“At this point I do have to admit to a certain bias as well – because I’ve never actually seen anyone change anyone else’s mind on the internet, I don’t really get why a person would want to engage with anti-gun people online. There are much better things to do with your time it would seem, like debating stopping power, Glock vs. 1911, or pounding a nail through your penis.” – Caleb Giddings in Is talking to anti-gun people a waste of time? [via gunnuts.com]
Everyone and everything evolves. TTAG has evolved into a great place, to find all things of the gun and in a lot of ways, the people of the gun. The fun stuff, the gear, the guns are all great. The politics, extremely important too. Because as we see, we are in the fight of our lives today. If you don’t sleep with toothpicks under your eyes, the anti gunners will catch you napping and take it to you. Keep up the great work!
Im going to go with the Glock vs 1911…the nail sounds entirely to painfull.
I’m going to go with Glock should just end the debate once and for all and create a 1911 – a Glockteen-eleven if you will.
I’ve just never really understood why there even has to be an argument. Why not both?
I argue online to sharpen my in-person arguments. I have changed quite a few minds in my time, mostly in person, and after they have gone shooting with me.
Ah, you’ve hit the um… nail on the head here. Words alone might not do it, but a range trip has a better chance. Not only do they get to handle and fire a gun, but hopefully get some exposure to the other people at the range, and see that we’re not the nuts the media portrays us as, by being selective about who they show on camera, both in interviews and b-roll.
Sharpening your skills and taking people shooting is also extremely important.
I am a gun owner. I am conservative not a republican. I live in Ohio. The NRA does not speak for me any more. Those guys endorsed Ted Strickland in the last election cycle for Gov of state. An Obama clone! How can anyone give financial support to a group that wants to elect people who have shown total contempt for 2nd amendment, ie: Strickland/Obama?
Strickland also was Obama’s lead man in Ohio for the 2012 election cycle.
Move on and Obama/Strickland are the same people. How does the NRA explain that? I asked them the question. I was basically told to go away.
There are two more elements at play as well. In order for a person to change their mind, they first have to admit to themselves that their previous position was wrong. This is exceedingly hard for many people. Thus:
(1) It often takes days, weeks, months, or even years for someone to be able to accept a new position. Engaging someone personally for such a long period of time is next to impossible. The Internet, however, makes that prospect possible.
(2) It is hard enough for a person to admit to themselves that they were wrong. It is even harder to admit to a friend or family member that they were wrong. The anonymity of the Internet may actually make it easier for a person to accept a new position.
For these two reasons — and the reason that JoshinGA mentioned above — I think it is worthwhile to engage people on the Internet.
As a relatively new gun owner and CWP holder, I can’t thank you enough for the content you have provided on this site. The gun reviews are most helpful, and the news and 2A commentary have strengthened my resolve and understanding of MY rights as a United States citizen. Bravo!
ummmm,
I think the nail through the penis would hurt less than losing our 2A rights…
I think Dan is right on the money in this aspect. Keeping your guns locked up and secured, away from unauthorized users, is something that all responsible gun owners should do.
But here is a thought as well. I don’t have kids at home. I carry a handgun everyday. My home is locked and has security measures. Do I need to purchase a $2,000 safe to secure my rifles and shotguns? Why? Because my guns are secured in my home, which in theory, should be off limits to unauthorized users.
So, all of us need, 2 ton safes, that costs thousands of dollars to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? I think that’s a stretch in logic and reality. My guns, in a quick access safe at home, can easily be stolen if a home intruder, has the determination to take the entire safe. So, a 2 ton, behemoth is your solution?
How about, keeping animals in cages and not letting them out, until they serve all their 15 year sentence. That way, they can’t break into my home!
I work in Maryland on a daily basis and have been unable to legally carry everyday because of that. I purposely commute longer than I otherwise would have to to avoid living in the People’s Socialist Republic of Maryland. I think they were recently listed as the least free state in the country with regard to for more than Second Amendment rights. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
The homicide rate in Baltimore last year was 32/100,000. Keeping 20 year olds from hunting should fix that.
When Martin O’Malley first ran for governor, he promised to do for Maryland what he did for Baltimore. Apparently not a lot of Marylanders had visited Baltimore (or watched Homicide or The Wire)….
