Gun Rights Haters Try To Learn About Guns

Gun Rights Haters Try To Learn About Guns

Let me start with one of the most most important things that he said, “there is no gun show loophole”. He went to great lengths to explain that the idea that there are many gun sales going on at gun shows with no background checks performed is false. Glick very directly told the Delco United people not to pursue that angle.

Read the rest at http://www.theinternationallibertar.../02/gun-rights-haters-try-to-learn-about.html

Nightmare said:

Maybe move blog flogging to the state forum?

Click to expand...

Since I don't post that much is it really a big deal? Anyway, if I'd have posted the article in its entirety as a long comment I doubt you'd object. So why object to a link to my blog that isn't monetized? I do what I do for a cause & one that I think you agre with.

The basic rule is/or was that if you sell more than 5 guns/yr, you need a ffl and then the ffl usually follows their regulatory umbrella requirements and this could include BR chks.

In fact if you want to hold a ffl, stating that you are going to be selling at gun shows is a 100% bulletproof way of getting the ffl and avoiding regulations regarding a business front requirement. From my experience.

So, in reality, gun shows are not the bastion of unregulated gun sales as antis project to the public; of course they don't tell the truth as that would conflict with their goals.

darrenlobo said:

Gun Rights Haters Try To Learn About Guns

Click to expand...

Plenty of anti-gun, anti-self-defense, anti-RKBA propaganda there that we can all disagree with.

But in my experience, there is some value in gun-grabbers becoming educated about the current state of the law. There are a few diehard, true believers who will use that to some advantage. But most who support gun-control are honest enough to avoid blatant lies if they know they are lies. A lot of folks really are ignorant enough that they believe anyone can walk into a gun show and buy whatever guns they want without any background checks or regulations at all. They think that "shall issue" laws or OC laws mean that anyone including teenagers, convicted felons, and the mentally ill can legally walk the halls of their children's schools with a gun. Some think that gun laws allow people to brandish guns during road rage incidents.

Once these people learn the truth about current gun laws, many of them lose a lot of their motivation to attack our RKBA. That denies our opponents a lot of support.

Of course, none of this should be taken as me supporting some of the current laws. But so long as those laws are on the books, there is value in making many of the "useful idiots" aware of what the laws really are because many of them are honest enough that such information will reduce their attacks on our RKBA.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

<snip>. But most who support gun-control are honest enough to avoid blatant lies if they know they are lies.

Click to expand...

That has not been my experience .. almost all antis know about the 2nd amendment at least .. so they know, they know.

davidmcbeth said:

That has not been my experience .. almost all antis know about the 2nd amendment at least .. so they know, they know.

Click to expand...

All gun laws ARE gun control, some of so called 2A supporters are just as bad, and sometimes use the same fallacies as antis, IMO.

P4P advocates NEED the antis to push their agenda.

davidmcbeth said:

That has not been my experience .. almost all antis know about the 2nd amendment at least .. so they know, they know.

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

some of so called 2A supporters are just as bad, and sometimes use the same fallacies as antis, IMO.

P4P advocates NEED the antis to push their agenda.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand DM. Knowing isn't the same as agreeing. Even on this list we have those who do not agree that the 2nd amendment protects a right to carry a gun discretely. In their view, I have an inalienable, constitutionally enumerated right to carry a gun, (comma, BUT) BUT only if it is visible. The moment a few mm of fabric cover the gun I am no longer exercising a fundamental right. I strongly disagree with this view of the 2nd amendment. But if that is our only disagreement, I'll happily work with them to advance RKBA in every instance where we do agree.

And as WalkingWolf alludes to, attitudes are not binary. It is a continuum from those who oppose all restrictions on private ownership and carrying of guns to those who oppose all private gun ownership and usage. In between those two points are those who reject most restrictions, but are ok with lifetime bans on convicted felons or "wife beaters", those who oppose stand your ground or castle doctrine laws but are ok with hunting or target shooting, those who generally support RKBA but are ok with permits in order to carry (concealed or otherwise) in public.

RKBA is not a religion and our goal isn't to eliminate all heresy so as to save souls. Our goal is to advance legislative, statutory, judicial, and social recognition of and respect for our RKBA. We do this most effectively, I believe, not by running off any who might express any degree of disagreement, but by persuading as many as possible to support us in our current effort while simultaneously persuading as many others as possible not to oppose us actively.

If we can persuade professional trainers that constitutional carry will increase, rather decrease demand for their services, then the permit for profit crowd can be an ally rather than an opponent. Or, we might make efforts to reduce the profitability of permits. Such a technique was an important step in eliminating slavery in England (peacefully as contrasted with the War Between the States in our nation).

If we can persuade some segment of gun grabbers that we already have the laws they think we need, we can eliminate their motivation to attack us. Every minute and dollar we don't have to spend defending against another "close the gun show loophole" bill can instead be directed toward eliminating another bad gun law.

