OK...lets start afresh

[JohnPeeff]

In reply to Togor in a perfect world no. We do not live in a perfect world and opposition research is ingrained in our political system, think Hillary campaign Steele dossier. This forum is also about the 2 Amendment how about we take a break from the politics and and discuss what is happening in your state, pro/con ? We might find some agreement.

[togor]

In reply to Togor in a perfect world no. We do not live in a perfect world and opposition research is ingrained in our political system, think Hillary campaign Steele dossier. This forum is also about the 2 Amendment how about we take a break from the politics and and discuss what is happening in your state, pro/con ? We might find some agreement.

I like 2A discussions as my barrel index is pretty high. One thing I like doing IRL is engaging people who think that the 2A is about owning long-barreled shotguns only, and certainly not the "bad" guns like ARs. If you approach it correctly, and someone has a somewhat open mind, you can get them to go "hmmm, never thought about it that way." But it helps to stress points of common agreement, which (for me) includes the idea that gun owners have a duty to act responsibly in the possession and handling of firearms. That is how it was taught to me--muzzle, trigger and chamber discipline, at all times. Then you get "well if all gun owners were like you...." But alas there are owners who are legal but lack something in the responsibility department.

One more comment on the foreign intel angle. As a political matter, I understand that people in the Trump camp will deny a Russian/Wikileaks connection, either that it existed, that there was anything wrong with it or that it mattered in the end. But as a practical matter, the perception is that it hurt Clinton, gummed up her messaging at a critical point in the campaign, and consequently helped Trump. So at this point people have to decide if it is going to be legal or not. First mover advantage, if that is what Trump had, is fleeting. Next time around either no one or everyone will be doing it. Which do you prefer? For my part it's a sad joke if someone insists on spending billions to protect the country with a slab of concrete but shrugs at protecting the country when it comes to how we select our leadership. Same can be said for voter lists. Somehow they are sacred but the process of filling voters heads with foreign-sourced BS must be kept unregulated? It doesn't make sense to me. If you let them load up the works with bullcrap, they will.

[lyman]

Clinton foundation? Exposition would be needed. Not aware of Saudi cutouts generating fake social media accounts that are pro-Hillary. What Russia does is not IMO in our interest to go unchallenged.

not just Clinton,

think about how we have influenced other elections or leadership changes in other nations,
thru intel, material support, or whatever ,

I agree any influence should be exposed, but how would you regulate or eliminate it with out gutting the 1st?

[lyman]

I like 2A discussions as my barrel index is pretty high. One thing I like doing IRL is engaging people who think that the 2A is about owning long-barreled shotguns only, and certainly not the "bad" guns like ARs. If you approach it correctly, and someone has a somewhat open mind, you can get them to go "hmmm, never thought about it that way." But it helps to stress points of common agreement, which (for me) includes the idea that gun owners have a duty to act responsibly in the possession and handling of firearms. That is how it was taught to me--muzzle, trigger and chamber discipline, at all times. Then you get "well if all gun owners were like you...." But alas there are owners who are legal but lack something in the responsibility department.

One more comment on the foreign intel angle. As a political matter, I understand that people in the Trump camp will deny a Russian/Wikileaks connection, either that it existed, that there was anything wrong with it or that it mattered in the end. But as a practical matter, the perception is that it hurt Clinton, gummed up her messaging at a critical point in the campaign, and consequently helped Trump. So at this point people have to decide if it is going to be legal or not. First mover advantage, if that is what Trump had, is fleeting. Next time around either no one or everyone will be doing it. Which do you prefer? For my part it's a sad joke if someone insists on spending billions to protect the country with a slab of concrete but shrugs at protecting the country when it comes to how we select our leadership. Same can be said for voter lists. Somehow they are sacred but the process of filling voters heads with foreign-sourced BS must be kept unregulated? It doesn't make sense to me. If you let them load up the works with bullcrap, they will.

re the 2a,

I work in the firearms business,

regular customer came in one night and was walking around looking and this and that, like normal,

he and I had had some conversations before, seemed to be a good level headed guy,

this was right after Parkwood, or some similar event,

he looked at an AR I had nearby and said they needed to go,

curious, I asked him what he meant,

he stated all the semi autos should be banned, after what had happened,

I asked him why, and he responded he felt it was time for them to go, too many getting kilt,

I then asked him if that meant the 10/22 he was standing next to should be banned as well, he said no,

when I asked him why, (very politely, this was a civil conversation) he could not answer,

I commented about some of the pistols he had looked at, and explained to him that with that logic, (all semi autos banned) there would be a lot of guns no longer available, and gave him some specifics (like the 1911, that had been in use since, well, 1911)
I also reminded him that the AR was a 'modern' gun, invented in the mid/late 50's

I don't think I changed his mind, but hopefully planted a few seeds in it ,