Anti-Gun Gunners??

[300plus]

I've had a few conversations recently with men who, for lack of a better description, I will call "anti-gun gunners". These are people who shoot rifles, handguns and shotguns at events or private ranges that don't feel it necessary to own more than one of any type weapon. One high-power rifle, one 22 rifle, one shogun and one handgun. Three of these people advocate a yearly tax on every firearm owned to discourage "gun hoarders and gun nuts" form having vast collections. They figure people with collections are the primary source for stolen, illegal firearms used in city crimes!

The reasoning behind their "you don't need more than one handgun" sentiment- handguns are strictly for personal protection, you can't carry more than one (you can-but they don't think so) so you don't need more than one. Having only one, if you are a victim of burglary the CRIMINAL can steal only that one gun. My head was ready to explode. All these "gentlemen" expressing these views originally lived in (no surprises here) Chicago, New York City or Milwaukee. They all served in the military, they all hunt or used to hunt and all will shoot handguns at a range with rentals or shoot a friends but say they don't own handguns.

No amount of applied logic seemed to sway their position that multiple gun, especially multiple handgun ownership is the reason so many criminals get guns. The big city media has really done its job.

[NikeBauer21]

And those people right there, are our biggest threat to freedom. No need to look at Brady, or the liberal idealists. The primary enemy is within our own ranks of gun ownership. The hunters, and gun owners who choose not only to sit by quietly while infringements happen or are trying to happen, but they actually support those infringements.

They support "certain" gun restrictions now... but eventually, the day will come when their interests will come under fire, and by that time, there will be nobody left to stand up.

I don't need to recite the "First, they came for..." writing, as I'm sure everyone is familiar with it. But it couldn't apply here any more...


Stay smart my friend, and don't let them frustrate you, for they don't know their own path to destruction. All you can do is attempt to educate them. However, unlike staunch anti-gunners who may be open to hearing the truth, many "anti-gun gunners" think they already know everything, and you can't teach them anything new. It's an uphill battle... but it's one that has to be fought.

[nycems22]

Well that should apply to ALL collectibles then. Why own more than 1 car? You can't drive more than one at a time! Why is it that people can have a bunch of something and be called collectors, but if you have a bunch of firearms your a gun hoarding gun nut? Guns and rifles have an intrinsic beauty to them. They have historical significance. And last but Certainly NOT Least ............... They are F'N COOL!!!!

[steelerfan]

Yeah,I know some people like that too. It's sad,to them there's a line draw between what they consider a gun owner & a gun "nut".
Actually I guess there is for me as well,it's called money,I can only afford so many guns, otherwise I'd have a lot more,haha

[jshwak]

Vive et alteros vivere permitte (thanks google)

Live and permit others to live !!!

why is this concept so hard to understand ?? It never ceases to amaze me how polarizing gun ownership is, even within the gun community. I'm even more surprised at the naivety or the anti-gun-gunners that think any "reasonable" gun control is good.

we should also have resonable:
car control
lighter control (you only need one, more than one could be used to start fires)
baseball bat control (baseball ?? Think of the children !!!! )
tactical gas tanks (High capacity gas tanks are only good for one thing.. running over a lot of people fast!)
blah
blah
blah...

that is literally how ridiculous it gets.. this "if I don't like it, regulate it" mentality gets me in fits of rage..

The only thing we should regulate are Hi-Points ... just kidding

[kimbershooter]

I've had a few conversations recently with men who, for lack of a better description, I will call "anti-gun gunners". These are people who shoot rifles, handguns and shotguns at events or private ranges that don't feel it necessary to own more than one of any type weapon. One high-power rifle, one 22 rifle, one shogun and one handgun. Three of these people advocate a yearly tax on every firearm owned to discourage "gun hoarders and gun nuts" form having vast collections. They figure people with collections are the primary source for stolen, illegal firearms used in city crimes!

The reasoning behind their "you don't need more than one handgun" sentiment- handguns are strictly for personal protection, you can't carry more than one (you can-but they don't think so) so you don't need more than one. Having only one, if you are a victim of burglary the CRIMINAL can steal only that one gun. My head was ready to explode. All these "gentlemen" expressing these views originally lived in (no surprises here) Chicago, New York City or Milwaukee. They all served in the military, they all hunt or used to hunt and all will shoot handguns at a range with rentals or shoot a friends but say they don't own handguns.

No amount of applied logic seemed to sway their position that multiple gun, especially multiple handgun ownership is the reason so many criminals get guns. The big city media has really done its job.

Should of asked them if they have only been with one woman. I like a variety, in my women and guns.

[The_War_Wagon]

Should of asked them if they have only been with one woman. I like a variety, in my women and guns.

Better example: ask 'em if they ONLY eat baloney sammiches on plain white bread, 3 meals a day, their entire life?

[crashland]

And those people right there, are our biggest threat to freedom. No need to look at Brady, or the liberal idealists. The primary enemy is within our own ranks of gun ownership. The hunters, and gun owners who choose not only to sit by quietly while infringements happen or are trying to happen, but they actually support those infringements.

They support "certain" gun restrictions now... but eventually, the day will come when their interests will come under fire, and by that time, there will be nobody left to stand up.

+eleventy People think gun owners are being unreasonable by standing firm against ANY additional restrictions on firearms. If we ever do loose our right to arms, it probably won't be one huge change but a series of minor chips at the foundation. Minor chips that "reasonable" gun owners even agree with. Like who needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?

The people willing to compromise are willing to sell out anybody who has different needs or interests to them. Hunters don't give a damn about concealed carry, as long as I can harvest my deer each fall, I'm happy. Handguns are dangerous and nobody should carry them except police blah blah blah.

I remain on the unreasonable side of the gun debate thank you very much. And yes, I do believe I should be able to buy a tank if I could afford one. The same for rocket launchers. No, there should be no limit to the arms I can buy. None. How else to stand up against tyranny?

[twoguns]

[QUOTE=NikeBauer21;1585593]And those people right there, are our biggest threat to freedom. No need to look at Brady, or the liberal idealists. The primary enemy is within our own ranks of gun ownership. The hunters, and gun owners who choose not only to sit by quietly while infringements happen or are trying to happen, but they actually support those infringements.

They support "certain" gun restrictions now... but eventually, the day will come when their interests will come under fire, and by that time, there will be nobody left to stand up.

I agree with this ^^^
These people have a complete lack of understanding of American Heritage and are a discredit to gun owners everywhere. They should be shunned.

[Yellowfin]

Here's the problem: shun them and they keep doing what they do.