TexasCHLforum.com

I can't believe how polarizing the gun issue is to the general population. I have co-workers that ridicule the castle doctrine. They can't see why you should be able to defend yourself (they are Cali. transplants ). I don't make it public knowledge about my guns because of fear of theft but also the stigma of guns due to the media. I think that this country should force milltary service like Switzerland or Isreal where everyone has to serve for a time when they are 18. We would have less obesity and spend less on related health care. More importantly everyone would have to shoot a gun and make their own mind up.

JMHO.

fadlan12 wrote:I have co-workers that ridicule the castle doctrine.

It's the way the media is protraying it as "shoot first, ask questions later."

fadlan12 wrote:I think that this country should force milltary service like Switzerland or Isreal where everyone has to serve for a time when they are 18.... More importantly everyone would have to shoot a gun and make their own mind up.

I know and have known people who served in the military, including in combat, and are opposed to civilian firearms ownership.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It's the way the media is protraying it as "shoot first, ask questions later."

You are right...In the thread last week when all of this went down...The anchorperson on Houstons' CBS morning news crew said the same thing in the "copy" she read...

Totally misrepresenting the intent of the law...

But why am I not surprised???

seamusTX wrote:

fadlan12 wrote:I have co-workers that ridicule the castle doctrine.

It's the way the media is protraying it as "shoot first, ask questions later."

- Jim

When the media owns the story they can twist it how ever they want.

fadlan12 wrote:I can't believe how polarizing the gun issue is to the general population. I have co-workers that ridicule the castle doctrine. They can't see why you should be able to defend yourself (they are Cali. transplants ). I don't make it public knowledge about my guns because of fear of theft but also the stigma of guns due to the media. I think that this country should force milltary service like Switzerland or Isreal where everyone has to serve for a time when they are 18. We would have less obesity and spend less on related health care. More importantly everyone would have to shoot a gun and make their own mind up.

JMHO.

Believe me, I understand your sentiment on the issue, but how would forcing a people to serve allow them to "make their own mind up"?
The beauty of this country is in the freedoms that we enjoy. You are free to enjoy guns, or you are free to hate them. But most importantly, you are free to decide whether you will put your life on the line to defend such freedoms.

I always like to de-escalate such discussions from a non gun owner perspective. I always use questions(see first sentence of response ). Start off by asking them questions about the value of their own life or the lives of their children. What they would do to protect them from evil. Don't even mention how you would do it, just let them answer. Don't bring up the use of a gun, and if they do, play it down as a "last resort". Antis love to use emotion to debate their views. As long as you don't follow that path, you may shed some light on their views that they never realized, but in a passive way. Let them walk away feeling that they taught themselves something, not that you "won". Ask questions and let them only hear their own answers. You can normally have them debating themselves fairly quickly. Once that happens, they will respond one of two ways. If they are rational, they will start to question themselves and try to learn more. If they aren't, they will get mad at you for confusing them and storm off. The latter is what you want to avoid. Keep a keen sense of their demeanor and know when to end the discussion.

It's ignorance.

Remember, a great portion of America has never even touched or shot a gun. They just hear "guns are bad and dangerous" from someone they admire, and they run with it.

If you heard Cam Edwards, or Wayne LaPierre say, "Thing-a-mabobs are DANGEROUS!" you'd be inclined to believe it, even never having seen or touched one.

It'd be even more likely to stick if you could care less about Thing-a-mabobs, never wanting to own one for whatever reason.

(In fact, I think this happens when the NRA takes a political position on a non-gun issue, but i'm not going to go there.)

This is why it's so important to take people to the range; give them a real experience with firearms so they have something real and tangable to base their opinions on.

fadlan12 wrote:I have co-workers that...... can't see why you should be able to defend yourself (they are Cali. transplants

They actually would willingly submit to someone who intended to kill them? Wow! We are slowly being outnumbered by the sheeple. This kind of attitude has the potential to cost us our country. One day in the future, some half baked middle eastern country will attack us and our nation will not have the guts to fight back - the sheeple will rather surrender than fight.

S&W6946 wrote: One day in the future, some half baked middle eastern country will attack us and our nation will not have the guts to fight back - the sheeple will rather surrender than fight.

