I will, certainly
Gun Control Is Becoming A Core Issue For Democrats
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
A lot of people are followers. They will follow others around them. These new owners or people thinking about it are the people you want to invite to go shoot. A bunch of them just need to be invited or a bit of prodding. Once they get onto it a bit more the chances they might just be more active and involved on their own.
I'll give you a personal experience. I grew up without guns in the household. I was in my early 20s the first time I went to shoot... The person who invited me was an acquaintance who I was talking with and i told him I never went to a range before but thought it was interesting and wanted to try it once. He invited me a few more times after the first time until I was confident on my own. While my own personal experience certainly doesn't mean that's what everyone else will do, I'm relatively certain there are many others in the same boat I was in.
A bunch of these new or interested people have had no exposure and that's what they need. Guidance until confidence. Selling them a gun and just saying, "ok you're on your own", isn't going to be enough to *REALLY* change their mind or get them involved.
You are right that some are just in it for themselves, they got theirs now and F everybody else. I don't think that's the majority of them though.
I wouldn't be absolutely sure about that. From all the anti gun liberals I have spoke with, nay I even say taken shooting in the last several months, not a one felt that gun control was a good idea afterwards. Honestly I've had an excellent track record of conversion to being pro gun. Of the 4 I've taken shooting since May or so, all 4 no longer wish to have gun control, and 2 of the 4 purchased firearms within 1 week of going shooting. I myself was kind of oblivious ( shame accepted here) to gun control laws until this year, and am a convert now (evident as well, posting here is pretty obvious). There is a sample set, albeit small, of 5 direct conversions since May of 2020. I wouldn't bet the farm that new gun owners aren't or haven't switched identities. My .02
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
In any group, on any aspect of that group, it is fairly safe to break it down into thirds. The make-up of this countrys' population at the time of the revolution indicates this as well. The goal should be winning the hearts and minds of that central third of these new gun owners and opening those hearts and minds to the truth of our constitution.
Robin
Robin
JackNeat
.45 acp
I think an opportunity has been missed so far. The gun shops should be asking people if they support 2A and encouraging them to get some training, handing them a small pamphlet with some of the gun control craziness that most don’t know about. There is still plenty of time but millions of potential bodies have passed through these gun shops and many of them just think about themselves and never get involved with the larger community. I got involved immediately upon knowing I was going gun shopping and I am glad I did. Some of the new buyers that might be anti gun probably think of the gun community as a bunch of red neck Ted Nugent wannabe yahoo’s on steroids. Furthest thing from the truth is what they would realize if they got involved.
JackNeat
.45 acp
I want to make it clear I love Uncle Ted. He is loud and outspoken and a great advocate for gun rights. A hell of a rock n roller too!
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Also an awesome, shiny distraction from all the BS that goes on with the rest of the NRA board.
Not a knock on ya. Just sayin.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The % isn't even important.
It's the raw number.
Even if the % was *lower* than usual, the massive spike in the total sales would mean tons of new gun owners.
40% of 10+ million NICS checks is approaching the total number of NRA members. If the trend continues it will easily exceed that size by the election.
So, a group the size of the entire NRA just had gun control suddenly become an issue that could affect them personally.
Most won't care, but with a number that large, surely the number who will care is going to be pretty big too.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If we as the 2A community really wanted to help ourselves, we would get a fund going to pay for quality professional training for first time gun owners.
Such training would obviously include a healthy dose of legal instruction, with an emphasis on the pitfalls and insanity of current and proposed gun control.
LGSs would hand out coupons from approved local instructors with upcoming course dates. Those instructors would be reimbursed from the training fund.
This would be a perfect use of NRA funds, It would support our local instructors, it would improve so many things for the gun owning community it seems like an obvious thing we should be doing.
This is my .02 cents but we all need to be ambassadors for the gun community.
Many of the people on the fence, or those who never really gave it much thought, only know what they've been told or heard. In that case, it's usually not flattering. We've had presidents call us backwards clingers. (never mind the fact that many of us are highly intelligent). But that's the "caricature" those on the fence, have been told about us.
