How Do You Help Guide This Tough Conversation?

You both make great points. I agree with @Zee that more polarization isn’t going to help us as the American public. It will only serve the people in the government and media to keep us infighting.

I think @Doug12 makes a very interesting point about the government continue to encroach on our rights. It makes me think of the adage about the frog being slowly boiled alive.

I want to thank you both for your different views and the awesome conversation here!

Please carry on! :smiley:


we agree 100% on that :slight_smile:

and we agree 100% there too. I do understand why people do it - its individual constellations of indoctrination that “someone else” or “the government” will take care of it, laziness, lack of perspective, youthful stary-eyed idealism, overwhelmed with other activities that seem more pressing, generally being under-slept and over-scheduled, reluctance to disrupt their normal daily lives and sense of security for something that hasn’t touched them personally, disbelief that its as bad as we say it is, lack of courage, and unwillingness to sacrifice their time / freedom / money / family / reputation on something that is heavily disputed. And for some its no doubt because they are entirely willing to exchange freedom for perceived safety and agree with what’s being done.

And I don’t understand why people are alright with it either.

thank you :slight_smile:
I think government will continue to encroach as well. I think it may come to a time for desperate acts.

Where you and I differ some is on “best methods”. I love an inspirational moment as much as anyone, and I believe that people can be inspired by a single act. The problem with “ice bucket” movements is that they are a flash in the pan. They’re good as long as its fun. But a week later or a month later or a day later, do you think all those ice-bucket-video posters are still putting their time and energy into changing the world for those with ALS?

I don’t. I think they’ve moved on. Beyond that fun moment of inspiration I doubt that many of them have lifted one finger or contributed one dollar to benefit ALS patients, much less made a breakthrough in the medical science or even changed a single patient’s day-to-day life.

yes you are :smiley: I’m glad we can have these conversations - it sharpens all of our skills and our thinking, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that together.

Indeed, and thank you for doing that. My family is represented in every branch except marines, and in some of the Canadian forces too. I get what it means, and thank you, genuinely, with appreciation for both the value and the cost.

Both are important things.

I’m just going to say “most” is time-relevant. Most in a minute, I agree that desperate circumstances will get it done faster. But since I’m not empowered to create that instigating factor in people’s lives, I’m not waiting around for it… I’m just gonna go grow them into it, at their pace, over a longer time.

Earthquakes can make canyons. But so can erosion by wind and water. The grand canyon didn’t come overnight, but it’s a pretty durable formation. I can’t make earthquakes, but I have other means. :wink:

There are few of us who can make earthquakes. Desperate circumstances do. And occasionally inspirational leaders do. But an inspiration leader is not enough - the declaration of independence is meaningless without the sustained commitment of people willing to risk and die over years and years for a cause bigger than their own lives. It will mean nothing if an inspirational leader arises unless there are people prepared to follow their lead, and unless those people can agree on what needs fixing instead of fighting amongst themselves.

Maybe the people I work with one-on-one are those folks, or maybe at least some of them are. Maybe the people on here are working out how to get folks in agreement on what needs fixing. IDK, I just know that when I push a mountain, no matter how much I rage, nothing happens. When I pull a mountain, no matter how inspirational I am, nothing changes. When I work with people one-on-one, things change. Its not fast, and its not dramatic, but something moves.

Its not lack of passion, it is an application of prudence. That’s what I can do. So I’m doing it.

You and I agree on pretty much everything except tactics. and we don’t have to agree on those, but we get better leverage if we’re working together on it, instead of arm-wresting each other.

I have no objection to your passion at all. I’m a fan of passion. I just love to see it channeled where it can achieve something real, not just spend its energy to no result. If you are using it in a way that moves people and makes change, consider me on your team 100%.

Appreciating you and this conversation :blush:


Thank you humbly, Zee
I too enjoy the conversation. It’s fun and revealing of my own shortcomings in some areas. Too much information too soon can overwhelm those not psychologically prepared to absorb it. I fully agree with your statement:

“There are few of us who can make earthquakes. Desperate circumstances do. And occasionally inspirational leaders do. But an inspiration leader is not enough - the declaration of independence is meaningless without the sustained commitment of people willing to risk and die over years and years for a cause bigger than their own lives. It will mean nothing if an inspirational leader arises unless there are people prepared to follow their lead, and unless those people can agree on what needs fixing instead of fighting amongst themselves.”
I believe you have summed up my whole idea in one paragraph.
I"ll trust you at my back anywhere, any time. We may never meet but I believe I know your heart now and that’s enough! SEMPER FI!


Thank you sir. That ^^^^ right there means everything.
I can’t tell you adequately, but just know I’ll hold your words close.


Reading the last few posts it is clear that some take the question of the conversation seriously. That being said it is still important to move the conversation from the philosophical to the personal.
The conversation happens on a level of person to person and mostly ones in some form of relationship. Like friendships, family or social interaction. In my experience it most often is not started by people that believe in the second amendment. The problem is the movements that are promoted by organizations are aimed at people to get support for that movement. It then becomes talking points so when a group wants to promote a regulation they can garner more votes to get it passed.
Whatever the agenda the media or even our legislators might have is secondary to what your nephew, sister, sister’s spouse or neighbor and co-worker might bring up before dinner at a Super bowl party. I have found the conversation will come even if you would rather just let people believe what they espouse at a moment of pontificating at the solution to those disastrous events that we all morn.
I however am not willing to allow the misinformation spread by anti first amendment advocates to leave unopposed. The conversation may not change the person’s mind or position but they will at least have to examine what they believe and why. That of course assumes that I know what I believe and why.
This very conversation took place between my nephew and I about a month before I move out of California. He used to be pro gun and pro second amendment. But for the last few years he has been hanging out with what we call craft beer snobs that are millennial and very liberal. Artsy if you will. After one of the shootings not long ago he posted that he had reversed his position and was leaning towards total gun confiscation and restriction. We tossed about the normal points and counter points a few times and not much headway was being made till that last gathering. Some of his friends had dies from overdoses and one or two from a DUI. I asked why he didn’t support banning of all recreational drugs for everyone and not allowing anyone that had a car to drink. He said it wouldn’t work because people would drink and drive anyway and they would get recreational drugs legally or illegally. I don’t think it was lost on him because he has not posted another ban all guns post since. I don’t know if he has changed his position but I think he sees the flaws in it.

1 Like

Perhaps we should wonder what we are afraid of. Why do we fear semi-auto rifles? Rifles can do nothing all by themselves. They are inanimate.
Are we forgetting the segment of our population that is aging, dealing with debilitating illnesses as simple as arthritis and how it affects our ability to defend ourselves? How about the population that has grown weaker over the years and have reflexes that have dramatically slowed down? Do we really want to limit them to a single-shot black powder rifle so we can ease our own insecurity?
How about the ability of a senior citizen to defend himself by a 20-something assailant? Shall we limit the senior citizen to no defense?
It seems to me that a disarmed population makes subjects out of those who used to be citizens. My desire to be able to defend my home and family is much more important to me that anyone’s insecurity. I have my own to deal with.
Everyone is free to have his or her own opinions, but I am (and intend to remain) free to arm myself under the 2nd Amendment of the constitution - even if all the scared politicians muster up the votes to remove that amendment. At that point, I’ll be a lawbreaker, too.

1 Like

I see we do agree on the danger of big government. I have lived long enough to see words manipulated endlessly and courts used to “rewrite” the U.S. Constitution.

It happens because the population, in general, is apathetic. I think that is because we do not trust anything we see from the news media - and we probably should not. There appears to be no longer any ethics interfering in journalism. This has created in us what I see as three “types” of people.

  1. Watch nothing, believe nothing
  2. Watch only the ones who confirm my own biases.
  3. Watch multiple, get angry every day
    I tend to be in group 3, as I can see how quickly we are going downhill. However, I always vote. For me, the candidate which improves our ability to “pursue happiness” without government handouts is a big plus. The candidate who want more of my money to give away do not get my votes.

Out of those three, numbers 1 and 3 become non-voters. Number One because they have given up. Number Three because the confusion is too difficult and becomes self-defeating. If person #3 votes, it will be a coin toss at the poling place.