Personally I doubt that would happen anytime soon. The same basic sentiments were being tabled in the 30’s in regards to Germany, Japan, and Russia. Isolationism held sway in most of the free world…anyone remember Neville Chamberlain 1938 (“Peace for our time�)? We know how that turned out…

Korea and Vietnam were a different type of war since there didn’t appear to be a direct threat to the US other then the claim of “Cold War� and expansion of communism. But Americans enlisted and fought in foreign lands (and under the sea, on it, and in the air)…places all over the globe with names few ever heard and fewer remember. During my tours of duty during the cold war I served with very dedicated folks. Some were leaning towards “Liberal� and “Antiwar�…many were draftees in the early days that stayed to see the fight through. The USSR fell, and China morphed into a different nation. The USA led that fight and shouldered most of the burden.

Sadam invaded a neighbor and the US went to war, with the sanction of its people.

9/11 happened and the country united around a “War on Terror�, even though they had been generally passive about terror in the preceding decades…Enlistments increased, and it wasn’t the bottom of the barrel people who had no place else to go. I don’t think anyone would have claimed Tillman had no place else to go…

Let a Middle Eastern country, or a Latin American country, or for that mater any country openly attack the US and the majority of the American public will respond with force. It’s a tradition…I see no indications that tradition has been replaced by “surrender�.

Just my opinion…

Believe me, I understand your sentiment on the issue, but how would forcing a people to serve allow them to "make their own mind up"?
The beauty of this country is in the freedoms that we enjoy. You are free to enjoy guns, or you are free to hate them. But most importantly, you are free to decide whether you will put your life on the line to defend such freedoms.

What I mean is force people to serve and then let them make up their own minds about guns after they are completed with service.

I do ask them about self defense and they try to talk about odds. Its humorous how a conservative and a liberal cooperate to be anti.

fadlan12 wrote:

Believe me, I understand your sentiment on the issue, but how would forcing a people to serve allow them to "make their own mind up"?
The beauty of this country is in the freedoms that we enjoy. You are free to enjoy guns, or you are free to hate them. But most importantly, you are free to decide whether you will put your life on the line to defend such freedoms.

What I mean is force people to serve and then let them make up their own minds about guns after they are completed with service.

I do ask them about self defense and they try to talk about odds. Its humorous how a conservative and a liberal cooperate to be anti.

I think kauboy was pointing out the irony of your statement. Forced service is incompatible with freedom, and isn't freedom what the right to keep and bear arms really all about?

If someone can force me into servitude at gunpoint, it's really irrelevant to me whether that person represents the government, a foreign enemy, the local mafia, or the owner of the big slave plantation down the road. Forced servitude is forced servitude, and you can't use it as a tool if freedom is your goal.

Kevin

Switzerland is not forcing people to join up. Most people proudly do it. Shooting is their national sport, ammo is subsidized, and you are expected to own guns. Tis the true promised land.

Israel has so many enemies its mind boggling. I'd join the army just to get the Galil!

Nothing wrong with military tradition and discipline. But making that doctrine work here would be difficult.

If you saw some of what we get in public schools, you would change your mind about forcing everyone to join the military. Some of these folks would really bring down the quality of our armed forces.

It maybe just my opinion, but I really believe that presenting or presuming that SB 378 is about shooting, guns, firearms, rifle , pistols, cannon, shotguns or other like device is a mistake.

Don't buy into that, it's about self-defense, not firearms.
We can take the argument about guns away from the anti's entirely. Completely remove the fuel for that illusory fire, by knowing it's not about guns, and refuse to think that's all it is. It's bigger than that.

About 4 pages, big type, simple read. No references to our toys.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.pdf

I have to agree with lrb111. I had a discussion about the Castle Doctrine at work, including some pretty anti-gun people. One of the first things I pointed out was that it meant you could swing a baseball bat at the burglar's knees now and not be sued over it. That convinced them pretty quickly that this was a good law.

OK, they were not anti-self defense and could understand defending your home from a burglar, so I just had to put it in terms they could understand, but I think the logic will hold. If you get into a conversation about this, make sure you point out that it has nothing to do with guns.

Excellent points. I agree athat there are some unsavory youths, but you have to start somewhere; several generations and I think you would see a positive change. The flip side is this country does allow us the choice and it might make people less likely to resist the will of the government if everyone was indoctrinated.

catsofthebase3: according to wikipedia"
All able-bodied Swiss males aged between 18 and 30 (in some cases longer) must serve, and although entry to recruit school may be delayed due to senior secondary school, it is no longer possible to postpone it for university studies. About one third is excluded for various reasons, and these either serve in Civil Protection or Civilian Service.