OK,
I'm gonna try to do this right, hope I don't screw it up
Ole_grizzly wrote:Chuck wrote:So explain to me how the paper "made us look like fools"
- "I think they like us" - From your earlier post
I don't think they makes us look like fools. My sarcasm was meant to show that they are making themselves look like fools.
Their tactics and arguments are so textbook that they're predictable.
Ole_grizzly wrote:Chuck wrote:
And let me ask you, do you think these "bump stocks" ought to be outlawed?
- Yes, they are ridiculous, serve no legitimate purpose, and are an absurd accessory to take a stand behind.
I too, think they are ridiculous, and serve no purpose than to spend money foolishly on ammo.
However, I will take a stand on principle that banning an inanimate object in the wake of a tragedy is anything but counter productive.
Stupid people will think something was accomplished and nothing will be done to address the real concerns of the event
Ole_grizzly wrote:Chuck wrote:I am disappointed in the knee jerk reaction of banning something just because someone did something bad.
The antis know that bump fire is possible by a variety of means, belt loops and rubber bands are only a couple.
Their goal is to ban the entire AR platform, as they did once before.
They are on record as hoping that banning bump stocks is only the beginning of the slippery slope towards achieving that goal.
Remember Fast and Furious? They wanted a massacre then too, for the same purpose
Why would any freedom loving American support them in their quest?
I would really appreciate an answer to this part, as I see allowing their stupid little accessory ban as the beginning of rowing the boat upstream when I've can't even get everyone to row together downstream.
Ole_grizzly wrote:Chuck wrote:I have plenty of Liberal friends who discuss gun rights with me all the time and the one thing all reasonable people can agree with is that laws are only followed by the law abiding, and do nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes. So they want registration and confiscation, thinking that the mad men won't be able to find the guns in the first place. They have no understanding of the concept of freedom and self reliance, thinking that government will provide for all their needs, from health care to personal safety to baby formula, they think they shouldn't be responsible for anything that happens to them, and don't want you being responsible for yourself neither.
I take exception to your claim that I, we, don't understand nor listen to the other side.
- If you did, then you wouldn't write letters that alienate anybody that doesn't already totally agree with you.
I didn't write it, but I'll stand behind it. We, (I), considered it to be a rallying cry, rather than a wedge driver, but make no mistake,
It is our position that anybody who thinks banning anything is addressing the problem of the Las Vegas shooting is fooling themselves.
And we ain't falling for it.
Ole_grizzly wrote:Chuck wrote:
I don't believe that the NRA is making a "strategic move" by calling for more ATF intervention; I think they're screwing up.
- We can agree to disagree. Fighting for an innocuous accessory that serves absolutely no purpose no matter your opinion of the second amendment in the name of fighting incrementalization without realizing our current political climate is beyond my understanding. We have the entire media against our opinions and rights. The NRA is simply giving an out to republican legislators in contested districts that can't remain on the far right of gun control when mass shootings continue to occur, and low information voters who can't and won't think for themselves decide their contest. Being against every possible gun control regulation is self defeating, and this seems like an easy compromise. This does not preclude a future fight against legitimate attempts, it gives us a leg to stand on that we're not totally against everything just because. Your position (and apparently OFCC's) does not allow for that discussion, and it's severely disappointing.
Republicans control EVERYTHING!!
WHY DO THEY NEED AN "OUT"??
They should pass reciprocity as a single item bill, and the hearing protection act as another
They should grow some balls
The time is perfect
Ole_grizzly wrote:Chuck wrote:I will say personally that I love your engagement with the membership, respect the hell out of your effort at the statehouse, your attitude and ability to listen to those that have had problems, and I respect you greatly. I hope this sounds sincere, because it is, I just disagree on this issue, I'm giving my opinion, you can choose whether or not to be affected by it, and I will remain a patron member as long as this organization exists.
TBH, your opinion as a Patron member holds great sway with me.
So change my opinion, hit me with facts
Thanks for the kind words