Why are gun owners afraid to admit they own guns?

[DutchJazzer]

Shoot the bad guy, drop the gun, lay down on the ground.

from personal experience we didn't have to go that far.

holster the weapon or hold it in a neutral way in your hand!


als take of your shirt
put the shirt on the ground and your gun on the shirt. and hands up so they see there is no other gun concealed on you.

 

[DutchJazzer]

oh, no, Green didn't like my post. Look, I've been reading UN agenda publications since the sixties, where it is openly declared that privately-held guns must be abolished and that national armies must be apportioned to keep the peace, no winners no losers allowed but whoever the UN chiefs choose.

When you follow the money, the anti-gun rhetoric always goes back to ideologues of that super-clan. They are fascists, world-class fascists. You don't get to elect UN leaders. You don't get a direct public vote on UN agendas or policies. Human beings are considered property to be managed, like cattle.

I stand on the statement that "idealists" who support the UN agendas and policies are more dangerous than my gun-toting neighbors. These neighbors have their own agendas and policies for sure, but mostly they respect people who have the guts to take a stand for their rights.

Since my little discussion with the deer hunters, I've provided small stacks of hay in the fields where they can come and sit camouflaged while reducing the tons of alfalfa the deer eat off my fields.

yes the un was founded to prevent another tyranic0l reign like Hitler. but since the 60's all they wanna become is a hitler like rieghn. ofcourse hitler was voted into power. they are NOT.

WE MUST NOT SURRENDER OURSELF TO THE FALSE SONGS OF GLOBALISM!!!!!!!

 

[DutchJazzer]

Since you mocked me, this is what I don't like.

I'm much more afraid of a person/institution/government that is afraid of ideas and promotes weapons instead. Show me a government/society/church/etc that valued weapons over ideas and how that turned out better for everyone.

the jewish faith support weapons!
also christianity

Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

hitler was against private gun ownership. so was mao, so was stallin, so was pol pot!

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm all about discussing ideas and organizations that can serve human needs. Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep meeting to discuss the dinner menu. At a minimum, the right of self-defense is off the table. Nobody has a right to deny anyone that right.

That is where the anti-gun dreamers are effectively denying basic human rights.

 

[babe]

the jewish faith support weapons!
also christianity






hitler was against private gun ownership. so was mao, so was stallin, so was pol pot!

Well, the bible says (Isaiah) that after dreadful wars and plagues reduce the population back to stone age conditions, people will have to recast their weapons into agricultural implements, while wearing gunny sacks for clothes, with most of the men killed off so women will have no men to help.

This is actually the ideal world the globalists seek. Only they're on the wrong side of history, believing the fantasies not the facts. They imagine they are the enlightened ones bringing progress to a world that needs destruction.
The UN armies will have plenty of guns we can turn into plowshares when they finally surrender to the peasants with their wooden pikes. I don't know how many more Pol Pots, Maos, Stalins, Hitlers, and Planned (un)Parenthoods it will take, but so far I don't see the end of it. The 500 million humans left on planet earth, according to the goals and agendas so far advanced, after the plans are accomplished, could be high by a factor of ten. The 'globalists' will run outta stooges and dupes, and the surviving Merkels will be hiding out in caves in the burned-out barrens.

It takes more population to keep airlines and high speed transportation running, and people will be walking everywhere, fighting for food, and won't giveadamn about globalism anymore.

 

[babe]

yes the un was founded to prevent another tyranic0l reign like Hitler. but since the 60's all they wanna become is a hitler like rieghn. ofcourse hitler was voted into power. they are NOT.

WE MUST NOT SURRENDER OURSELF TO THE FALSE SONGS OF GLOBALISM!!!!!!!

The UN was set up by the same people who invested in Hitler and built his armament plants and concentration camps.

Who didn't like Patton for wanting to free Russia as well as Germany, and didn't like Stillwell for favoring Chiang Kai Shek in China over Mao.

Who made sure Russia got the bomb and enough German scientists to build missiles, and who brought enough
German scientists here to make it a "fair fight" all the way down to the last useless eater.

 

[DutchJazzer]

if there was some sort of globalizations. i want all borders to be kept and every single country would get the constitution of USA. and not make it a breathing living document!
i know it has imperfections(14th amendment and the 24th but even with those imperfections i would take it in a heartbeat!

seeing as a friend of mine served 3 years for self defense (2nd amendment)
and i got convicted for speech violations(luckily it was just a fine no jail-time)

it is a libertarians dream that fine constitution.

so don't you guys dare touch 2nd amendment!!!!


be happy with it and defend it with your live every amendment especially the 5th with the vault7 stuff!

trust me you don't know what you have till you lose it!

 

[Gameface]

Well, the bible says (Isaiah) that after dreadful wars and plagues reduce the population back to stone age conditions, people will have to recast their weapons into agricultural implements, while wearing gunny sacks for clothes, with most of the men killed off so women will have no men to help.