I think political candidates are intimately aware of American’s willingness to surrender rights and freedoms for a feeling of safety and security. Mentally, many Americans have adopted a welfare mentality. We think everything is the government’s problem - specifically the federal government. We seem to have forgotten all about state’s rights and responsibilities.

If I were to try to pick a time when American’s subjugated themselves to the will of the government, I would guess it happened about the same time when public schools stopped teaching citizenship classes and student no longer learned how the government was designed to work.

Fear of guns, I think, started when the U.S. population started staying in cities and no longer were taught about firearms and hunting by their family. Guns became things to be feared instead of tools.

I am rambling now, and since I have things to do today; I have to get started. I appreciate the conversation and love this site. Much appreciation for this place even being here. Take care and may God bless you all.

Friends. I enjoy my 2A rights and freedom.

Today, I saw a news report about how mass shooters obtained their firearms. If the news report was correct, about 12 of these listed obtained their firearms legally.

I don’t want to lose my rights and want others to have their rights as well. A part of me realizes that if/when someone purchases a fire arm or even ammunition legally, but then later commits a crime with it, I cannot help see that not only does it cause harm but hurts our cause. It seems so complex. I look for what can we do to both help protect our rights and still mitigate unjust harm. Here’s a copy of the write up:

I appreciate that someone put together the information on mass shootings @Burdo, but all it proves is that we live in an imperfect world. It shows that someone can legally own a firearm for hours or years before using it to harm someone. It shows that even people who pass background checks can then use a firearm to hurt someone. It shows that some people who are known as prohibited persons can pass a background check because the failed to do what it is supposed to do.

By correlation, it shows that background checks do not work. It shows that waiting periods do not work.

I guess the big question really becomes who should be allowed to possess firearms.
Should anyone who seeks any treatment for any type of psychological disorder be excluded?
Should psychological examinations be required before someone purchases a firearm?
Should psychological evaluations be required on a regular basis to continue to be able to possess a firearm?
Should anyone who commits any crime be prohibited?

And, if we are ok putting these types of conditions on the right to bear arms, what other rights should require the same level of scrutiny? Free speech, religion, to assemble, the press, privacy, to marry, to have children, to travel freely …
What else should we do in the attempt to keep all people safe from all possible harm in a free society?


I stand with you. I understand. Today, I received an email from the USCCA, where one of my USCCA mentors Kevin M., posted an article with similar stance, that background checks don’t work. I copied it below.

Just IMHO:

At the same time, I believe there is some merit to having rules. Something about legally allowing “any” adult to purchase and take home a gun the “same day” does not sit right with me; To me, even from an ethical, moral, or common-sense safety view. I think having “some” rules – adds respect and credibility to legal firearm owners. I can wait a lil bit. Although I’m not for too strict of rules.

I’m biased though, from my personal experience, and respect that many will disagree with me, but I still consider myself a staunch 2A supporter.

I’ve worked in mental health, yet believe that not all persons with any type of psychological disorder should be excluded from possessing firearms, but that many should be legally allowed to possess, just not all.

Required psychological examinations:

IDK. I can see how that one is uniquely complicated. The resources, manpower, effectiveness, and efficacy, just might not be feasible or reduce crime or accidents. Simply put, over-doing it. A lesser, more minimalist approach, or happy medium might be worthy of an accurate unbiased study. In some states, when a healthcare worker suspects a patient/client has a significant intellectual disability, that worker is mandated to report the patient/client to the state FOID authority, who can then investigate. I believe that’s a less aggressive approach, but worthy of merit, or at least a study.

Should anyone who commits any crime be prohibited from gun-ownership?:

To me, it depends, depends on the crime, and the rest of their background. Severity should warrant sanction. Minor crimes, less sanction. I’m biased in that if they committed a crime against one of my family members, I might lean towards tougher sanctions. If I’m going to take that stance for my family, then I ought know it stands for all, myself included.

Free speech, religion, assembling, press, privacy, marriage, having children, travel:

I don’t see owning a firearm in the same category of these 8 activities. Those actions are also hard to manage or enforce, and are held sacred by most if not all. If I added firearms as a 9th subject, and if I had to choose to lose one of these rights, I’d drop the firearms, because the other 8, I personally can’t live without. However, thanks to all of our brethren here, I’m lucky to be able to bear arms.

