Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post

    <snip>

    They are useful idiots and their numbers make them as dangerous as gun grabbers. They provide the gun grabbers with a veneer of respectability that would otherwise be nonexistent.
    ...and then later said...

    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post

    Denunciation isn’t particularly helpful.

    Those among us who support gun control are found throughout the firearms community.

    Pointing out the error of their ways, at every opportunity, is probably our best course of action.

    These seem to be in conflict to me. First you call those gun owners that don't believe conceal carry should be allowed, idiots, then you suggest name calling isn't the best path to follow. Can't have it both ways, which do you prefer?

    I concur with your later statement. A well formed argument is ones only hope of changing someones mind.

    I am a minimalist when it comes to governments...small government is much better imo. This fortunately forces enhanced responsibilities and rights to the individual. Government getting out of my way is almost always better from my view, and that includes less restrictions on gun ownership and transportation. But in the end a good many still will not agree with me. Just as they may not agree with me that Canadian single tier socialized health care is a complete failure, the separation of church and state should be absolute (I'm an atheist, I don't want to pay for ANYONE'S religion, let them pay for it themselves and I'll also stay out of their way), and carbon levy's are simply a sales tax in disguise.

    I list these other issues simply because they compare well to gun laws. They are very sensitive and tend to generate VERY firm opinions on either side. You can dissect the gun owning community and similarly find a range of opinions on the ownership and transport subject. Those that hold views in opposition to mine are far from "idiots". Their positions are often well grounded and thought out, and the best way to change that is by posing a more lucid and well formed argument...not by name calling.
    Last edited by Soph; 02-12-2018 at 07:45 AM.
    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
    ― George Orwell

  2. #12
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Soph View Post
    ...and then later said...




    These seem to be in conflict to me. First you call those gun owners that don't believe conceal carry should be allowed, idiots, then you suggest name calling isn't the best path to follow. Can't have it both ways, which do you prefer?

    I concur with your later statement. A well formed argument is ones only hope of changing someones mind.

    I am a minimalist when it comes to governments...small government is much better imo. This fortunately forces enhanced responsibilities and rights to the individual. Government getting out of my way is almost always better from my view, and that includes less restrictions on gun ownership and transportation. But in the end a good many still will not agree with me. Just as they may not agree with me that Canadian single tier socialized health care is a complete failure, the separation of church and state should be absolute (I'm an atheist, I don't want to pay for ANYONE'S religion, let them pay for it themselves and I'll also stay out of their way), and carbon levy's are simply a sales tax in disguise.

    I list these other issues simply because they compare well to gun laws. They are very sensitive and tend to generate VERY firm opinions on either side. You can dissect the gun owning community and similarly find a range of opinions on the ownership and transport subject. Those that hold views in opposition to mine are far from "idiots". Their positions are often well grounded and thought out, and the best way to change that is by posing a more lucid and well formed argument...not by name calling.
    You missed a sentence.

    I wrote:

    Those who drive the socialist, gun grabbing agenda have a term for them.

    They are useful idiots and their numbers make them as dangerous as gun grabbers. They provide the gun grabbers with a veneer of respectability that would otherwise be nonexistent.
    Then, I wrote that “denunciation isn’t particularly helpful” in response to a post suggesting they be denounced whenever encountered.

    Useful idiots is the term used by those whose law they support. I tend to agree with the term, but will not call them either useful idiots or Fudds, in response to their posts.

    As I said, we should point out the error of their ways.

    I don’t care what, in the way of gun control, one supports.

    Support for any form of gun control gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

    All forms of gun control are designed to support one of two agendas.

    1. To affect the actions of the irresponsible, by restricting the actions of the responsible.

    2. To disarm the people of Canada.

    Canadian gun law of at least the past half century has been passed with the avowed intention of disarming the people of Canada.

    And, in the late seventies, a time line was given that indicates approximately 2050 as the completion date.

    Every law and regulation in effect in Canada, whether written in support of #1 or #2 serves to advance the agenda of civil disarmament.

    Even were it not reprehensible to restrict the innocent in a vain attempt to affect the actions of miscreants, it is evil to disarm a population. 100 million innocents were murdered in the 20th Century, by regimes who did just that.

    I am no conspiracy theorist.

    The agenda and time line were attested to by RCMP members who attended train the trainer courses at depot in Regina in the late seventies and early eighties.

    The agenda was further confirmed by Liberal luminaries following passage of C-68.

    While one should, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, consider incompetence a more likely explanation than evil intent, we have ample evidence including the vicious inclusion of anti gun changes in C-42 for evil intent.

    Over nearly half a century of study and thought, I have come to the conclusion that we must put forth every effort to Repeal, Repeal, and Replace.

    We have but little time to derail this initiative, and it will be more difficult the longer we wait.

    The danger posed by those in our community who support gun control cannot be overstated.

    It is far greater than the influence of the virulently anti gun crowd, who have little credibility with the general public.
    Last edited by CLW .45; 02-14-2018 at 03:10 PM.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •