our own worst enemy

[Well Armed]

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

My fault. I attempted to appeal to reasonable rational discussion – not primitive ‘lizard brain’ reaction that we’re all susceptible to from time to time. I’ve been guilty of it – venting to an emotional reaction and engaging keyboard (or mouth) before brain – but I really try to avoid it the longer I live. Didn’t think my original post involved any of that so I make no apology for expressing an observation and posing a rhetorical question.

I posited some time ago in another thread that although most of us rarely ever get to meet face to face, the longer we interact on this forum the more we get to ‘know’ each other. That idea, I readily admit has its limitations, caveats, and pitfalls . . . but I’m more careful these days to strive to not give a mistaken impression of myself or be “that guy” that you wouldn’t care to meet in person. We all have our bad days, dislikes, and hot button issues. But frankly I’m finding out more and more which folks here I’d probably avoid in social situations. And I surmise they likely couldn’t care any less. Fine by me – such is life. The world seems to be increasingly infected with such.


I’ve never been one to run from a fight but have learned to avoid one when possible and it’s rare that I’m pushed to seek one. In most cases, win or lose, it’s just not worth it whatever the outcome. I could go on, but as I stated in the original post it never was my intention to provoke in-fighting or tread on any toes; certainly didn’t want to contribute to the lowering of the bar of discourse here on the forum by inviting name calling and deliberate mischaracterization of the topic. Those with the weakest arguments have to resort to those kinds of things and twist what is said from its original intent, if they even bother to read it or have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyone who they perceive doesn’t believe what they believe and marches in lockstep with them is the enemy.


As the originator of the thread I’ll ask the mods to close it before it gets any more contentious. To those who understand . . . my apologies. To those who don’t . . .

This topic is nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with a little infighting and debate. It happens in relationships, at the workplace, with politicians, etc....


I and others fully comprehend your point of view. We just disagree with it. Simply put, you think we should make concessions to appease those who are "allegedly" on the fence. You think we can win the hearts and minds of those who are neutral by not pursuing things you and the antigun side see as taboo or scary. I completely disagree with your point of view. IMHO, that has been done in the past, and it has failed. These people will be antigun regardless, and the mainstream media will spin, twist, and lie to make whatever firearms and accessories we use, even the ones you personally approve of, to be deadly, scary, and not "needed." Several members have made this very point, but you seem to keep reiterating that we have comprehension issues.

WE WILL ALWAYS APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE MEDIA WILL PROTRAY US TO THOSE WHO KNOW LITTLE ABOUT GUNS NO MATTER WHAT.

We don't need to walk on eggshells or worry about appeances like you suggest. The one and only thing we can do as gun owners that will change hearts and minds is to get more people to own guns. Period. They aren't going to care about gun ownership, nor are they going to be one issue voters who go against the Democrat party over gun legislation until they too have something to lose. They will only care when it's their, their significant other, their children, friends, etc. rights that are being taken away. For example, during the pandemic, thousands of first-time gun owners on the left and right purchased guns. Before they owned guns, they probably wouldn't have cared if someone else's guns were banned. Now that it will affect them, they will care.

 

[Bald1]

Lizard Brain ????? Why because someone disagrees with you? A discussion usually means disagreement and exchanging points of view. Did you really think you could bring up this topic and not get emotional responses? And I might point out that some who have disagreed with you had the most articulate and thoughtful responses. Lizard Brain, I think not.

 

[BE Mike]

David Hogg is trying to influence gun owners to be more willing to give ground. He lies and says that he is pro-2A. One of his goals is: “If we’re successful, future kids will look at guns the way we look at cigarettes—not as something cool and sexy, but as something that’s dangerous and gross,” he says. “Because death is gross and murder is gross.” The only lizards in the picture are the chameleons, like him, who will try to appear to be reasonable while all along wanting to outlaw the possession of all guns. Any gun owner who buys into the "reasonableness" argument is like a fly falling for the attractant that leads to his demise in the Venus Fly Trap. Comparing anti-gunners vs. pro-2A arguments to husband/ wife discussions is ludicrous. BTW, David Hogg rides around in a chauffeured SUV with armed guards. I have to drive my own vehicle and can only depend upon my Second Amendment right for defense.

 

[Bald1]

OP I just walked out to mailbox and got latest issue of NY Outdoor News. They listed 12 new firearms bills for 2024. I’ve provided pics of the 3 most egregious. There are 12 but some pertain to hunting. You tell me which ones are reasonable and have room for compromise. This is what they do. Keep throwing stuff out there hoping something, anything sneaks through.

