neighbors.

      If winning-isn’t-everything, it’ the ONLY thing, then we had better all start thinking about what it takes to DEFEND-our-Ground and WIN the strategic battle. Our ground-game isn’t as good as that of our opponents; and, God will not be on our side if we can’t figure this out.

18. I would only add: TEAM UP. Traditional enemies are our allies on issues like risk protection orders (ACLU is opposed to these on due process grounds). NAACP official testified in favor of shall-issue in MD recently.

    We need more non-traditional allies, and we need to make allies out of traditional enemies.

    As example: Carry laws were designed after Terry v Ohio to give police a reason to stop people. Stop and frisk is not popular. We need to push this narrative much harder.

    • But they’re not 2A absolutists, and anyone who’s not a 2A absolutist is someone “we” can’t fight along side. 😉

    • I agree with dwb in finding non-traditional “allies”; and, disagree with Stereodude.

      “Non-traditional allies” are not bosom buddies we can count-on through thick-and-thin. Be not deluded. We pick them because they are tactically convenient. FDR didn’t really fall in love with Stalin; he needed Stalin to keep Hitler distracted so FDR could fortify the UK. How did that all work-out? Western Europe survived to help fight the USSR. Without that help for a few decades America might have been on-our-own with a double-defeat in WW-II.

      Getting the non-traditional allies to stand with us helps us keep the Anti’s off-balance. As just one clear example. We know that mental-health is a big issue in the gun issue. Suicides are 2/3’rds of the death-by-gunshot. Mental illness is apparent in nearly all mass shootings. GVPO are tied-up in due-process; and we must insist on due-process in any case of disabling a person of his 2A rights. We need to work with those professionals and advocates for the mentally ill if we expect to keep the laws on mental-health disablement and due-process on a tolerable track in the legislatures.

      Where do we agree with a non-traditional ally? Emphasize these points. Where does our ally NOT agree with our viewpoint? Help them to understand where WE are coming-from. They will listen respectfully because they need our insight and support to get their point across. They won’t ever become an ally. Nevertheless, they can work on mutually-agreed goals and not clash openly on points of difference that are less important than the agreed goals.

19. It boils down to this:

    They’re organized. We’re not. Argue against that statement (as some did when I made it days ago) all you want but it’s true. The proof is in the numbers they muster on demand vs. the ones we do.

    That organization lets them take advantage of things we don’t/can’t like the general level of ignorance present in your average voter (Ask Mr. Winston Churchill about that.)

    Like I said earlier today: You wanna win you gotta sell this like Subaru sells cars.

    • strych9, absolutely right. We will all hang together or we most assuredly will be hanged separately.

      We PotG recognize ourselves as rugged individualists. As such, we can only imagine ourselves as “an army of one”; or, maybe – at best – “a few good friends” provided that these few think very nearly precisely alike.

      What army every won a war with this approach?

      We should expect leadership from the top-down from NRA; but, this isn’t happening. Why it’s not happening, I’m not sure. Clearly, one component is that the NRA needs to keep its cards close to the vest and can’t publish strategy papers to all the enlisted men in the trenches. Another component is that the NRA – like EVERY institution EVER – is primarily interested in perpetuating itself and secondly interested in whatever is articulated in its charter.

      So, it is up to us, those in the trenches, to figure out as best we can what we should be doing together.

      In so doing, we will have to overcome the same problem that the NRA has; how to broadcast our strategy to the infantry without simultaneously telling the enemy?

      In this respect, the first thing to do is to figure out collectively and publicly what NOT to do! If some of us can see that others are shooting-the-2A-in-the-foot, we have to speak-up!

      To illustrate, suppose my war cry is: “Free the Lemon-Squeezer from the NFA-AOW class!!!” I would hope that the majority of my fellow PotG could figure out that that’s not a productive thing to be invested in. Indeed, it’s probably a distraction from whatever it is that SHOULD be the best strategy. I would hope that these that can figure this out would speak-up.

      Each of us should be asking ourselves whether we SHOULD be concentrating on WHATEVER it is that is OUR OWN PERSONAL HOBBY-HORSE. If there is ANY POSSIBILITY that it’s NOT on the top 10 items we should be working on, then we ought to debate openly whether it’s strategic, tactical or COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE!

      A good example of this is the Hughs Amendment or the NFA regulation of machine-guns. All the arguments for why these are worthy candidates for “strategic” are obvious and I need not belabor them. It should be equally obvious that keeping such items on the top-10 list is dubious because of tactical considerations and even a counter-productive argument.

      I share with you, strych9, the view that we aren’t going to win the war of the defense of the 2A by failing to work together on strategic and tactical goals.

    • And if people keep referring to others as Fudds you’ll never be organized.

      • Or you know, FUDDS can keep their mouths shut about black rifles and 30 round magazines. I tell them all the time, who the hell needs a shotgun? The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s about having the ability to shoot people who deserve it, in the face. I’d gladly make a legislative trade and let them ban shotguns, and FUDDS, instead of ARs.

20. I don’t see us losing in the long run. With shall-issue carry nearly the law of the entire country we now have connections with men and women who never owned guns before and have moved ownership from only hunting and recreational shooting to self-protection. With all of the idiotic response from law enforcement agencies and in this case, evern LE on the scene, I don’t think the argument that “the government will protect you” and “wait until the cops arrive” gained anything- it lost in a huge way and will continue to as the video is finally released and played. And there is where we should be making our discussion and not backing down. ALL of the “protections” in place, from specific tips warning of the shooter to many LE organizations which failed to get anyone to act; to NICS failure; to the failure of police protection and school resource officers on scene; to the failure of the school admin to press the issue that led up to the event, plus the ridiculous policy to not allow a renegade to earn a police record put in place by a racist national administration; to the failure of gun-free zones and large numbers of people with no ability to respond to a valid threat all demonstrate that the same thing is going to happen again and again until major changes inside the gun-free zones are made. I don’t believe the average person who’s kid didn’t go to Parkland believes that any of the changes Florida are attempting to make will mean a damn thing. I see the age requirement being overturned fairly soon, and I believe we’re at the tipping point of parents allowing their kids to be placed in a killing zone. That’s what it will take from all of us- refusing to become a victim or a stat. And BTW, all you gomers out there with your carry permits who rarely/never carry, nor practice with your carry piece. Get real. Spend some time, get training if you need it, learn to pack, clear your piece from holster and get some rounds off smoothly and quickly. You don’t have to be Wyatt Earp or Jeff Cooper but you’re absolutely no good with a card in your wallet and a handgun on your dresser. Seriously.

    • Shall Issue is not the right to keep and bear arms. It is a government permission slip; a government privilege. It may help individuals in the short term but it might also kill off the exercise of the right in the long term.

      • I brought up RTC only in the sense that it has added thousands of people who ordinarily are not gun people to our ranks. I think you can read it and understand but you’ll have to let your mind clear a bit and do some critical thinking. Easy to get on the net in an anonymous manner and complain the sky’e falling. It isn’t, and we’ll win this war in spite of some of the “supporters”…

        • I did think about it before replying and I stand by my response. This ain’t my first rodeo, cowboy.

          How about you doing some critical thinking, eh?
          “It may help individuals in the short term but it might also kill off the exercise of the right in the long term.”

    • Craig, you are correct, I believe. The 2A is “ours to lose”. We WILL LOSE it only if we REALLY SCREW the POOCH. And, like every other great general or great army, that bad outcome is only a few mistakes away.

      Right-to-Carry is a key strategy inasmuch as hunting and marksmanship aren’t going to sustain the gun-culture. Self-defense is going to do the trick. We already see the contribution of video games in sustaining an interest in guns. We are only a few years away to when SIMULATIONS of self-defense scenarios are going to complement video games.

      Young people will see a “live action game” where you test your skills at gun-fighting against zombies, criminals or terrorists as the new in-thing with a practical purpose.

      HOW do we GET right-to-carry in urban States?

      Altogether too many of us will settle for NOTHING short of Vermont-Carry. Only VT – that bastion of socialism – doesn’t pretend to have the authority to issue a carry-“permit”. (Ironic, isn’t it!) So, this element among us insists: Until we get VERMONT-CARRY NATION-WIDE I’m going to HOLD-MY-BREATH until my State turns BLUE!! I’ll accuse any gun-owner who advocates for Won’t-Issue States to transition to Shall-Issue to be a TRATOR and ENEMY-of-the-PEOPLE!!!

      The OTHER 11 mere “Constitutional-Carry” States are the WORST of ALL! They speak of the Constitution but they STILL issue carry “permits”. EVIL, EVIL I TELL YOU!!!!

      Get real. The States that are now Constitutional-Carry got there by first being Shall-Issue. Some May-Issue States went to Shall-Issue. No State, apart from Vermont itself, went Vermont-Carry, refusing to pretend to issue carry “permits”. The perfect is the enemy of the good-enough.

      Several more Shall-Issue States will gradually move to Constitutional-Carry; albeit this process will take a long time. We don’t ESPECIALLY need to accelerate this process. What we DO need is to get SOME right-to-carry in the Won’t-Issue States. And, that possibility is within our grasp.

      SCOTUS is likely – once another Justice or two is appointed – to take up right-to-carry on appeal. SCOTUS is likely to read Wrenn vs. DC and subscribe to the DC Circuit’s reasoning; i.e., that the “average” American DOES HAVE a RIGHT-to-carry. The States can issue “permits” or “licenses” or whatever they want to call these documents.

      SCOTUS is APT to opine that the States’ “police power” to impose prerequisites on issuing permits is “not unlimited”. They may impose “reasonable” fees to defray expense, reasonable training and testing to promote public safety. Thereupon, 8 – 10 States’ Won’t-Issue schemes will immediately fall.

      Some such States will follow relatively “liberal” standards of Shall-Issue States; others will try to follow the most onerous such as those of IL or DC; but, the appetite to impose onerous prerequisites will be tempered. Brinks won’t want to pay $10,000 for each driver. Judges won’t want to qualify to Air-Marshal standards.

      The public in these 8 – 10 States will start to get used to the fact that 1/10-of-1% of their fellows are carrying; then 1% and then 10% and then 15%. At this juncture, carry will be much less of an issue politically. Some will drop their prerequisites to a NICS-check and $20 (as is the case in PA). Thereafter, the right-to-carry movement will be mop-up.