We need to disprove those falsities. We need to be ambassadors. We need to change opinions. We need to encourage dialogue and get others to listen to us. We need to fight back and have a louder voice in the gun control/rights debate. If we can clearly and concisely explain what being a responsible gun owner, a protector, a patriot, a shooting enthusiast means and entails, more people are willing to come to our side and second guess what they've been told.
I had a discussion with a neighbor wife who is on the local school PTA about guns and gun free zones. She never had actually considered that only law abiding people (people she doesn't have to worry about in the first place) would follow the no guns at school rule.
We need to be out there in a non confrontational way just getting people to think, hmmm.... Maybe that doesn't make as much sense as they said so after all...
We need to take the time to reach out to those who might be interested in learning about guns or trying shooting but are either too shy or embarrassed to ask. Offer to take people shooting. There are people out there who want to learn about shooting but don't have anyone to ask And are too nervous to try and figure it out themselves. Etc.
The more we get on our side that don't see us as threats but as allies the better. We need as many votes as we can get. Highlight the liberal Hypocrisy of them living I their walled compounds and surrounded by armed security, having the audacity to tell us we can't do the same for ourselves and to rely on the police, nevermind that they want to eliminate or defund the police.
Just my .02 cents
Many of the people on the fence, or those who never really gave it much thought, only know what they've been told or heard. In that case, it's usually not flattering. We've had presidents call us backwards clingers. (never mind the fact that many of us are highly intelligent). But that's the "caricature" those on the fence, have been told about us.
We need to disprove those falsities. We need to be ambassadors. We need to change opinions. We need to encourage dialogue and get others to listen to us. We need to fight back and have a louder voice in the gun control/rights debate. If we can clearly and concisely explain what being a responsible gun owner, a protector, a patriot, a shooting enthusiast means and entails, more people are willing to come to our side and second guess what they've been told.
I had a discussion with a neighbor wife who is on the local school PTA about guns and gun free zones. She never had actually considered that only law abiding people (people she doesn't have to worry about in the first place) would follow the no guns at school rule.
We need to be out there in a non confrontational way just getting people to think, hmmm.... Maybe that doesn't make as much sense as they said so after all...
We need to take the time to reach out to those who might be interested in learning about guns or trying shooting but are either too shy or embarrassed to ask. Offer to take people shooting. There are people out there who want to learn about shooting but don't have anyone to ask And are too nervous to try and figure it out themselves. Etc.
The more we get on our side that don't see us as threats but as allies the better. We need as many votes as we can get. Highlight the liberal Hypocrisy of them living I their walled compounds and surrounded by armed security, having the audacity to tell us we can't do the same for ourselves and to rely on the police, nevermind that they want to eliminate or defund the police.
Just my .02 cents
You don't need "magazines" or anything to be dangerous.
Guns that take stripper clips or shotguns can be extremely deadly in the hands of a trained operator.
The lefties will eventually ban everything. They just want to do it incrementally.
Guns that take stripper clips or shotguns can be extremely deadly in the hands of a trained operator.
The lefties will eventually ban everything. They just want to do it incrementally.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
I've voted since 1978
Elwood
.223 Rem
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
just seen a vid of Ted within the last week or 2 .. backing the NRA and not saying much .. fk i wish he would be loud and outspoken on the NRA and there BS .. like he is on other topics .. like the video of him telling the suits .. deer swap spit .. you can ban that .. ( CWD ) ..
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I've heard previously that Ted gets paid for appearing on behalf of NRA. Paid employees tend not to be critical of those cutting the checks.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
here is the vid i seen .. Ted should have said at the end usless you live in NYS .. ..
..
Just yesterday we had a couple over who have not been involved in politics very much. But with all thats been going on in the county, they have become more interested.
Ive known the woman for decades and her husband about 7 years.
The woman is a very annoying shrew who berates her husband and makes all of his decicions for him.
We dont talk about politics with her because for the last few years she has been on the "orange man bad" train with ZERO knowledge of what shes talking about. Ive heard everything from Trump was found guilty of raping 7 children, including boys to he hates gays. This womans daughter is gay and I personally like her daughter and her girlfriend better than the mom.