There are many who might be motivated to push for new gun control laws if they think anyone can buy a machine gun at a gun show and then legally walk around grade schools with it. And whatever we may think the laws should be at some point in the future, we can eliminate a lot of opposition to our current efforts if we can inform people that there is no "gun show loophole", that machine guns and bazookas and nukes are quite heavily controlled under current law, and gun free school zones already impose federal felonies for violations....and so they should go back to their beer or wine and football or soccer watching.

WalkingWolf said:

All gun laws ARE gun control

Click to expand...

As I've noted before, this simply isn't true. In Utah we have "gun laws" that prevent most government agencies from having any anti-gun employment policies. We have laws that prevent wildlife resources from enforcing any rules against carrying a gun on a hunt, even if the gun can't legally be used to take game (eg the bow hunt). We have laws dictating how guns held as evidence are disposed of once the case is finalized and the evidence is no longer needed.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect RKBA. It is to provide MORE protection for the ownership, possession, and use of guns than is required to be given to other items. It is entirely proper to have some good laws to reflect and enforce this. For example, in Utah, a state college can properly restrict food and drink from certain venues so as to protect property from damage. But those colleges cannot restrict firearms. It is a "gun law" that imposes this limit on the government run college.

Charles

I see your point Charles.

Their opinions have no affect on my rights at all.

I will show displeasure to them, that's for sure [I give testimony etc]....and try to oust commies from positions of authority who want to suppress my rights.

The last person these commies want to see on election day is me and others at their polling place(s) providing people information that exposes their commie ways that cause people to switch their votes and hurt their election chances. And when they lose, that's sweet.

davidmcbeth said:

The last person these commies want to see on election day is me and others at their polling place(s) providing people information that exposes their commie ways that cause people to switch their votes and hurt their election chances. And when they lose, that's sweet.

Click to expand...

Here is another thought. What if, instead of showing up on election day to get votes against them for their "commie ways", you were to discover the hot button issues for a large number of voters and then supply each voter with customized information most likely to cause that voter to vote against the incumbent. Done correctly, you can even persuade some of the commies to vote against a commie incumbent based on a vote you might even think is good, but that will infuriate the commies.

You are under no obligation to give each voter a full voting record of the incumbent. Give them accurate information about 2 bills where the incumbent's vote will upset them, without much regard to how you feel about the vote.

Richardson details this tactic in his excellent book. Implementation can be very difficult.

Charles

davidmcbeth said:

The basic rule is/or was that if you sell more than 5 guns/yr, you need a ffl ....

Click to expand...

Huh?

The very few times I've heard that, no one knows where it came from. Myth.

utbagpiper said:

Here is another thought. What if, instead of showing up on election day to get votes against them for their "commie ways", you were to discover the hot button issues for a large number of voters and then supply each voter with customized information most likely to cause that voter to vote against the incumbent. Done correctly, you can even persuade some of the commies to vote against a commie incumbent based on a vote you might even think is good, but that will infuriate the commies.

You are under no obligation to give each voter a full voting record of the incumbent. Give them accurate information about 2 bills where the incumbent's vote will upset them, without much regard to how you feel about the vote.

Richardson details this tactic in his excellent book. Implementation can be very difficult.

Charles

Click to expand...

Oh, when I "campaign" against a candidate I am not out at the polling place talking about 2nd amendment stuff ~ that does not work. You would have to talk laws, bills etc. and voters just don't have that time for lengthy discussions, nor do I.

Instead I choose, like you suggested, topics that resonate with the voters. Something that I have documentation that can fit on a small poster and that people can easily read and understand.

7% of voters I saw on the last election day (and I saw and spoke to about 2000 people on election day) switched their vote. The other 93% ~ they did not change their vote (either pro or anti to the candidate). Not too shabby...as the person I campaigned against lost by 4%.

davidmcbeth said:

Oh, when I "campaign" against a candidate I am not out at the polling place talking about 2nd amendment stuff ~ that does not work. You would have to talk laws, bills etc. and voters just don't have that time for lengthy discussions, nor do I.

Instead I choose, like you suggested, topics that resonate with the voters. Something that I have documentation that can fit on a small poster and that people can easily read and understand.

7% of voters I saw on the last election day (and I saw and spoke to about 2000 people on election day) switched their vote. The other 93% ~ they did not change their vote (either pro or anti to the candidate). Not too shabby...as the person I campaigned against lost by 4%.

Click to expand...

Well clearly they lost because of you then. Right?

Shall not be infringed is the "law" that restrains the state. A separate law to restrain the state?

Nightmare said:

Maybe move blog flogging to the state forum?

Click to expand...

No. Just because something occurred in a state forum is no reason to shove it away from your line of view.

The article contains legitimate, nation-wide issues. Glick himself. Firearms safety. Delco's disruption of lawful gathers and their insistent that no one disrupt THEIR meetings...

All these issues apply to firearms issues throughout our nation as a whole. Thus, the only sensible thing to do is to leave it where it is.