      Our attention is now focused on the remote possibility that the Senate will work-out some compromise such as National-Reciprocity + FixNICS. (Some wish for just N-R without FixNICS; some wish for a Congressional Constitutional-Carry bill; etc.) We might get a N-R bill with some compromise attachments someday in the distant future; but, this seems still far-off.

      A better bet would be to get a Shall-Issue decision out of SCOTUS. Would that be a defeat? On what rationale?

      • WTH are you doing on this site? Way too reasonable. 🙂 I agree…

        Kids- it took 60-some years of rights eroding to get to the place we were when Heller kicked in, and that’s not been as large a panacea as we’d hoped, If you think there’ll be an overnight restoration, and then only with a bunch of bitching by many who probably never sent in $30 for an NRA membership to fix this, you are sorely mistaken or in the least, delusional. We can do this the right way, using the same system our opponents used. That’s America.

21. Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. The Whitehouse.gov petition web site has a lot of pro-2nd Amendment petitions that need people to view and sign if possible. Look at these and decide which to sign. There are too many to link here.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

22. “makes one of our beloved organizations sound pretty ominous to the naive and ignorant…”

    It doesn’t help when the organization itself makes videos that look like someone is trying to make them out to be the bad guys. Lose the dark lighting, shadowy sets, and spokespeople who look like they’re constantly alternating between extreme fear and anger. Most gun owners I know are good, well-adjusted people and they are not represented well in NRA media.

    As to the “acktually” stuff- I’m not going to stop correcting people when they have no fucking clue what they’re talking about and want to make laws about it. Especially when it involves politicians. The more idiots reveal themselves as the “shoulder thing that goes up” rep did, the better. It doesn’t hurt, at least.

23. Trying to convince someone who knows nothing about guns that the AR you have that is outfitted exactly to a T as the M4 they saw Marines take Fallujah with, is dumb. Not only that, but it insults their intelligence. You talk down to people, and it pisses them off, and they shut down. It’s a rifle. We need to stop nitpicking the details, and start pushing the original founding principles again. This rifle, and ones like it, are here for the preservation of the Republic, a safeguard against democide. The same rifles our government, police, would use against us, needs to be in our hands as well.

    Those who are indifferent, (people aren’t fence sitters. They either care one way or the other, or they don’t care at all) need to be shown the benefits of such things, and the fun and joy, and they’ll come to the side of freedom. The game plan is fine, it’s the message that sucks.

    If you want to affect real change, long term, get into the damn schools. You need groups promoting positive imagery of guns, original reasons for ownership, and the multitude of reasons to keep them.

    Use their language against them. “Trump wants to deport you all! Wouldn’t it be good to have a rifle to defend yourself from them if they come to take you?” It only takes one reason for someone to decide to arm up. The message needs to be reflected on what that reason is to the millions who are unarmed.

    • Trying to convince someone who knows nothing about guns that the AR you have that is outfitted exactly to a T as the M4 they saw Marines take Fallujah with, is dumb. Not only that, but it insults their intelligence. You talk down to people, and it pisses them off, and they shut down.

      + 100

      As somebody on another forum put it:

      “I note that in the current debate the choir fights about its an assualt rifle vs. its an assault rifle have disappeared. Folks tried to mock antigun folks for using the wrong term. The assault boom-boom is really the German WWII DahDunkergreehwererboomemsticken – blah, blah. So my AR is ‘nice’ as it is semi auto. No common sense in understanding appearance. Oh, dear, you said it had a 30 round clip – you are an antigun idiot!! The progun organizations really lacked the intellectual depth (harsh to say) to understand the debate. … IMHO – the NRA wasn’t and isn’t up to the strategic challenge of protecting the basis for gun ownerships beyond spouting cliches that get them money from the limited gun constituency.“

      • There is a distinct difference between ‘mocking’ and simply correcting, with emphasis, a serious and misleading error.

        Our adversaries do not fear mocking US; They freely use intentionally incorrect and inflammatory terms to describe otherwise relatively innocuous firearms because they depend upon their listeners’ ignorance and willingness to be misled. If we allow them this weapon unchallenged, then we acquiesce to their propagandistic superiority.

        An example, and a simple one: “AR-15s are Weapons of War/Machine Guns/TheWeaponofChoiceforMassMurdersSinceForever/New Technology Never-Before-Seen-in-Human-History/Designed for Killing Huge Numbers of Babies and Minorities.”

        Let those obvious propagandistic fallacies stand unchallenged, no matter how we ‘feel’ about the sensibilities of others that need to know, and we have NO hope of convincing the uninformed that they have been consistently lied to, and intentionally lied to at that.

        Facts matter. SOME people out there, many on the fence as it were, WILL be swayed by the truth if they can only hear it. The others are already lost.

        • There is a distinct difference between ‘mocking’ and simply correcting, with emphasis, a serious and misleading error. Our adversaries do not fear mocking US

          “We” have no fear of mocking “them”. It’s just that “we” suck at it.

    • Your comment inspires a reply that might be useful for the “Assault Weapons” issue.