With regard to the proposed prohibition against anyone under 21 possessing ammunition, the O’Malley administration comandeered the list of the Maryland Department of Natural Resource’s newsletter subscribers to send out a email in support of his gun control proposals — on Maryland’s junior waterfowl hunting day.
I’m missing something here… why should they be tax exempt?
Doesn’t New Jersey require armor-piercing rounds by law? Carrying hollow point cartridges in a handgun is illegal for ordinary citizens–presuming that they can carry in the first place. FMJ rounds have a higher tendency to penetrate than hollow points.
WHAT!
.CON.RES.107 — Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high… (Introduced in House – IH)
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
The key one is number 3
From the movie Thank You for Smoking
Joey Naylor: …so what happens when you’re wrong?
Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I’m never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But you can’t always be right…
Nick Naylor: Well, if it’s your job to be right, then you’re never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
Nick Naylor: OK, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate, and I’m defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: ‘Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream’, you’d say…
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can’t win that argument… so, I’ll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It’s the best ice-cream, I wouldn’t order any other.
Nick Naylor: Oh! So it’s all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that’s not what we’re talking about
Nick Naylor: Ah! But that’s what I’m talking about.
Joey Naylor: …but you didn’t prove that vanilla was the best…
Nick Naylor: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong I’m right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn’t convince me
Nick Naylor: It’s that I’m not after you. I’m after them.
[points into the crowd]
The lesson is clear: states run by Democrats are, one by one, banning semi-auto rifles. No gun-rights advocate can ever vote for any Democrat ever again. Period.
I’ve changed exactly 2 minds with internet debating. I’ve changed a half a dozen by taking people to the range and letting them shoot.
Congratulations!! & Happy Birthday! Happy Anniversary! About the school simulation video above. I’m from NYC & almost all the elementary & high schools I have been to; about half of the classrooms have 2 doors and all of them have a 6″x6″ safety glass window on them. And colleges can be mixed either 6×6 or 4×24 safety glass. Just my observation. Again All the best to the site…
“I disagree with you about Magpul. They can still sell their product just fine.”
OH! Well then that settles it! The Laws of Economics have been repealed! Making a product more difficult to produce is no longer a competitive disadvantage!
I don’t see how this ban effects veterans any more or less than non-veterans. When we write to our representatives we can’t give them an easy out to change the subject. We need to ask them for concrete evidence that backs up their belief that limiting magazine capacity “saves lives”. In CO we need to ask why the state government thinks that a company that produces firearms accoutrements would want to continue providing tax revenue and employment opportunities in a a state that thinks the products they manufacture is part of the problem with no evidence to support that.
With that said, good on the OP for the threat to vote these folks out of office!
I thought the beavertail grips were made to prevent hammer bite. A proper grip should be sufficient to prevent slide bite on most handguns.
Nicely done. With all the concern about limp wristing, MAC still carries a Glock 19. That tells me he has awareness of the potential problem, but is still comfortable with that platform due to extensive training and experience. All platforms have shortcomings. Personally, my carry guns are a Glock 27, Glock 23 (on order), and Smith 340PD .357. I have not seen any carry pieces which are 100 % perfect. As with cars, nothing has optimum performance in all categories.
With the 19, the light weight of the frame combined with poor handling (or perhaps a significant injury) could lead to a limp wristing malfunction. I imagine lighter – recoiling calibers in light guns such as compact .380s could have the same issue.
The 15 round mag limit just passed the house on its third and final reading, 34 to 31. The Democratic leadership “allowed” 3 Democrats to vote against it, which will make it more likely that they’ll keep their seats…but still letting the bill pass. Expect similar vote machinations on the other three bills being voted on today, with 3 or 4 Democrats voting against each one; just enough to let it pass.
Funny how that works out, isn’t it…?
I hate to take defense for Glock owners but MAC was not shooting a factory spec version of the Glock; he was shooting a “NiB-X Glock” that he was having trouble with.
Anyway if you browse around youtube enough you will find enough videos of people trying to purposely limp wrist their Glocks and failing.
Now with all that being said, the only firearm I have ever had issues with limp-wristing were all 1911s.
Neither insane nor illogical. It’s just that the goals toward which they are working have nothing to do with the stated goals (i.e., public safety). That’s the leaders. The rank and file grabbers are often just misinformed (which is according to design as well).