doublegunshop.com - home Forums Back Ground Checks on private gun sales

Quote from King Brown: "There is no advantage to submission. I've said the struggle against gun control should be better focussed, smarter. It didn't identify quickly that the ostensibly benign checks were registration by another name. It looked in other directions"

Another quote from King Brown: "Nothing in my posts mentioned or indicated meek and humble as appropriate to protest gun control. They were misinterpreted for selfish reasons. I said more satisfactory results are obtained, more antis could be brought to the light, with honey rather than vinegar where there are competing narratives."

Once again, the Muse of Nova Scotia cannot keep his course straight... we have semi-tough talk, and sucking up to the anti's, all within the same paragraph. A cursory examination of his many posts since the Sandy Hook massacre will turn up many instances of his advising us to be concilliatory, to compromise, to reject the NRA's approach, to wait and see what happens before we react, and to sleep with the enemy and try to be civil when engaging liars. In the first quote above, we are once again being lulled and advised that we should not call a spade a spade... that we should not quickly identify "ostensibly benign backround checks" as "registration by another name." Why not, pray tell? Since when is the truth something to be avoided? Should we really avoid annoying those folks who hate us and want to steal our Civil and Constitutional Rights?

King still thinks we can get Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al to listen to the voice of reason if we ply them with honey rather than vinegar. He apparently has never heard or read their own words. We would have an easier task removing all the salt from the oceans. In his posts, he still acts as if those who share my opinion have "never toiled in the trenches and tasted victory", yet he still has not provided us with a verifiable resume of his accomplishments in the pro-gun rights arena in Canada. I wonder if he once gave advice to Neville Chamberlain or vice versa. And he once arrogantly accused me of probably having done nothing more in the arena of gun rights than buy an NRA membership. Again, I must ask why he's trying to lull us here, when the Long Gun Registry records have not yet been destroyed in Quebec as mandated by law. I think he'd be more credible if he was actually trying to do some good for Gun Rights in his own country. He says his words have been misinterpreted for selfish reasons. I'd like him to explain that statement, but he's still pretending to ignore me... for selfish reasons.

Keith, Obama, Biden, Feinstein et al are only important in the short term, while they are elected officials.

While recognizing the need to respond to and counter their specific, short term actions, what I am trying to do in this thread is get people thinking about how to make it so elected officials don't have an anti gun band wagon they can jump on when it suits them.

And that's why I say we have been failing. That bandwagon has been growing bigger, every one of my 54 years. And it's picking up steam. A man was arrested and charged recently in Canada because he was walking to the gun range with his firearm properly cased. Doing nothing illegal. But someone noticed him, figured out what kind of case it was and called the cops. And the cops felt it their duty to make up some BS charges. It will be thrown out of court but not before some hefty legal bills are incurred.

It's that atmosphere that allows politicians to get traction. It's that atmosphere that allows LEO's to overstep their bounds. It is that atmosphere that will allow your Supreme Court to emasculate the 2cd amendment.

We had a Supreme Court ruling last week that put one's right not to feel "offended" well ahead of free speech. Constitutions and Bills of Rights are fluid and WILL be changed over time to suit the will of the masses. The will of the masses is influenced by appeals to emotion, not reason. History proves that.

If you want to keep your rights, you better figure out how to get emotion on your side that sways the masses. I stand by my earlier comments. We have been failing at doing that.

Join the NRA you say. Great idea! Gun owners should be speaking as one you say. Very true. But even if every gun owner in America did as you suggest and joined up in 2013, that emmensely powerful lobby would diminish over time. Because, I believe, we are totally losing the next generations.

We have been fighting with logic and reason. We need to find a way to add emotion to our arsenal. We need to have Hollywood and the MSM deride those who say silly things about guns, just as they now deride our NRA spokespeople. Tall order I suppose but I believe it's what we need to accomplish to safeguard ourselves. Because I believe, within a 100 or so years, we will likely need to be armed to protect ourselves from overzealous governments, if things continue as they are.

As universal backround checks-AND the required gun registration continues from the,left.Obama pardons the guilty criminals.

Amid the push for more gun control for law-abiding citizens, President Obama exercised his pardoning power for Larry Wayne Thorton, a Forsyth, GA man who had been sentenced to four years probation for firearm-related offenses.

Thorton was sentenced after being found guilty of possession of an unregistered firearm and "possession of a firearm without a serial number."
- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...h.pIKzgM28.dpuf

univeral background checks on all firearms transfers just provides too wonderful an opportunity for the federal gubmint to impose a new tax...in the end thats what it is and will always be about?

This is incredible!

A record-setting 24 pages of posturing and pontification, and Democrats STILL plan on registering all gun owners.

Come on, guys... we need at least 10 more pages!

Well Put Bilious...Its scary isnt it...? On Friday last, I sent 3 Faxes, emails being too easy to ignore, and made 2 phone calls to Colorado legislators urging them to fight 1224. I suspect thats more action than has taken place during this entire thread...

I'm not "pretending" to ignore you, keith. I'm not replying to you because it makes me complicit in your behaviour, corrupted by your manners, reinforcing ignorance.

Each member has a responsibility to contribute in good faith, with respect and without rudeness and misrepresentation regardless of how we feel about members' opinions.

Even in Misfires.

This comment King seems largely based on feelings. I'm not looking for answers, just wondering out loud....if actual words are quoted, what's someone to think if the next comment is to the effect of 'I never said that'.

B. Bob and LD, I was kind of thinking this one was going for the record. As in the struggle for gun rights, every little bit helps. Can I count on a comment or two when things start to slow down. Everyone have a nice Sunday.

When they say they want "common sense restrictions", I'm reminded of the times in my youth(many years ago)when "separate but equal" and Poll taxes were considered "common sense" and "reasonable".The courts then made it very clear that no restrictions on civil rights are reasonable and we shouldn't have to pay to exercise our constititional rights( ie liability insurance).This was the liberals view then, maybe they need to be reminded of this every time they talk about "commonsense" or "reasonable" restrictions.Also every time they talk about registration or programs that are the same as registration,they need to be informed that the very people they say they are trying to keep guns away from, cannot be charged for failure to register. Of course the leaders know this,we need to reach the well meaning people that are being lied to and fooled by the leaders of those against us.
Mike

Everything conversational is "feelings," Craig. I remember when my entire class almost walked out because of what it saw as an impossible assignment. It worked out great when I said, "Whoa, whoa, all I am asking you to do is what you do every day: talk of what you do and how you feel about what you do."

As to the second part of your question, there is no such thing as perfection, absolute or otherwise. Putting the technical aside, I think in conversations of what we do and how we feel, we know of the respect and tolerance required of civil society to provide reassurances of our humanity.

Rudeness, insults, foul language, ignorance don't do it for me.