      You know, in 1775, it was pretty clear that the “rifle” was really suitable for hunting only; it took too long to reload. Anyway, who would want to shoot any particular enemy soldier when you would be happy for your ball to land on any of the line arrayed against you.

      It was the smoothbore “musket” that was the military weapon worthy of that purpose!

      As the British were making their way back from Concord to Boston Americans first realized that their classification scheme needed to be reevaluated. A rifle – fired from behind a tree from a great distance – could hit an officer who conveniently perched himself on top of a horse. A musket had to be fired from behind a stone wall close to the road; otherwise, you wouldn’t be likely to hit any soldier marching in ranks and files.

      Now, smooth-bore guns are considered as primarily fowling-guns with only rare military applications. We shouldn’t be so wedded to doctrinaire classification of weapon types.

      • Truth

24. If we accept that we have a duty to and responsibility for our children, ourselves and our nation, then failure is not an option. Our politicians have been roughly doubling our national debt every 8 years since the Clintons defiled the White House. Obama did his best to get us to the 20 trillion dollar mark and Trump is no different. I worry over the assertions that we can never pay it off. In two, three or four generations will our descendants find their status as debt slaves amusing? How willing will they be to dedicate their lives to working to repay money that was borrowed and wasted 50 or 100 years before they were born? I fear we have all grown a little too soft, a little too spoiled and selfish. We have failed to safeguard or children’s future in many ways. We must not fail to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. If those who come after us find the courage we lack, to take back their freedom and their liberty, they will need this core right intact.

    • Not to worry; the excrement will hit the fan sooner than that.

      Interest on the national debt is a big line-item in the budget; even at Treasury rates < 3%. Now, can interest rates remain low forever? Or, will the rate that the Treasury have to pay double to 6% in the foreseeable future?

      Those of us with grey hair remember the days of double-digit interest rates during the Carter administration. (Remember the good-o'l-days?) What would happen to the Federal budget of the Treasury had to pay 6% or 9%?

      Raise taxes? That will cut tax revenue under the Laffer doctrine. Cut military? Cut Social Security? Unemployment? Welfare? The Federal payroll? It's very unlikely that there will be any viable option for Congress.

25. Florida hasn’t been a “Southern” state in several decades. It is a mix between a South American hellhole and a Yankee cesspit with a group of real Americans up in the Panhandle. Florida shows what happens when you allow immigration from hellhole cultures.

26. I agree that the antis have shifted tactics. We have been caught flat footed this time.

    We clearly need to adjust.

    But I think we also have to realize that we are going to be playing a losing hand if we ignore the leverage point: mass shootings.

    I think any approach is going to have to rely on two things (among other elements):

    1. Policies that frustrate these shooters and minimize their effectiveness. By this I mean even support things that physically harden schools against attack. This is possible;

    2. Shifting blame to the media. We have to get across the idea that their 24 hour news cycle coverage of mass shootings is one of the main drivers of them in terms of motivating factors for the shooters. Put the 1st amendment on the run the same way the media has the 2nd. Take the fight to them. The media is the vehicle for this leverage point. We have to put them on the defensive.

    2. is pretty low hanging fruit since the public increasingly hates the media.

    And how do you make 2. happen? Blame the media. Every single chance you get (social media, conversations with folks you know, etc.). And you have to start planting this seed BEFORE the next shooting.

    • Absolutely!

      Moreover, we can be entirely objective about this. Are we talking about a “crisis”? Which one? Oh, yes, it’s guns. OK, then: suicides; individual homicides; accidents; or, “mass” shootings? Which is it? Well, obviously, it’s “mass” shootings! That’s where the NUMBERS are-NOT?????

      Oh, well, that’s still what captures our attention; just like a plane crash or a train crash. OK, so, it’s “mass” shootings. Does anyone understand “copy-cat”?

      What can the MSM do to promote the “copy-cat” effect?

      First, more than anything else, make sure that the MSM promotes publishing the “high-water-mark” like the Guinness Book of Records. Every terrorist and lunatic must understand just EXACTLY what the record-to-be-beat is. Is it 58; well then you have to “shoot for” at least 60.

      Second, make sure that a flattering photograph of the perp appears on the front page above the fold, with the name spelled correctly.

      All the gory tactical details; what worked, what didn’t work. Just exactly how many minutes each perp had to shoot before the cops could arrive.

      Remember, the 1A freedom of the press is sacrosanct. We don’t publish the names of rape victims or the gory details but that’s just because of a sense of decency on the part of publishers. NONE of that decency – or impact on public safety – can be considered when the 2A is the target.

27. Let’s all calm down a bit. What are we afraid of exactly? Confiscation? The complete end of the 2nd Amendment? Or is it another assault weapons ban? First we must define our fear. Only then can we conjure up a response to said fear. We talk about erosion of our rights, but what is our exact threat right now?

    I have already decided I will not tolerate confiscation. I’m willing to give up my life. I’ve made peace with that, because if it comes to that this country is truly gone and there is no point to living anymore. I don’t see that happening on a mass scale. What I see as a realistic threat is another assault weapons ban and only at the state level for now. These things move slowly. I live in WA. We are under siege BIG TIME. And yet after this legislative session the only thing the left was able to pass was a bump stocks ban. Considering all the shit thrown at us I’m quite pleased. Now, next year is going to be hell again make no mistake and we have a November initiative to no doubt deal with, but if things get really bad I can move to Idaho. I will continue to buy my time and fight until I die. I can foresee that one day this country is over, but it will still take at least 50 more years.