A few months ago this woman bought a tshirt that says, "Vote The Orange Stain Out". She thought it was great and posted on Facebook about her awesome shirt. To her surprise, most of her friends, including her daughter disaproved. They said it could be considered almost racist to make fun of skin color, even if its self pigmented with fake tan. They said if youre gonna attack the guy, attack his policy or character, not his personal attributes.
I explained to her that over the last few years, millions of people have dehumanized Trump so much that even non political people see him as a character, not a human. So its ok to make fun of him. I told her its pretty easy to fall into the sheep mentality.
She agreed.
Her husband is an ex Airforce guy and lifelong gun owner.....but a real wimp when it comes to his wife. He is on a very short leash. Hecwas not ALLOWED to vote in 2016 because he said he would vote for Trump.
I told her last night that was voter suppression and she could do 10 years in jail.
Apparently over the last couple weeks this couple has acctually talked about politics and the country.
They both agreed the arent full liberal, they agreed they werent full conservative, they both thought Repubs were the worst, so I guess they landed on Libertarian. My wife immediately shot me the "look". Later she said, "I know, I know but dont deter them from thinking about stuff."
From listening to them for an hour, they might not be libertarians, but they are thinking.
They both agreed that Trump is better than Biden and both plan to vote.
They may appear distracted over "scary black rifles" but now, as when they started, the "scary black rifle" is still the low hanging fruit they hope to use to get their foot in the door for total ban of firearms.
It's hard to convince a FUDD to go along with shotgun bans, but if you ask them about an AR the response is "no one needs those" (an actual response from an actual FUDD - IN A GUN RANGE!).
once the AR is gone, then the semi-auto, then anything that fires more than 3 rounds, then all of it. By then the FUDD is scratching his head wondering how this happened.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
"No one needs those"= jealous
I own guns. I hunt. AR's simply don't interest me. Fear not. I don't own a Corvette or a Harley either, when I easily could, if I really wanted to. Just don't interest me.
I own guns. I hunt. AR's simply don't interest me. Fear not. I don't own a Corvette or a Harley either, when I easily could, if I really wanted to. Just don't interest me.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
The Party of contradiction
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
A lot of folks have guns and never shoot them.. ... Or hardly shoot them. We are on this forum because we have an above interest in firearms . Many folks are not that involved . Back in the day when only shotguns were allowed to hunt deer the average hunter bought a box of shells 1 week before deer season and that is all he used ... .. Use 10 rounds to sight in that shotgun and one uses 10 or so rounds during the season. .. The remaining sit in the dresser drawer until next year. ... This could account for maybe + 75 % of all gun owners. If this were not true then one would be making an appointment a month in advance to shoot at your local range. .
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Guilt
I did frequently shoot my handguns and .22 rifle however. Back then most ppl only owned what I just described, cuz you could only use a rifle for 'up north', (only 15 minutes away) and certainly a shotgun with slugs was no handicap in the 'big woods'. It was simply a matter of economics. If you had a shotgun you could hunt just about anything.
Guilty. Back in the days of my youth, shotgun only, with slugs in the Southern Zone, (or handguns) and I'd buy a few fresh boxes of slugs for deer season, on sale at Kmart. Last year's leftovers were used to check your sights and "practice" a bit on a punkin @ 50 yards with the boys, a weekend or two before the season opener.
I did frequently shoot my handguns and .22 rifle however. Back then most ppl only owned what I just described, cuz you could only use a rifle for 'up north', (only 15 minutes away) and certainly a shotgun with slugs was no handicap in the 'big woods'. It was simply a matter of economics. If you had a shotgun you could hunt just about anything.
Growing up I was just a country redneck as far as guns go.
I hunted and owned 2 shotguns and a Marlin 22LR lever action rifle.
Still to this day Im just a hunter but have added self defender.
I have never been a target shooter or a gun collector and never considered myself a "gun guy" until probably 2012.
I have never owned a MSR and probably never will. Its just not my thing.
I own hunting rifles from 22LR- 45/70.
I own handguns from 38 SP- 10mm.
And three 12 gauge shotguns....a single shot NEF Pardner, a Mossberg 500 combo and a Benelli M4.