 

[AlHunt]

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

My fault. I attempted to appeal to reasonable rational discussion – not primitive ‘lizard brain’ reaction that we’re all susceptible to from time to time. I’ve been guilty of it – venting to an emotional reaction and engaging keyboard (or mouth) before brain – but I really try to avoid it the longer I live. Didn’t think my original post involved any of that so I make no apology for expressing an observation and posing a rhetorical question.

I posited some time ago in another thread that although most of us rarely ever get to meet face to face, the longer we interact on this forum the more we get to ‘know’ each other. That idea, I readily admit has its limitations, caveats, and pitfalls . . . but I’m more careful these days to strive to not give a mistaken impression of myself or be “that guy” that you wouldn’t care to meet in person. We all have our bad days, dislikes, and hot button issues. But frankly I’m finding out more and more which folks here I’d probably avoid in social situations. And I surmise they likely couldn’t care any less. Fine by me – such is life. The world seems to be increasingly infected with such.


I’ve never been one to run from a fight but have learned to avoid one when possible and it’s rare that I’m pushed to seek one. In most cases, win or lose, it’s just not worth it whatever the outcome. I could go on, but as I stated in the original post it never was my intention to provoke in-fighting or tread on any toes; certainly didn’t want to contribute to the lowering of the bar of discourse here on the forum by inviting name calling and deliberate mischaracterization of the topic. Those with the weakest arguments have to resort to those kinds of things and twist what is said from its original intent, if they even bother to read it or have the capacity to comprehend it. Anyone who they perceive doesn’t believe what they believe and marches in lockstep with them is the enemy.


As the originator of the thread I’ll ask the mods to close it before it gets any more contentious. To those who understand . . . my apologies. To those who don’t . . .

Just because not everyone agrees with your position, it does not mean it's "gone off the rails". Closing the thread at this point would just neuter an important discussion.

 

[AlHunt]

OP I just walked out to mailbox and got latest issue of NY Outdoor News. They listed 12 new firearms bills for 2024. I’ve provided pics of the 3 most egregious. There are 12 but some pertain to hunting. You tell me which ones are reasonable and have room for compromise. This is what they do. Keep throwing stuff out there hoping something, anything sneaks through.

Several of the pieces of disarmament legislation ban shotguns, for heaven sake. And some of it will pass this year.

Furthermore, even when SCOTUS hands down a ruling, the states openly defy it anyway. The utter contempt for the Constitution, SCOTUS and the federal government generally are an enormous problem far beyond just the 2nd amendment.

 

[cmj8591]

This has gone off the rails.
Mea Culpa. In an effort to spark a (maybe) thoughtful discussion on THE IDEA THAT WE NEED NOT READILY APPEAR TO BE THE STUPID OVER THE TOP EXTREMISTS WE’RE OFTEN PAINTED TO BE I offered a simple view that can apply from anything to gun control, to one’s personal spiritual views, to politics to how you talk to your wife or comport yourself on your job/in your work place – stop and consider a particular course of action before stepping on the gas and driving over a cliff. I will concede it was wishful thinking. Reasoned discussion in this day and time is officially dead, civilization is toast, we’re all doomed and it’s useless to try fight the good fight the right way – because in our hubris we’re ALL right, even though anyone with two functioning brain cells has to know that’s not an improbability but an impossibility.

Seriously? What did you think was going to happen when you posted this on a gun enthusiast forum? I think the discussion thus far has been pretty respectful. Why would it be shut down? I think it is ironic that the very behavior that you rail against is the very behavior you display when you bemoan the fact that not everyone is willing to "compromise" their beliefs to agree with you. Far from shutting this down, this is a discussion that the gun community MUST have.

 

[kbm6893]

The problem is were fighting against gun grabbers and FUDDS who want to sell the rest of us out and cave to the anties because they believe it will change their minds about firearms. They believe that gun owners who don't give in and cave to the anties are "extremists" when it comes to gun rights. We have enemies within that we have to fight against who are more than happy to side with the grabbers when it comes to things they don't think anyone should own, and we have to fight the antie gunners.

I don't think I'm ever going to change the minds of Anti-gunners. What I do know is that the antics of many gun owners sway the opinions of those who generally didn't care more about guns to begin with. Several people in my family are pretty ambivalent about guns, but when they see bump stocks and binary triggers they look at me and say "are you serious"?



Some hills aren't worth dying on. I am aware of the end goal of the true anti-gunner. I'm not about to get behind something like bump stocks and binary triggers. As for FUDD's, I am the furthest thing from it, but you'll keep using that word anyway.

 

[AlHunt]

I don't think I'm ever going to change the minds of Anti-gunners.