    • Mark, (first, I’d like to say that your handle is a noble name), you are asking a valuable question.

      The Anti’s strategy is that of the anaconda. I.e., strangle the gun-culture step by painfully-slow-step. It took the UK 100 years; but they’ve done it and it doesn’t look reversible.

      If we think this (anaconda) is the correct guess then we have to think about our tactics.

      I suggest that we take “confiscation” head-on. We tell our fellow voters that the Anti’s want to make the US like Japan or Singapore. (We might think of making the US more like Switzerland or Israel, but that isn’t any more realistic culturally.) How will the Anti’s get America from where we are to where they’d like us to be?

      Well, Singapore does it by having very strict laws. One unregistered gun is a crime; 2 crates a presumption of “trafficking”. Trafficking in guns (or drugs) is a hanging offense. Shall we look forward to an America where we hang young minority felons-in-posession or old-fat-white-taxpaying-guys? Sure would cut the recidivism rate; but, I thought we are a nation that questions both the death-penalty and the deterrent effect of harsh sentencing.

      How will we cut down on: 20,000 suicides; 10,000 individual homicides; 500 accidents and 100 or so “mass” shootings? How much are we willing to spend on paperwork, hoops-to-jump-through, and prisons to deal with 100 million gun-owners who don’t shoot anybody?

      Ahh, yes, 20,000 more laws that won’t be enforced! That’s got to be IT.

      Start with “BLACK Rifles”? How did the last one work-out? Oh, yes, bayonet mounts and shoulder-things-that-go-up. How much did that help? Just what’s the difference between a Mini-14 and an AR-15? Shall we do that all-over-again?

      I agree, confiscation isn’t next on the list; nor is it the 2’nd or 3’rd step. But, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attack it head-on. We should. Tell our fellow voters that the Antis want to get rid of just about all the guns because they know very well that if there are ANY guns at all there will still be: suicides; individual homicides; and, all the parts (cartridges, powder, primers, bullets, barrels, triggers, stocks and shoulder-things-that-go-up to represent a challenge to the HOLY-STATE. And, that – the threat to the state – that they can’t abide.)

      Do you fellow voters think the Anti’s will get to their goal? If you have doubts, do you want to try to help them?

      Remember, there are a lot of old-fat-white-guys clinging to their guns and Bibles who don’t have many more years to live. Some of them might prefer to go out with-a-bang and make a contribution to the lives they believe in.

28. Here is the big problem. The left is able to control the conversation by means of media, etc. If you control the topic of the debate you will win the debate.

    • Do Not engage the topic under their terms. If we want to win we must reframe their arguments and turn the conversation back on them.

29. Two months ago in January 2018 two children were murdered and 14 others were wounded in a Marshal county Kentucky school shooting. The shooter was a student at the school. He calls himself an atheist. He will be tried as an adult. The Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, has called for arming teachers. The details will be worked out. He does not think we need gun control in Kentucky.

    The difference between Kentucky and Florida is like night and day in their response to both school shootings. Gun culture is very strong in Kentucky. But the open and proud homosexual white man Lexington mayor Jim Gray wants “universal background checks.”
    I believe he wants to take everyone’s guns away. But he wants to keep the guns his father gave him.

    https://www.advocate.com/election/2016/6/16/gay-senate-candidate-campaigning-no-fly-no-buy

    “While Gray doesn’t support banning assault rifles, like the one used in the Orlando shooting, he does favor universal background checks like the ones proposed in the Manchin-Toomey bill defeated in Congress back in 2013 after the Newtown, Conn., shooting”.

    “Gray is a gun owner himself. He has a .22-caliber, which is “a little bit of practice gun,” and a 20-gauge shotgun. They were both his father’s guns. Gray comes from “a family of responsible gun ownership and hunting,” though he doesn’t spend time shooting at gun ranges these days.”

    Kentucky democrats have very little hope in changing gun control laws. The Kentucky gun owners association is very strong here. The twice a year Machine Gun Shoot attracts 20K to 30K per event. Kentucky still has rifle teams in some of its high schools. This IS GUN COUNTRY.

    http://wfpl.org/democrats-have-little-hope-to-lift-ban-on-local-gun-control/

30. the best strategy is the most unexpected one;
    total surprise is the key to successful warfare;
    its basic Sun Tzu;
    what’s needed is to get several, large states totally ‘on board’ with no-compromise Second Amendment rights and, if any sort of national legislation looks imminent or, even, if too many states go the “gun grab”, then, threaten to secede …. and…..make that threat credible;
    avoid that which is strong; attack that which is weak

31. Too many FUDDS. They can bar AR-15s, but not my double barrel shotgun. 2A is for duck hunting.

32. Don’t feed the trolls. These people are likely paid to antagonize you in the comment section.
    Either way, I never understood the concept of arguing with anonymous posts online. Has it ever resulted in changing anyone’s stance?