With those choices I feel well protected and can hunt anything from frogs to elephants.
I forgot to add....
Even though im not a MSR guy, I will fiercely defend others rights to own them and enjoy shooting them when I get the chance. I am 100% a 2A guy, not just a gun rights guy.
Dang, youre just a redneck too!
Thankfully I'm not one of those.
Up until this year I would rotate the guns I use at the range. I don't like safe queens.
The only one that hasn't had as much range time as I'd like is the AR, and that is due to not having a good scope on it.
this year, between the lockdowns and the Democrat-style politics going on at the range I used to frequent, I have been limited on what I shoot.
Well....now because of the lack of ammo, too.
I need ammo and a new place to shoot.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
T
Those are my roots. I've been a serious student of firearms, hunting and 2A issues since I turned 14 in 1974. Surely I took it much more seriously than my peers. Some guys like hot rods. I like firearms.Dang, youre just a redneck too!
The Miller Supreme court ruling is interpreted law; if applied as ruled that would mean you have more of a right to own a fully auto/select fire rifle or mg than a shotgun for hunting.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
Decision
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:
.....
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
----
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas):
--------
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense".
In other words, you can't have a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, because they aren't (weren't) commonly in use by the military. By this ruling the items you have a right to own would be the ones commonly in use by the military. The way I interpret that is you have a right to own and use an M240, but not a lever action rifle. Right now, today, a M240 contributes to the common defense more than a lever action deer rifle does.
Side note: Personally I believe you should have the right to use whatever gun you want, just talking about interpreted law here.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Your interpretation of Miller is correct.The Miller Supreme court ruling is interpreted law; if applied as ruled that would mean you have more of a right to own a fully auto/select fire rifle or mg than a shotgun for hunting.
United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Decision
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:
.....
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
----
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas):
--------
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense".
In other words, you can't have a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, because they aren't (weren't) commonly in use by the military. By this ruling the items you have a right to own would be the ones commonly in use by the military. The way I interpret that is you have a right to own and use an M240, but not a lever action rifle. Right now, today, a M240 contributes to the common defense more than a lever action deer rifle does.
Side note: Personally I believe you should have the right to use whatever gun you want, just talking about interpreted law here.
Miller said that only arms suited to military service are protected.
Of course "suited to military service" has a pretty wide range of interpretation, but in the very least it would have to include all the sorts of weapons that are issued to active duty soldiers and police.
Certainly though, nearly any weapon could be employed for military use if necessary. Your average marine would take the fuddiest O/U shotgun you've got into a fight if his alternative was nothing.
Ironic to refer to something from Hollywood, but Hollywood is a great place to find the sterotypes that typically come about from real world examples.
So,
How often have you seen the quintessential war movie where the overly butch company has that one guy who always carries the sawed off shotgun he "got from his dad" just in case the shit hit the fan and all their other fancy technological weapons failed to kill the target.
And, inevitably, he ends up relying on the ancient boom-stick to save the day.
In real life... weren't there videos during the Iraq war that showed companies of soldiers clearing houses and having sawed off shotguns strapped to them somewhere?
Nothing clears a house faster than a short-barreled shotgun full of buckshot.
Well...I'm sure high explosives would, but that doesn't leave much of the structure left, either.
So,
How often have you seen the quintessential war movie where the overly butch company has that one guy who always carries the sawed off shotgun he "got from his dad" just in case the shit hit the fan and all their other fancy technological weapons failed to kill the target.
And, inevitably, he ends up relying on the ancient boom-stick to save the day.
In real life... weren't there videos during the Iraq war that showed companies of soldiers clearing houses and having sawed off shotguns strapped to them somewhere?
Nothing clears a house faster than a short-barreled shotgun full of buckshot.
Well...I'm sure high explosives would, but that doesn't leave much of the structure left, either.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Gun Control Is Becoming A Core Issue For Democrats
When was it even not at the core. Total dissarmiment is their goal, that hasn't changed, opportunity is their watch word.
Robin
When was it even not at the core. Total dissarmiment is their goal, that hasn't changed, opportunity is their watch word.
Robin