Just to be clear - "Anti-gunner" is not what they are. The vast majority of them are "Civilian Disarmament Advocates". The ones who think they aren't because they only want "weapons of war" out of private hands are going to be very rudely awoken when the disarmament crowd comes after the .22 revolvers and bolt action rifles. Then it'll be too late. Only criminals will have guns and there will be no shortage of them. Yep, I'm looking at you, Mexico.

 

[BC38]

Lizard Brain ????? Why because someone disagrees with you? A discussion usually means disagreement and exchanging points of view. Did you really think you could bring up this topic and not get emotional responses? And I might point out that some who have disagreed with you had the most articulate and thoughtful responses. Lizard Brain, I think not.

I think you may have misinterpreted the "lizard brain" reference. As soon as I read it I was sure it would be misinterpreted as some kind of insult. It isn't.

It is a reference to the most primitive portion of the brain right at the brain stem. Using that term is synonymous with saying "gut reaction" - our most basic instinctive reaction to something.

It is NOT a pejorative term meant to say - or even imply - that those of a differing viewpoint have the brain of a lizard.

The phrase is referring to the fact that so many of us (on BOTH sides of the argument) immediately react viscerally and instinctively, instead of really applying our higher brain functions to analyzing the question.

FWIW....

 

[mchom]

I mostly love vintage revolvers. But To me it’s simple; If all we had were revolvers there are those who would try to take them away. I say these new devices are ok. Keep em coming. I probably won’t buy one but I like their ingenuity. I believe the anti’s will never fail to find “Some reason” to further their cause regardless.

 

[Rustyt1953]

No snarkasm intended nor am I picking a side as to the term but I, too, grasped what Fred meant when he said "lizard brain".

 

[Bald1]

I think you may have misinterpreted the "lizard brain" reference. As soon as I read it I was sure it would be misinterpreted as some kind of insult. It isn't.

It is a reference to the most primitive portion of the brain right at the brain stem. Using that term is synonymous with saying "gut reaction" - our most basic instinctive reaction to something.

It is NOT a pejorative term meant to say - or even imply - that those of a differing viewpoint have the brain of a lizard.

The phrase is referring to the fact that so many of us (on BOTH sides of the argument) immediately react viscerally and instinctively, instead of really applying our higher brain functions to analyzing the question.

FWIW....

I am well aware of the meaning of the term Lizard Brain. That is why I take exception to it. FRED seems to think people who disagree with him cannot make rational decisions and arguments. Perhaps we are not as sophisticated or well rounded as him. It’s insulting period.

 

[NFrameFred]

My last post on this. There are some here that would argue with a fence post and determined to be offended no matter what is said. If I wanted to offend them I’m confident they could be sure it was my intention. As far as those with their faux outrage at being “insulted by my comments” grow up and learn to read.
As I said, my last post on this and the only reason I wished it to be closed is because it degenerated into smarminess, name calling, mind reading and putting words in my mouth to suit other’s agendas. It has been an education for sure reinforcing the opinion I had reluctantly been forming about some based on their comments and behavior in other threads.
Some read into it what they want and offer no respect or benefit of the doubt when told they have mischaracterized my position. I’ve been that they know what I think, and called me their favorite veiled slurs and pejoratives. Not interested in participating in such with people that can’t express themselves without going that route. I’m out.

 

[Borderboss]

Some hills aren't worth dying on. I am aware of the end goal of the true anti-gunner. I'm not about to get behind something like bump stocks and binary triggers.

"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

[Well Armed]

I don't think I'm ever going to change the minds of Anti-gunners. What I do know is that the antics of many gun owners sway the opinions of those who generally didn't care more about guns to begin with. Several people in my family are pretty ambivalent about guns, but when they see bump stocks and binary triggers they look at me and say "are you serious"?


Some hills aren't worth dying on. I am aware of the end goal of the true anti-gunner. I'm not about to get behind something like bump stocks and binary triggers. As for FUDD's, I am the furthest thing from it, but you'll keep using that word anyway.

You claim they're ambivalent. Are those people going to change their vote for Democrat or Republican based on whether bump stocks or binary triggers exist? Are they going to protest against gun control or donate to progun organizations whether bump stocks or binary triggers exist? Your flawed logic that gun owners should not exercise rights or enjoy particular 100% legal guns or accessories because of what "ambivalent" citizens may think makes absolutely zero sense. What do those "ambivalent" folks think about NFA items? Should all gun owners give up legal ownership of suppressors, SBR, SBS, and full auto rifles because of optics and what "ambivalent" citizens may think too?

