Defensive Carry banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some may or may not like Colion Noir, but in this video he make good sense. We as gun owners have to get to the folks in the middle. I think he explains things very well as it pertains to UBC.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Good video and it explains the flaws and/or the hidden agenda behind UBC's. We need to defeat this legislation. It may seem harmless enough on its face but it can have very dangerous repercussions to gun owners. We are law abiding people. We don't need more background checks. And the people who will circumvent the law (criminals) won't subject themselves to it, so what's the point? We know what the point is.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
192 Posts
We all have our opinion on things.I saw on a post,on here a while back,someone from this site, said people who were afraid of UBC must not can pass a background ck.They didn't understand,what the fuss was,more or less.When i 1st heard of the UBC,i was suspicious.I wondered if the poster thought about one thing,like so many have?Why have the UBC when we already have to have background cks,when you buy from an FFL?Obviously,you don't have to be a brain surgeon,to realize,it's not just a background ck,there is more to it.There isn't but so many ways to ck. someone's background.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Not a bad video.



When it comes to registration of my guns...there will be no middle ground.
I do not think HB was implying we need to find a middle ground, but more so that we need to convince and educate people who are in the middle on gun rights issues. Most of us are locked in on keeping gun ownership to the original intent of the Constitution, and most activist liberals are locked in as wanting to ban all guns. The middle are people who really do not know what they think on gun rights or 2A. On one hand, they generally like the Constitution and all the ideas of freedom it stands for, but on the other hand, they are susceptible to emotion and feel bad when mass murders occur. Because of the emotions and wanting to be recognized as compassionate, their feelings overpower their critical thinking and it leads to naive thoughts that in our amazing country, we must be able to do something to prevent these incidents. Most of them are not evil, just naive because they never thought through the issues or human nature in an critical depth. The liberals try to capitalize on the naivety by repeating that they have the "solutions". Those who want more detail on how the "solutions" will work are bullied or guilted into silence with the famous "if you oppose our laws, you must want children to be murdered" shtick.

The good news is that those in the middle are open and when walked through a logical defense of the 2nd Amendment, why gun laws do nothing to solve a problem that is rooting in human nature and human failings, and why gun ownership is an invaluable tool in self defense. We need to gently engage them, do this friendly walk-through, reinforce the walk-through and continue to show through our actions what responsible gun ownership looks like.

As for UBC, the adage "The devil's in the detail" has never been more true. I personally oppose the UBC bill that will come to the Senate floor after the Easter recess because it is basically Sen. Schumer's bill, and we know how he feels about the 2nd Amendment (think gun registry). Sens. Manchin, Kirk, and Coburn tried negotiating a UBC bill, but Schumer would not compromise on the record keeping aspect so initially Coburn walked away. Later Manchin and Kirk eventually gave up on a deal and released a joint statement that they would not be supporting Schumer's UBC bill. That was about a month ago so we have to see what they are saying now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,074 Posts
I'm a fan of coiion noir.

The problem with UBC is the possible side affects of infringing on my rights. If I had a brother I should be allowed to give him a gun ( if he is eligible to have it) without a background checker getting an ffl involved.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,597 Posts
In January, a Quinnipiac poll found 92 percent of voters, including 91 percent of gun-owning households, support background checks on all gun buyers. A CBS-New York Times poll in January produced the same result. -Yahoo
I keep getting media reports of how 90% of Americans support UBC's. Maybe it's cherry-picking. Probably that number of people agree that background checks are a good way to keep criminals from buying a gun at the LGS. Frankly, the current system or one that criminalizes non-ffl transactions doesn't make me feel significantly safer.

In fact, UBC's are another government "dog and pony" solution interfering in the free market: more bigger government. Being accountable to government and being safer are two different things. No, I don't feel safer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
I do not think HB was implying we need to find a middle ground, but more so that we need to convince and educate people who are in the middle on gun rights issues. Most of us are locked in on keeping gun ownership to the original intent of the Constitution, and most activist liberals are locked in as wanting to ban all guns. The middle are people who really do not know what they think on gun rights or 2A. On one hand, they generally like the Constitution and all the ideas of freedom it stands for, but on the other hand, they are susceptible to emotion and feel bad when mass murders occur. Because of the emotions and wanting to be recognized as compassionate, their feelings overpower their critical thinking and it leads to naive thoughts that in our amazing country, we must be able to do something to prevent these incidents. Most of them are not evil, just naive because they never thought through the issues or human nature in an critical depth. The liberals try to capitalize on the naivety by repeating that they have the "solutions". Those who want more detail on how the "solutions" will work are bullied or guilted into silence with the famous "if you oppose our laws, you must want children to be murdered" shtick.

The good news is that those in the middle are open and when walked through a logical defense of the 2nd Amendment, why gun laws do nothing to solve a problem that is rooting in human nature and human failings, and why gun ownership is an invaluable tool in self defense. We need to gently engage them, do this friendly walk-through, reinforce the walk-through and continue to show through our actions what responsible gun ownership looks like.

As for UBC, the adage "The devil's in the detail" has never been more true. I personally oppose the UBC bill that will come to the Senate floor after the Easter recess because it is basically Sen. Schumer's bill, and we know how he feels about the 2nd Amendment (think gun registry). Sens. Manchin, Kirk, and Coburn tried negotiating a UBC bill, but Schumer would not compromise on the record keeping aspect so initially Coburn walked away. Later Manchin and Kirk eventually gave up on a deal and released a joint statement that they would not be supporting Schumer's UBC bill. That was about a month ago so we have to see what they are saying now.
That about sums it up. Except that I think that Manchin is till working on something. Don't know what, since he won't talk about it, but I am still concerned. Our best course of action is to oppose ANY bills that would potentially have a negative effect on our 2A rights. We already know they won't have any positive effects on fighting crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
And there you have it.............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I do not think HB was implying we need to find a middle ground, but more so that we need to convince and educate people who are in the middle on gun rights issues. Most of us are locked in on keeping gun ownership to the original intent of the Constitution, and most activist liberals are locked in as wanting to ban all guns. The middle are people who really do not know what they think on gun rights or 2A. On one hand, they generally like the Constitution and all the ideas of freedom it stands for, but on the other hand, they are susceptible to emotion and feel bad when mass murders occur. Because of the emotions and wanting to be recognized as compassionate, their feelings overpower their critical thinking and it leads to naive thoughts that in our amazing country, we must be able to do something to prevent these incidents. Most of them are not evil, just naive because they never thought through the issues or human nature in an critical depth. The liberals try to capitalize on the naivety by repeating that they have the "solutions". Those who want more detail on how the "solutions" will work are bullied or guilted into silence with the famous "if you oppose our laws, you must want children to be murdered" shtick.

The good news is that those in the middle are open and when walked through a logical defense of the 2nd Amendment, why gun laws do nothing to solve a problem that is rooting in human nature and human failings, and why gun ownership is an invaluable tool in self defense. We need to gently engage them, do this friendly walk-through, reinforce the walk-through and continue to show through our actions what responsible gun ownership looks like.

As for UBC, the adage "The devil's in the detail" has never been more true. I personally oppose the UBC bill that will come to the Senate floor after the Easter recess because it is basically Sen. Schumer's bill, and we know how he feels about the 2nd Amendment (think gun registry). Sens. Manchin, Kirk, and Coburn tried negotiating a UBC bill, but Schumer would not compromise on the record keeping aspect so initially Coburn walked away. Later Manchin and Kirk eventually gave up on a deal and released a joint statement that they would not be supporting Schumer's UBC bill. That was about a month ago so we have to see what they are saying now.
You are correct about educating folks in the middle of the issue. We can no longer convince them with our normal hard line stance. We will loose. We have to articulate our point and do it in a not threatening manor.( I understand we are not threatening them, but it comes across very harsh ) I believe we can win them over, Its just going to take some kit gloves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,467 Posts
I really like his vids. Secret Santa office party w guns?!?!?! I'm in!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
I'd like to add that even though those polls may say 90% support UBC, it does not translate into a push for UBC. Other polls on which issues matter most to the public have the gun control issue near the bottom along with climate change. Jobs and the economy are still king was to what the public cares about. Think of it this way, if you conducted a poll and asked a questions like should we make reforms to improve on border security and legal immigration, you'd likely get a 90% plus positive response, but the issues does not move most folks. It does move us, and we are making our voices known, but most public will forget the issue if UBC does not pass. See the following link Priorities.

This being said, we cannot relax because people make bad decisions in highly emotional states, especially on issues that they do not fully understand. If we provide enough education and live by example, those people will still feel bad for the victims of the next mass murder, but they may not demand immediate actions, the "Do something, do anything" actions. They will want substantive actions, actions that will work. This will start the debate about what will work and what won't. That's the debate the Democrats/liberals cannot win and do not want to have, hence the sprint to "do something" in the wake of Newtown. Only next time, they learned from Newtown, they need to move faster to capitalize on the public's shock and manipulate those emotions into what the Democrats want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,955 Posts
UBC and gun regs in general are illegal immoral and unconstitutional. Long and short of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
I wish people would stop talking about poll numbers like they were actually representitive of anything meaningful. All they are representitive of is one person's ability to give enough cash to another person to obtain certain results. Anti-gun outlets always claim their poll showed 90% of Americans want more gun restrictions. Pro-gun outlets always claim the opposite. Their figures are bunk and designed for the sole purpose of trying to validate their position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
I like CN. I started viewing his YouTube videos a few months ago. I agree with just about everything he says, and I pick up some good ways of phrasing things when discussing with the general public. He is now an NRA commentator.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top