33. With all the turds from the shit hole north fla. was lost long ago.

34. I think the reason 2A supporters don’t go to rallies is because we are the ones with something to lose, and we don’t want to put our faces out there for the news media to vilify. A screaming liberal has nothing to lose so they don’t mind showing up. Someone with 20 guns might not want to stand in the street and in front of the cameras and become the face that their war hates. Just a thought.

    • That, and we are busy working. Unless it’s an organized march on a capital, most gun owners aren’t going to a run of the mill protest to engage mask wearing Antifa terrorists. When they finally force us to defend ourselves from the “war of leftist aggression”, they won’t even see us when we “engage”. It will be either from longer distances or at night.

    • ^^^ THIS

35. The Atlantic article where a doctor talked about how devastating the Parkland wounds were when compared to pistol round wounds has caused some folks in Florida to ask more questions. I recently was asked by my Mother-in-law about the article and I provided my insights, buy talking about rifle vs. pistol properties and some other inputs relative to ‘gun control’ , the need to focus on the mentally ill and civil rights. She shared this with some of her friends. Not sure I’ve changed minds, but so far four of her friends have responded favorably. Our talking points do NO GOOD when we are talking to the choir. Take an ‘gun control’ friend to the range. put a .22LR in their hands and encourage safety and marksmanship. Do not talk about killing and PLEASE don’t go macho and ask them to shoot a magnum pocket pistol your so fond of. Goal is to have then experience what 99.99 plus percent of firearms owners do with their firearms. Need to take the scare factor out and replace it with respect for the firearm and what it does. My talking points:
    1 – The 2nd amendment is there as a check on the standing army and the Government. Without you have no real protection of the freedoms of the constitution and the bill of rights.
    2 – While mass shootings are horrible and we need to harden our schools to make it harder for a nut case to attack. Gun Control does not protect our children or people in churches or the weak among us.
    3 – Not every gun owner is looking to shoot someone! Most of us enjoy the history, sports, hunting and the mechanics.
    4 – The difference between an “military style firearm” or “assault style firearm” is just cosmetic. A semi-automatic is just that. Even level action or pump action rifles can be fired very quickly. When a mass of victims has no real weapons, then they are easy pray for a mass killer.
    5 – Mass killers are not well trained. A defender needs sufficient training to not hit innocent by-standards, but they don’t need to be ‘professional’ to stop a mass killer and save lives.
    6 – More people have been saved by the use of a firearm then have been killed by them. See the FBI stats.
    7 – Recent number going around is that 1300 kids are killed each year by firearms. How many of these are gang related? How many are carelessness by firearms owners? How many of these “kids” are over 18?
    We need not be emotional to counter the gun control trash, we need to talk facts. The gun control folks are finally admitting they want to have a gun free utopia, Ask who protects the weak from the strong and how? Do we arm police in this utopia and if so, who has rights? Winning over those who are honest with themselves one at a time.

    • Pistol rounds poke holes in people. Rifle rounds poke holes through people. Shotgun rounds remove chunks of people.

    • It sounds nice and looks good on paper but it is like bailing out the Titanic with a teacup. We are taking on more water than we can possibly remove in time.

      It’s not like people have not been doing exactly what you have outlined for generations. Our “hearts and minds” pipeline simply cannot compete with the statist machine. Don’t forget, governments’ naturally tend towards more power. This adds to the flow rate against us. The net result over generations is that we have gotten government privileges in the place of the exercise of rights to the point that some (many?) POTG don’t even support the actual exercise of the right. They clamor for government oversight.

      The real exercise of unalienable individual rights rarely is fully restored incrementally. Normalization and government growth over generations drive that reality. In the long game, the individual ends up with ever decreasing government privileges while liberty slowly circles the drain. We have “shall not be infringed” because of this fact.

      Each generation has an opportunity to stand for their liberty. When it does not, the noose tightens for the next and the task is that much more difficult. Just imagine if the people stood with “shall not be infringed” in 1934! We certainly wouldn’t be this far down the slope. Just like that generation, we have a choice. If we try to wriggle our way out, we may secure government privileges for a time but will ultimately make it more difficult, if not impossible, for generations after us to truly exercise unalienable individual rights.

      • Totally agree.
        The “This is not the hill we want to die on.” policy got us all those infringements we have on books. Slowly, but surely the ratchet tightens the screws and squeezes our liberties out. With each widely medialized crime, from the Valentine’s day massacre to the last school shooting, gun grabbers are ready to push hard, to tighten it another click.

        It is hard to fight the propaganda machine of media, educators and lefty politicians. Even harder with turncoat allies in Republican party.

        • It is the same human nature today as it was in the time of the American Revolution.

          Some are unwillingly ignorant. Some are genuinely stupid. Some are willingly ignorant. Some are cowards.

          There is nothing new under the Sun.

          But what do I know?

36. Once your 2A is gone every one of your rights will be as well. Your 2A is second for a reason, but thats ok us poor old uneducated white men will laugh as you liberals are enslaved looking to be saved. BTW.. most vets are educated with a min. 4 yr degree and looking at todays college kids I will not be sending my kids to college to be indoctrinated. Todays college preps you for welfare not a job or career.