As far as FUDDS go, if you are okay with some guns and accessories that you like and deem acceptable, but believe gun owners should not own things you don't like, then that's the definition of being a FUDD. You say that's not you, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Well Armed]

I mostly love vintage revolvers. But To me it’s simple; If all we had were revolvers there are those who would try to take them away. I say these new devices are ok. Keep em coming. I probably won’t buy one but I like their ingenuity. I believe the anti’s will never fail to find “Some reason” to further their cause regardless.

Exactly. If the Vegas shooter used a plain Jane AR15, the focus and the heat, so to speak, would be on "assault weapons of war." Because he used a bump stock, that's the low hanging fruit they went after. If the shooter used a Ruger Mini14 with a 20-round mag, they would have tried to ban "high capacity magazines" and .223 and 5.56 ammo. If he used bolt action rifle, the push would be for red flag laws with lout due process, universal background checks, gun registration, etc. All of the above that the anties would have gone after would have been spun so that the "ambivalent" citizens who don't own guns, don't know much about them, and care much about them would STILL think that gun owners were "unreasonable" for not supporting these "common sense" gun control laws and legislation.

Heck, I hear my liberal family members who know nothing about guns other than what mainstream media presents to then complain about and think gun owners are crazy and it's insane that we own and are allowed to have 100 rounds of ammo when it's brought up in the news. They think it's crazy that anyone would have more than one or two guns. When they see 5 firearms and 100 rounds of 22lr ammo sprawled out on a table for a law enforcement and media photo op, they think that's an arsenal and enough ammo to take out a small city. They think all of the above is just as crazy as bumbstocks and binary triggers because that's how it's portrayed in the media. Giving up our rights to placate those who hate guns or are willfully ignorant about them, aka useful idiots, is a fools errand that will lead up closer and closer to a complete gun ban.

 

[Beemerguy53]

I have. In Massachusetts no less. And I can report to you that the people pushing new gun legislation do no believe in private ownership of firearms. ANY firearms. They look at your Registered Magnum in the same light as they look at those cranks. It's delusional to to think that there is ANY room for compromise with these people. In 96 they passed the assault weapon ban here. They grandfathered everything manufactured prior to 96. The law mirrored the Fed law that was in effect at the time. Lots of the shooters I know look at it with a yawn. "I can keep the AR that I own now.", "What do I need a bayonet lug for?", "10 rounds is plenty.". Fast forward to today. There is a bill that has passed both chambers and is in committee that will, most likely, be on the governors desk at the end of the next session. It un grandfathers all those guns that are presently legal to own, creating a whole new class of felons with a stroke of a pen. It gets rid of "ghost guns" by requiring just about every part of the gun to be serialized. It will be almost impossible to get replacement parts for any gun INCLUDING YOUR REGISTERED MAGNUM! So, tell me, how do we compromise with the people who are driving this? What part of my 2A rights should I give up in the compromise and what will I get from them in return? And the worst part about this is that it does absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. The point is that when people who should know better start demonizing things like that stupid crank, you play right into their hands. You become the example of that "common sense gun laws" argument that they always throw around because it's "common sense" to turn me into a felon. You can virtue signal your willingness to common sense compromise all you want, but the reality is that it does way more damage to our 2nd amendment rights than the crank ever did.

Since you directed this post toward me, I have to ask...

At what point, in any post I have made on this (or any other) thread, have I endorsed the idea of "compromise", or even used that word?

I don't mind people taking issue with something I've said; I do mind people deliberately attributing to me things I've never said, and attitudes I don't have.

I'm finished with this thread.

 

[cmj8591]

Since you directed this post toward me, I have to ask...

At what point, in any post I have made on this (or any other) thread, have I endorsed the idea of "compromise", or even used that word?

I don't mind people taking issue with something I've said; I do mind people deliberately attributing to me things I've never said, and attitudes I don't have.

I'm finished with this thread.

Your entire post was about compromise. Just read the first sentence and go from there. You talk about how it might be a mistake to fight for certain accessories, which, I have to assume, means the crank that the op talks about in his original post. It is amazing to me how people come to these posts and express their opinion about a topic then stomp off when someone takes issue with it. You have every right in the world to have an opinion but don't get mad with me if I don't agree with it. I happen to think it's wrong to try to compromise when it comes to ANY gun legislation.

 

[John Patrick]

Lost in this discussion is the fact that the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that citizens could overthrow a tyrannical government. Which had recently been accomplished!

The flint lock musket and pistol were the days’ pinnacle weapon of war. And exactly what was protected by the Second Amendment.

Every infringement on a law abiding citizen’s right to own a weapon, whether infringing on the type of weapon, the rate of fire, the capacity, the projectile or anything else is an infringement of the Second Amendment and the founders’ original intent.