What else should we do in attempt to keep people safe from harm?:

I really liked how that’s worded, “attempt”, because there is no easy guaranteed remedy, but I think it noble to “take the effort”. I ask myself the same, and that’s why I’m here, began supporting our mission, and encourage those closest to me to do the same.

Seems like so long ago, but when I think back to school days when we studied “how to read and or conduct professional research studies”, I’m reminded that just because one set of statistics exists, does not mean that factor X or Y actually caused it. I think when someone says that a certain law is not reducing crime, that other factors can actually be causing the high rate of crime, and that it might not be accurate to say that “control” does not reduce crime.

To say that gun control does not work is to me a subjective leap, but I also believe that to say that it does work – can also be subjective and not true. I was taught to be extremely critical of all research, and dig deeper, because there are many variables.

I hope I’m welcomed in our tent, and stand beside you, with your strength, our strength, to have your back. Your friend.

Kevin’s article:

I hear what you are saying but disagree. The Revolutionary War was the result of the Kings abuses of the colonies by substantially infringing on the colonists’ rights, especially those found in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and yes, even the 2nd. Those rights were fought for predominantly with guns! Without the 2nd, all other rights will eventually fall. The Supreme Court has ruled that all of those rights are fundamental rights, one does not supersede another.

Is it? If a person is intent on harming another person, gun control will not stop it from happening.


I disagree. There was a reason - still is a reason - that the Second Amendment was placed in such a prominent position in the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers knew well that an armed citizenry is essential for liberty. We only have to look at the regimes of the 20th Century with a disarmed populace to know what can, and will, happen, should we neglect the Second Amendment.


Tell me how placing additional purchase and ownership restrictions on law-abiding citizens is going to impact the behavior of criminals. We already have plenty of laws on the books that criminals violate with impunity.

1 Like

Hi. Thanks for your feedback and food for thought. I used to believe the same, until I was hit with “research” science in school, and it caused me to doubt everything until I see more proof. “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”.

I’m honored that two of the members I respect the most are here with me. “I’m a pair of brown shoes amongst tuxedos”. In its core, I think we are in the same court and share main beliefs.

I think some generalizations or arguments in support of 2A have too many holes in them, that those against 2A could easily win. I fear if our community follows that logic, it could hurt our cause more than help us. I don’t fear the “anti 2A” as much as I fear us going down a wrong path, despite us agreeing on and wanting the same “main” thing.

I propose we look for different more credible strategies and unbiased valid research studies. Those against us are bringing their “A-game”; When I hear them, it gives me a tummy-ache. I’m surrounded by them. Our fighting stance demands better, and our best. Too much on the line.

I think I believe in 2A, but more as a privilege than as a right. I support policy which encourages background checks, education, and training. I think it adds quality to our community, over quantity. I think certain rules make sense like they do before hiring someone who would for example work with children, drive a car, or practice a certain profession.

Of course, there’s never a guarantee of weeding out all criminal behavior or harm, but to me, knowing who’s out there, it’s not right to allow anyone the same ability to own legally.

When I was in school, I so appreciated our 1776 era, that I had written about it in class. However, I believe that today we live in different times, and I don’t believe we’d ever have another revolutionary war. Hoping not, but if we did, I think current laws have allowed many of us to be armed.

What we hold precious shall keep us together strong. And together, we are richer. ---- Your friend. :blush:

1 Like

Why not? Until you commit a crime, what have you done wrong? Prohibiting “certain” people from owning firearms we have learned from the past is discriminatory, and unconstitutional. The fact that we have a growing list of people that are “prohibited” should be of concern to everyone. When your name gets on that list, we will just turn our eyes as it does not affect us?

Yes, people that own firearms, actually everyone, should know proper firearm safety. It’s akin to knowing how to cross the street, swim, or know not to touch a hot stove.

Laws do not “allow” us to be armed, our Inalienable, Natural Rights provide that we have the RKBA. No government nor law of Man can take from one that is not granted to him/her.

1 Like

That’s not your call. It is a right as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Never forget that the Constitution - particularly the Bill of Rights - does not so much delineate what the citizenry cannot do, but what the government cannot do.

1 Like