37. Most of what Dan said is right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Beware….it is effective.

    • It’s effective only towards increasing statism. It will not work in the direction of individualism over the long term.

38. Guys, we each have our own reasons for liking or disliking guns.
    but when you start responding with insults and profanity, you essentially concede in the argument, and prove you have no real answer to the arguments provided.

    I am 23 years old
    I am a gun owner
    I open and conceal carry
    I shoot for sport
    I would readily fight an oppressive government
    I loathe the thought of a modern civil war

    what is my point?
    we can completely disagree, and still have a civil intelligent conversation
    Please leave the insults and profanity out of this and act like intelligent men if you wish to be deemed as such.

    when you lash out like this you give greater validity to the argument for the instability of gun owners.

    don’t allow a demographic to define you

    • Then again, sometimes real men must call bullshit when they see it. Too many POTG are begging government permission and trying to whisper their way to freedom. It doesn’t work like that. At this hour, advice like that is deadly to liberty. Keep your doilies and duvets for more civil times. Now it’s time to get hands dirty; to sweat some and then sweat some more. We are under heavy fire and some of you want to have tea and scones. I guess some things really haven’t changed since the beginning of this nation.

      • Looks like you’d welcome another “Kent State”-type event since you’re in OH… Only this time it’ll be a tank running over your hovel. Kevin makes a lot of sense and a large number of peeps around here ought to learn that civility makes our argument all the more strong. There isn’t the groundswell of support for gun control in this country that the democrats and MSM wants to portray. Some of you really need to get out more… Thank God our founders had more brains and patience than many do today.

        • You’re getting a little emotional, I see. How’s that critical thinking going? BTW: I read the first sentence and no further. Readers engaged in critical thinking will see your reply for what it is. 🙂

        • John, when was the last time you got off the internet and met with your elected officials? Or sent in some real money to NRA ILA. Or worked with/for a candidate?

          I thought so…

          Too much bitching around here and not enough action. The push for armed confrontation is ridiculous. Put your “real sweat” into words and convince the 50% or more unconvinced folks out there that more firearms regs and laws won’t affect these issues. The general public agrees with us and in light of the failures or government in the Parkland and most other mass shootings, they’d love to have someone credible tell them so. People making threats against them, when they’d really help us is not going to do anything except cause people who would back us run for cover. Big, rough tough gun toter vs informed, intelligent sounding one with the general public? No contest in the long run.

        • You know nothing about me, Tory.

          “Big, rough tough gun toter”
          There’s that tell-tale anti-gunner language. ROTFLMAO

        • I think I’m getting to know you pretty darn well, unless what you write isn’t eally how you “feel”… I’ve been at the forefront of this battle since 1971 and am still well-engaged. I just choose to use brains and the same system that the antis used to try to do away with us to retake things we lost, or in the late 60s actually gave away. Honestly, if you don’t think we’ve regained a fair amount of ground since GCA ’68, I guess it must really be tough in OH. Me? I have literally any kind of firearm I want up to .50 BMG, handguns, rifles, shotguns, reloading something like 30 different metallic cartridges and 4 shotgun gauges, can have suppressors (but choose not to), no class III at the moment, but also can legally pack heat in some 40 states. Couldn’t do that 6 years ago. Sure, there’s a way to go in the “shall not be infringed” area but I still see us winning, especially if we don’t go around poisoning the well that everyone must drink from.

        • tl;dr

          I didn’t bring up your background; didn’t ask, don’t care. I guess when you aren’t blowing government, you like writing about yourself. Cool story, bro!

      • @John in Ohio
        I understand the need for action,
        I believe the the federal government is to mediate issues between the states, but have no authority when it comes to the interworking of the states.
        we should call out tyranny wherever we see it, but we don’t need to do so with John Brown style tactics which would alienate much of the public unnecessarily.

        genocide has to often followed disarmament, this should sober all of us to the point of action.

        with that said, I don’t want to be the crazy hillbilly/redneck who hates all forms government.
        I want to be the responsible hardworking citizen that tells the tyrants that they can go no farther, that my faith family and freedom will be defended without compromise.

        I don’t wish to be critical, but there is no reason to allow your foe to get the better of you, emotionally charged decisions are far inferior to critical and strategic thinking, and execution of sound strategy.
        know yourself
        know your enemy

        • @Craig in IA
          well said Craig,

        • I’ve been at this far too long to get emotional. I cannot help what people project on to my writings. That is from within them. I know myself but I also know my enemy very well. That enemy is much more dangerous than many writing here seem to realize. I have no patience for Tories, judenrat, slaves, or tyrants; nor do I need to.

          Get on your feet or stay on your knees. The choice is yours. Whichever you pick, it is no concern of mine.

39. Very well said but we all need to stick together and fight for the 2nd or this country will take a turn like Nazi Germany and Russia did when Hitler and Stalin was running every thing

    • 👍🏻

40. @John in Ohio
    you are talking about us projecting our thoughts on your words, and in the same breath calling us Tories, by which I would not be surprised if you meant traitors.
    I only sought to convey what I think is the best way to deal with the debate, while you on the other hand are bashing everyone in sight.

    this site is to talk about the issues not throw racial, ethnic, political, or cultural slurs, its sad that that’s what you have resorted to.

    the public schools are turning out students who quite literally don not know right from wrong, these kids need to be given real educations, but we must realize that they have been deceive through government indoctrination their entire lives, and if you alienate the youth, the future is lost, I certainly hope you want to give the next generation a better world than the one you were given.