This is actually the ideal world the globalists seek. Only they're on the wrong side of history, believing the fantasies not the facts. They imagine they are the enlightened ones bringing progress to a world that needs destruction.
The UN armies will have plenty of guns we can turn into plowshares when they finally surrender to the peasants with their wooden pikes. I don't know how many more Pol Pots, Maos, Stalins, Hitlers, and Planned (un)Parenthoods it will take, but so far I don't see the end of it. The 500 million humans left on planet earth, according to the goals and agendas so far advanced, after the plans are accomplished, could be high by a factor of ten. The 'globalists' will run outta stooges and dupes, and the surviving Merkels will be hiding out in caves in the burned-out barrens.

It takes more population to keep airlines and high speed transportation running, and people will be walking everywhere, fighting for food, and won't giveadamn about globalism anymore.

I think it's cute that you have such a simplistic cartoon image of your imaginary enemies. You could certainly argue that their policies and philosophical outlook will lead to the horrors you mention, but you really think "globalists" seek to destroy this world? Like just if they really admitted what they wanted it would be humanity enslaved?

So like if there was another path to the enslavement of humanity they would abandon their current ideology and switch to something completely different, just so long as it lead to their goal of a world police state of enslaved people?

I mean you don't sound like you're kidding, but what you're saying is a joke.

 

[LogGrad98]

from personal experience we didn't have to go that far.

holster the weapon or hold it in a neutral way in your hand!


als take of your shirt
put the shirt on the ground and your gun on the shirt. and hands up so they see there is no other gun concealed on you.

Strip naked. Shoot the now distracted bad guy. Put your gun on your pile of clothes. Lay down on the ground. Got it.

 

[Gameface]

The use of a open carry or concealed weapon is something that would happen in an instant. Your life would be threatened and you would just have to react. If you're in a situation and there is someone with a gun it is not like you bust out your gun and go hunting them down. You get yourself to cover and prepare to defend yourself. If the police arrive you put your stupid gun down, your hands up and you thank them for their service.

People with a concealed (or open) weapon have not been deputized to engage in a prolonged firefight with armed "bad guys" (hate that stupid term, btw).

 

[DutchJazzer]

The use of a open carry or concealed weapon is something that would happen in an instant. Your life would be threatened and you would just have to react. If you're in a situation and there is someone with a gun it is not like you bust out your gun and go hunting them down. You get yourself to cover and prepare to defend yourself. If the police arrive you put your stupid gun down, your hands up and you thank them for their service.

People with a concealed (or open) weapon have not been deputized to engage in a prolonged firefight with armed "bad guys" (hate that stupid term, btw).

so i should not put my awesome gun down? because i don't own any stupid guns, mine are awesomely EPIC

 

[LogGrad98]

So you're saying someone who goes into a public place with a weapon intending on hurting people is not a bad guy. Got it.

 

[Gameface]

So you're saying someone who goes into a public place with a weapon intending on hurting people is not a bad guy. Got it.

I think the whole "good guy/bad guy" thing is dumb.

You're free to call a person a bad guy all you want. I'm not saying they aren't a bad guy. I just think using that term the way it is popularly used is dumb.

I think you'll be able to get over my feelings about the term.

 

[Gameface]

so i should not put my awesome gun down? because i don't own any stupid guns, mine are awesomely EPIC

Bunch of nitpickers up in here.

My point is that a lot of people romanticize these scenarios and envision themselves as a hero in some epic shootout.

The fact is that first, you are not law enforcement. Your gun is for the protection of life and limb in a situation where there is an imminent threat. So if someone pulls a gun and is threatening people with it and you are right there armed with a concealed carry gun you can draw and fire at the threat. Game over.

If that threat is around the corner and down the street you absolutely should not put yourself in harm's way by drawing your weapon and charging in. Anyone who thinks that's what carrying a gun is all about needs to grow the **** up. Both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun. Both sides need to understand that is not what carrying a gun is all about.

If you can get to safety then get to safety and be prepared to defend yourself. If you can help others get to safety you should do that within reason.

There is really no scenario where you're going to have a prolonged running gun battle with "bad guys." None.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think the whole "good guy/bad guy" thing is dumb.

You're free to call a person a bad guy all you want. I'm not saying they aren't a bad guy. I just think using that term the way it is popularly used is dumb.

I think you'll be able to get over my feelings about the term.

Funny you think I'm the one with "feelings" about the topic when you're the one who freaked out over what amounts to semantics.

 

[Gameface]

Funny you think I'm the one with "feelings" about the topic when you're the one who freaked out over what amounts to semantics.

Freaked out? I used the term "bad guy" in my own post and I mention that I think it's a stupid term to use.

Also, I said that you will be able to get over -->my<-- feelings on the subject.

We good? Did I piss you off somehow? Are you super attached to using the term "bad guy" and took my comment personally? I'm not getting what's going on here.

 

[Gameface]

Using the term good guy/bad guy attaches moral absolutes to issues that are almost always not so black and white. For instance, the police and the military use the terms extensively, when the reality is that the U.S. military often kills enemies who are very possibly perfectly wonderful people. But if they are the enemy, if they pose a threat or stand between our soldiers and their objective they must be destroyed. Being a good guy or a bad guy is completely irrelevant.

