"The Gun Nuts"

[DHC]

I got told today by a former friend that "my people" were the problem with America. That in the aftermath of all of these shootings the only thing the firearm community was worried about was losing their guns.

I calmly explained to him that the first reaction of 99% of the community was pure outrage. Outrage that no one was armed in these places, nor trained, and that people failed to act. The simple fact that people didn't have to die was our first and foremost response. He hit me with the violence begets violence bullshit, and I realized "fuck you"

I just don't get it, people want to blame everything that they think they can control, but then want to remove the very catalyst for controlling a volatile situation. Compared to some I think I am a pretty middle of the road guy, but these conversations make me wonder what the fuck are we trying to protect.

I am just so enraged at the level of arrogance and ignorance, how do you talk to someone that doesn't even want to attempt to understand a differing opinion. /rant off

You don't. The best you can do is to maintain a level head and continue to build your arguments on logic and facts. Accept that not everyone will agree with you. In fact, this issue is one that nobody will win over a majority of the people. As a consequence, most politicians will avoid the issue like the plague.

[Rooskibar03]

And that people is how a rant is done on Colorado AR15.

You should have told your stupid fukin friends they are fukin idiots. IF and when a threat ever arose they would more than likely call you or another gun owner. Also inform them with their head up their collective ass it would be a miracle if none of them was able to reproduce thus bringing more of the same stupid intellect in to this world.

THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED, Then enjoy the lamentations of their women.

[Great-Kazoo]

You don't. The best you can do is to maintain a level head and continue to build your arguments on logic and facts. Accept that not everyone will agree with you. In fact, this issue is one that nobody will win over a majority of the people. As a consequence, most politicians will avoid the issue like the plague.

No they will not. They will ride the 20+ kids deaths to "victory" in the white house, no matter how many Constitutional Rights are littering the wayside. Remember what Pelosi, Clinton and other D's said after the Benghazi attack, when referring to the movie? Their take was / is sometimes we should curtail some rights if it offends? others, or causes harm (not exactly the quoted words) however their belief. ANYTHING to limit free speech (right leaning radio talk shows) and ownership of guns.

[DHC]

No they will not. They will ride the 20+ kids deaths to "victory" in the white house, no matter how many Constitutional Rights are littering the wayside. Remember what Pelosi, Clinton and other D's said after the Benghazi attack, when referring to the movie? Their take was / is sometimes we should curtail some rights if it offends? others, or causes harm (not exactly the quoted words) however their belief. ANYTHING to limit free speech (right leaning radio talk shows) and ownership of guns.

Jim,

I agree that some politicians will seek to hang their legacy on increased gun control. There are many many others that have an opinion and yet hold back due to the likely political fallout. In fact, your earlier post that we have no one to blame but ourselves is more to the point - since it is WE (maybe not you or me, but the collective "we") who voted the current administration back into the WH.

[sniper7]

too bad your former friend is poorly informed. I would follow Jims instructions and set him straight. He will walk away, tell you that you are wrong and to piss off, but at the end of the day, he will spread the word and the words you tell him will have meaning that will bother him.

[Sharpienads]

too bad your former friend is poorly informed. I would follow Jims instructions and set him straight. He will walk away, tell you that you are wrong and to piss off, but at the end of the day, he will spread the word and the words you tell him will have meaning that will bother him.

That's what we call an information/intellectual/political/[insert word here] hand grenade. It doesn't go off as soon as you throw it, but sooner or later it does, and that's when you get the effects you're looking for. Hopefully it just doesn't go off too late.

[patrick0685]

truly not enough cussing for a good rant but i believe it speaks to us all, I have some idiot friend as well and he wants no guns nor any violence in the world and i wished him all the luck with that overall 3 out of 10 rant

[Bailey Guns]

I'm simply pointing out that we all agree there are some people who should not have guns. And that IS middle ground.

No, it's not. There are rules we all have to follow in society. If you break those rules there are consequences. Sometimes the consequences for breaking the rules means you lose a right that is otherwise guaranteed to LAW ABIDING citizens. When I talk about civil liberties I'm assuming most people understand that applies to the law-abiding. If you're a convicted felon or if you've been convicted of DV, you no longer have those liberties...in other words, it doesn't apply to you. I don't see that as middle ground at all.

It's also assumed that people know rights are not generally absolute rights.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I meant and exactly the difference between someone who loses liberties based on their actions and someone who loses liberties based on fear and paranoia of others:

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted from BG, but there is a big difference from an individual being denied a right after due process has been applied and stripping freedoms away from a group of people because of the actions of an individual. We can discuss due process and how it is applied, what it applies to, etc, but the bottom line is in a civil society some people's rights will be denied them after they have proven they can't handle freedom. But when people are treated as individuals, as they should be, the actions of some should not affect the liberties of others. That is where BG is saying there should be no middle ground. At least, that's how I took it.

[Great-Kazoo]

too bad your former friend is poorly informed. I would follow Jims instructions and set him straight. He will walk away, tell you that you are wrong and to piss off, but at the end of the day, he will spread the word and the words you tell him will have meaning that will bother him.

WHOA, Don't bring me in to it brudda. His ex friends his problems

[TriggerHappy]

I can vouge for Kraven, good guy and definitely fits in with this group. Maybe he just likes to poke the bear...

Kraven, just remember, most of these "litards" enter a discussion based on their emotions, best thing you can do is tell the facts and history. Or you can try and put them into your shoes. For example, I have an aquaintence that is for banning all guns. I asked him what he would do to protect his family?. He said, we arent talking about "my" family. I said, so you wouldnt do anything that was in your power to protect your 2 sons and/or wife from harm. You would just sit by and allow it. He didnt have much to say after that, granted he also deleted me from his friends list on FB, which is fine with me. But I also got a "sorry" i see what you mean.