    I’m going to leave this conversation because I don’t think you want to discuss this, you want everyone to fall in line with what you are saying, because you obviously have things all figured out.

    I’m sorry you stooped to the form of argumentation you chose.
    but again, using slurs and the like will only gain you the contempt of others

    • Amazingly, I didn’t read your comment either. Go ahead, skippy… get that last word in there.

41. “…..when they’d really help us is not going to do anything except cause people who would back us run for cover.”

    If you’re referring to the left, then you’re wasting your time. No leftist or democrats have any desire or any interest in helping any Second Amendment supporters. The left and democrats are not going to back us, no matter how reasoned, factual, or logical our arguments are, and no matter who, and how reasoned, factual, and logical the person making those arguments are.
    Armed conflict is obviously the worst case scenario, but I think best we can hope for is that both sides, the anti-gunners on the left, and the Second Amendment supporters on the right, each just keep behind their own lines, (the balkanization that’s already starting to happen in much of the country) but if you’re expecting to be able to work with, much less convince those anti-gunners on the left, you’re wasting your time and energy.

42. “Trump is obviously a narcissist with no real value structure.”

    If by that you mean that Trump is not an ideologue, then you are correct. However, since he has been in office, he has, by and large, governed very much so to the right. I don’t care if he is a narcissist, so long as he continues to govern to the right.

    “as public opinion swings against the 2nd amendment Trump will be more than happy to change his opinion if he thinks it will make people like him.”

    I think you’ve been watching too much CNN and MSNBC, outside the media, and the leftist elites and their sheep minions, there is no real public opinion swing against the Second Amendment. Leftist elites and their voters have always been anti-gun and will continue to be, and the right and their voters have always been pro-Second Amendment and will continue to be. Despite what the left wing media would have you believe, there is no mass defection of pro-Second Amendment supporters to the gun control camp.

    ” It would be better to find a traditional conservative with actual values to run against him in the primaries in 2020.”

    And who would that be? Who else would be able to not only survive but thrive against the heavy artillery the left is throwing against Trump? Any candidate, no who they are or how reasoned, factual, and logical they may be will face the exact same media onslaught that has been thrown at Trump.
    Anyone else would have long ago collapsed under what has been thrown at Trump over the last year and a half.

43. @Tony, since the reply button isn’t working yet.

    “…..when they’d really help us is not going to do anything except cause people who would back us run for cover.” Not sure who wrote this, but I’m betting he/she wasn’t referring to democrats or the left, or even Republicans or the”right”. What is amazing to me is the fact that there is a huge percentage of Americans who subscribe to neither party or political angle who do own and use guns but the extremes on both sides turn them off and they want nothing to do with them. In national elections there has always been a huge outpouring of support for the 2nd Amendment when it is a ballot issue. Some of the rhetoric around this site is worse than inflamitory to that large group of voters who will ordinarily side with the Constitution. It almost seems like some around here would love an actual armed confrontation, I suppose, so long as it took place in someone else’s town/state. Use the Constitution and what it provides to take back things we’ve lost, we have the majority of the country on our side then. No, not the MSM or those that scream the loudest, but sanity will win out if we don’t turn the real masses against us.

44. Amen

45. @Tony, since the reply button isn’t working yet.

    “…..when they’d really help us is not going to do anything except cause people who would back us run for cover.”

    Not sure who wrote this, but I’m betting he/she wasn’t referring to democrats, or the left, or even Republicans or the”right”.

    What is amazing to me is the fact that many around this site don’t realize that there is a huge percentage of Americans who subscribe to neither party nor political angle who do own and use guns but the extremes on both sides turn them off and they want nothing to do with them or us. These are the people we need to be concerned about turning off and the ones we can place on our side of the fence if the all-or-nothing bunch among us would moderate their tone (not their principles) when speaking or opining in public.

    In national elections there has always been a huge outpouring of support for the 2nd Amendment when it’s been a ballot issue. Even a majority of people who don’t already own guns will generally support us if we give them a reason and stop acting like a bunch of crazies that probably shouldn’t (in their minds) have guns… Some of the rhetoric around this site is worse than incendiary to that large population of voters who will ordinarily side with the Constitution. At times it almost appears that some around here would love an actual armed confrontation, I suppose, so long as it took place in someone else’s town/state. Why poison those who would willingly support the Constitution?

    We should actively seek to use what the Constitution provides to take back things we’ve lost, and in an intelligent and civilized manner, which will bring the majority of Americans to our side. No, not the MSM or those that scream the loudest- we’ll never have them, but who would want them anyway? Sanity will win out if we don’t turn the real masses against us.

    As I stated at the beginning, the majority of Americans just want to live their lives and don’t care for either party- hence the election of Trump, who at least acts like he can understand where they are coming from. Personally, I believe he’s not acting, I believe he really cares about Americans.

Comments are closed.