Mike I strongly recommend reading the new book “Dark Agenda, the Left’s War on Christian America.” You will understand why our beloved country is rapidly sliding into Marxism.
2 Likes
Agreed. I was in the Army as an MP @ 18, carrying a 1911A1, couldn’t go have a beer. The whole 18 or 21 thing is a shambles. If someone is not an adult @ 18, then why do we still have to register for a draft? You just shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.
5 Likes
Total agreement. Lowering the voting age was done due to the protests of the Vietnam Era.
Of course those arguing that if one is old enough to serve they are old enough to carry don’t seem to understand just how tightly controlled access to firearms and ammo is in the Military. About the only place more restrictive than a US Military base are jails and prisons.
1 Like
I was fortunate enough to turn 18 in 77 and the legal carry and drinking age was 18. But that quickly changed. I did both at 18 but not at the same time.
2 Likes
See - even 18 year olds can make good choices! 
1 Like
I totally agree, we are all working together as a concealed carry community. So correct that gun control is pushed by anti-gun groups/people, not political affiliations. Kind of like saying all Muslims are terrorists. Not True!! I praise USCCA for separating politics and religion from business. I love the we are all in this together approach.
Thank you USCCA!!
Sincerely,
Kevin
6 Likes
Welcome to the Community, @Kevin6! Speaking about the exact situation instead of generalizations is always the best policy in my opinion. That way we’re not excluding anyone based on a generalization. 
Glad to have you here!
2 Likes
Welcome to the group @Kevin6!
I think sometimes it’s easy to think in generalities, but getting it clear in the details really makes a difference both here, and when talking to folks in person.
I’m finding this a very useful sandbox to sort out the details of what I actually think, and why, and getting my way of articulating that clearer and more easily understood.
Glad you’re here to play in that process!
3 Likes
Welcome @Kevin6. I think all of us 
have been guilty of generalization from time to time. It’s hard to break old habits/thought processes.
3 Likes
Not quite. less than 5% of the world’s Muslims directly or indirectly engage in or support terrorism.
Every democrat running for POTUS and virtually all of them running for national or state offices will be running on a draconian gun control agenda in 2020, even moreso than in 2016 and 2012.
You can easily be pro carry and anti gun rights.
1 Like
Actually, it is, @WildRose. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5% or 95% of liberals support the Second Amendment, lumping an entire group together based on the actions of part of the group will alienate those who believe in the 2nd Amendment.
I don’t know about you, but there has never been a political candidate that I agreed with 100% on every topic. So thinking that all of my views are reflected by a politician I vote for is a sure way generalize me and alienate me on a topic I may not be for or against.
4 Likes
I get your point but you’re being rather obsequious here.
Generalizations are just that, generalizations. There are exceptions to every rule and the exceptions do no discredit the rule.
To say “all liberals” or “all democrats” would be factually incorrect, to say that liberals and democrats are running on a strict gun control platform this year and that’s what all those voting for those candidates are supporting is perfectly correct and absolutely factual.
A lot of democrats today need to do what democrats did in the 80’s and 90’s need to take a hard look at the party they are supporting because if individually there are strong 2nd Amendment Democrats still voting their party has left them just like it did many of us decades ago.
1 Like
True, but why not use the specific instead of the general to state your argument? Arguments with specifics are much stronger than arguments with generalizations.
I’m being obsequious because I want you to have the strongest arguments you can have when it comes to defending your Second Amendment rights and that comes from specifics, not generalizations? Or because I expect people to be respectful to a variety of viewpoints because we all have more to learn and we learn best from respectful conversation?
I’m not sure obsequious was the word you wanted to use?
1 Like
So to break all of this down into one sentence. “If you don’t have something nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”
1 Like
Or if you have a point to make, be as concise as you can in a respectful manner to strengthen your argument.
3 Likes
Lord have mercy, I’m glad that says, “as you can” and I’m not held to the reasonable person’s standard like in court
4 Likes
Wild rose, a melinnum ago I was stationed in North Carolina. We had a joint effort between the military and the State Conservation Department where we went into jr. and sr. high schools and taught gun safety. Just basic stuff but it was a huge hit with the kids, parents and staff. I fear times have changed though.
2 Likes
Because it’s tedious and unnecessary.
You’re being obsequious by definition jumping on everyone using the generalizations that apply broadly to the democrat/progressive/left who are and will be running hard on anti second amendment platforms for 2020.
I get that you don’t want to offend anyone, you want all the allies you can have but in realilty what you are doing is attempting to silence your allies for speaking what is provably true because you’re afraid it might offend someone on the left who happens to favor concealed carry.
Licensed concealed carry is not a pro 2nd Amendment issue to begin with since it is such a highly restrictive and heavily regulated “privilege” license by the state.
Constitutional carry would certainly be a 2A issue. Again, licensed carry is perfectly compatible with an over all anti 2nd Amendment stance.
It is “The Right of The People”, not “the privilege of the select few”.
Scalia’s decision in Heller is a very good place to look for a better understanding of who “The People” are in the context of the founding documents.
If our purpose is to educate and win converts then we at least have to start with the truth.
If I use the phrase “Republicans are pro 2nd Amendment”, it is perfectly accurate, just like using the phrase “Democrats are anti 2nd Amendment” is perfectly accurate.
Again, everyone that understands the English Language knows that those positions are not held by 100% of the candidates, office holders, or voters, but we all know those are the positions of the two parties and thus what their voters are supporting.
You are demanding the exact opposite of concise.
concise
con·cise | \ kən-ˈsīs \
Definition of concise
: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detaila concise reporta concise definition
Definition of verbose
1 : containing more words than necessary : WORDYa verbose replyalso : impaired by wordinessa verbose style
2 : given to wordinessa verbose orator
Alright you two settle down. 
You’re arguing semantics of language. It’s probably true that Dawn is a little overzealous in trying to keep it politically neutral. It’s also probably true that Wildrose could use slightly different descriptors. (Example: Democrats typically campaign for draconian gun policies)
Remember, text doesn’t convey emotions, inflections or intent like a face to face conversation. It lacks the subtle nuances we all use in day to day conversations. It also lacks facial expressions and body language. So it’s very easy to misread what someone actually intends.
I don’t believe for a minute Dawn wants to silence any of us. But a reminder that generalizations via text don’t always translate well doesn’t hurt either.
Look at that other conversation going. Had i been more conscientious in choosing my words that most likely never would have spiraled into the proverbial outhouse.
5 Likes