Or consider a situation where there is an active shooter. Okay, call the shooter a bad guy. I don't get why people feel the need to do that, but fine. Do it. Let's say a career criminal with multiple homicides out of prison for three days is close to the scene because he's picking up a shipment of meth to sell to elementary school kids. Of course he's also got a gun. The "bad guy" rounds the corner and points his gun at the criminal, the criminal draws, fires and kills the active shooter before he can hurt anyone else. According to the good guy/bad guy rules I guess in this instance he was a good guy with a gun that stopped a bad guy with a gun.

When in reality it was just one person using justified deadly force in their own defense against an active shooter. I feel more comfortable calling the active shooter an active shooter. The term "bad guy" is not part of how I process that situation.

When in the military I was more comfortable calling targets "targets" but most everyone else wanted to refer to a target as a "bad guy" and it annoyed me. Especially because, for what I did, they were calling enemy missiles and aircraft "bad guys."

That's all. That's why I think it's dumb to use that term.

 

[BTP]

Using the term good guy/bad guy attaches moral absolutes to issues that are almost always not so black and white. For instance, the police and the military use the terms extensively, when the reality is that the U.S. military often kills enemies who are very possibly perfectly wonderful people. But if they are the enemy, if they pose a threat or stand between our soldiers and their objective they must be destroyed. Being a good guy or a bad guy is completely irrelevant.

Or consider a situation where there is an active shooter. Okay, call the shooter a bad guy. I don't get why people feel the need to do that, but fine. Do it. Let's say a career criminal with multiple homicides out of prison for three days is close to the scene because he's picking up a shipment of meth to sell to elementary school kids. Of course he's also got a gun. The "bad guy" rounds the corner and points his gun at the criminal, the criminal draws, fires and kills the active shooter before he can hurt anyone else. According to the good guy/bad guy rules I guess in this instance he was a good guy with a gun that stopped a bad guy with a gun.

When in reality it was just one person using justified deadly force in their own defense against an active shooter. I feel more comfortable calling the active shooter an active shooter. The term "bad guy" is not part of how I process that situation.

When in the military I was more comfortable calling targets "targets" but most everyone else wanted to refer to a target as a "bad guy" and it annoyed me. Especially because, for what I did, they were calling enemy missiles and aircraft "bad guys."

That's all. That's why I think it's dumb to use that term.

Well I tend to agree.
I think black and white moral is just very popular because of education and human nature.
Polarizing allows you to be lazy in your thinking. For some ppl it comes down to an unwillingness to discuss something they're biased about and risking the possibility of being wrong and/or angered about other views, while others may just lack the practice and/or education to dissect a matter into specifics.
I guess there are more reasons or motives that won't enter my brain during breakfast. My experience is that many will fall in the grey area between those two I mentioned.

 

[babe]

I think it's cute that you have such a simplistic cartoon image of your imaginary enemies. You could certainly argue that their policies and philosophical outlook will lead to the horrors you mention, but you really think "globalists" seek to destroy this world? Like just if they really admitted what they wanted it would be humanity enslaved?

So like if there was another path to the enslavement of humanity they would abandon their current ideology and switch to something completely different, just so long as it lead to their goal of a world police state of enslaved people?

I mean you don't sound like you're kidding, but what you're saying is a joke.

I think it's cute you believe you have the capacity to evaluate, intellectually, "cartoon images".

perhaps when you paint the world in your mind, everything is stick-figure drawings.

Seriously, of course the self-image carried by sociopaths who like to get on the world stage and speak expansively on the problems of mankind and their solutions for everyone, is no "stick figure" or simplistic cartoon. The problem is, therefore, how can we describe succinctly the net effects of their proposals, if pursued purposefully and consistently. In real life, humans have no long-term track record for being either consistent with their purposes or principles, or honest about their actual public characterizations of their real intents.

Here is how they talk publicly:

https://www.un.org/en/development/d...pulationfacts/docs/MigrationPopFacts20155.pdf

When they meet privately, it probably doesn't come off quite the same:

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/05/26/billionaires-try-to-shrink-worlds-population-report-says/

It might be a "cartoon image" of reality that the elites of this planet want it cleared and preserved as a sort of "Royal Hunting Preserve", but that also might be what the elites really care about.

 

[LogGrad98]

Freaked out? I used the term "bad guy" in my own post and I mention that I think it's a stupid term to use.

Also, I said that you will be able to get over -->my<-- feelings on the subject.

We good? Did I piss you off somehow? Are you super attached to using the term "bad guy" and took my comment personally? I'm not getting what's going on here.

I'm not getting what is going on either. I made a comment tongue-in-cheek and you went super-serious with feelings and stuff. I said "bad guy" in a comment mocking a fake situation, you went all philosophical about the esoteric meaning of "bad guy" and the societal and intellectual impact of the term. Not sure how you got something so heavy from a comment so light. I couldn't care less about the term to be honest, use whatever you want. By telling someone they will "get over" something you imply that the person is over-reacting and it is border-line condescending and patronizing. Why go down that road at all? Did I offend you by using the term "bad guy" in a flippant manner? Do you need a hug?