TexasCHLforum.com

I know many people from the UK. Don't paint them all with the same brush or listen to the government sponsored propaganda from the BBC. They aren't all like that.

Glock4ever wrote:I know many people from the UK. Don't paint them all with the same brush or listen to the government sponsored propaganda from the BBC. They aren't all like that.

Absolutely true. If you ever read any of their gun magazines you find that they are constantly fighting to preserve what few gun rights they have. I really feel sorry for them as they are so restrictive that even shooting clays is a nightmare. Even worse than Commiefornia.

That's a mighty fine liberal storm shelter....



Now I know that all I need is about 15 ft of strong chain and a padlock to keep them inside.

Perhaps, I'm overlooking something, but I thought I'd made it clear: I'm all for helping "almost" anyone or group get gun training, but not American/socialist/commies. So now, some on the left find guns appealing and want training in their use, oh the irony...

If these Asc's if you will, want gun training, I'm not going to help them - no more than I'm going to help an arsonist burn down my house...

The gist of what I read after my post is: Hey, if you like guns, I reflexively like you and will help.

That philosophy sounds self-destructive to me.

No more than if a stranger/criminal smiles at me am I immediately going to consider him a friend...

Hhhhmmm, let's see. You like guns, but not my conservative values. However, since your lefty pals don't know squat about guns, you want me to train you in their use...?

Hhhhmmmm, nah...

I keep hearing about all of these supposed "attacks" on the left, but there haven't been any substantiated news stories. Saying "I know people who had (fill in the blank) happen to them" is pretty poor reporting. (can you say "fake news"?)
I too welcome anyone who understands that the Second Amendment, is for all "the people" I have never seen anyone denigrated, or intimidated at gun ranges, gun stores, or anywhere else gun owners like to get together. I have no problem shooting next to someone who is transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or even a Democrat. I probably wouldn't know it anyway, unless they told me. It just seems kind of hypocritical, that now, they feel the need to arm themselves, or prepare for disaster, when a few months ago, people who did those things were "Deplorables"

I think the Brits, along with the US MSM are just grasping at anything to stir up controversy. In the wake of the Orlando shooting, when it was suggested, that GLBT folks arm themselves, the hew and cry from the left was ear shattering.

The Brits, Aussies and Kiwis have all proven to be great disappointments in regards to their freedoms. They have accepted living as subjects and the new Crown is the State. Our Liberal/Progressive (or you could simply say Communist) friends believe in that perspective.

Most of us don't. Fundamental issue when it comes to seeing things eye to eye.

Jeff B.

I'm actually kind of sorry I read that. Now to find my antacid pills.

I think maybe I'm misunderstanding the article or I missed the gist of it? I took it to mean that more liberals are buying guns since the election. I think the article makes certain inaccurate generalizations of gun owners as a whole, which is probably why Mr. Cotton and others may have found it insulting? Not meaning to diminish that, but wouldn't it be considered a good sign that more liberals are deciding to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

One of the liberal ideals most of us 2A proponents disagree with is their agenda to impose gun control restrictions that not only infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights but also unduly burden innocent, law-abiding, responsible gun owners while doing nothing to prevent true criminals from illegally obtaining guns to do us harm. So if more liberals decide to become gun owners themselves and see the advantage of being able to protect themselves from being victimized by violent criminals, wouldn't that help dismantle that agenda and expose its misguided logic? And if it does help do that, even if to a limited extent, wouldn't that help strengthen somewhat the argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose?

Granted, I admit I may be completely misunderstanding the article and reading into it my own misconceptions. Just thought I'd mention this since I seem to be the only one reading it that way and may need some enlightenment for what I may be missing.

rotor wrote:

Glock4ever wrote:I know many people from the UK. Don't paint them all with the same brush or listen to the government sponsored propaganda from the BBC. They aren't all like that.

Absolutely true. If you ever read any of their gun magazines you find that they are constantly fighting to preserve what few gun rights they have. I really feel sorry for them as they are so restrictive that even shooting clays is a nightmare. Even worse than Commiefornia.

Agree with both of you. There are many fine examples of Brits, both in the UK and elsewhere.

My next door neighbor is a Brit, an LTC holder, a member of the NRA, a member of the TSRA, and likely the best neighbor I've ever had. It's hard to fit him in with the stereotype of "British anti-gunner".

I know a few expat Brits that I think very highly of, that escaped to the Free World.

equin wrote:I think maybe I'm misunderstanding the article or I missed the gist of it? I took it to mean that more liberals are buying guns since the election. I think the article makes certain inaccurate generalizations of gun owners as a whole, which is probably why Mr. Cotton and others may have found it insulting? Not meaning to diminish that, but wouldn't it be considered a good sign that more liberals are deciding to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

One of the liberal ideals most of us 2A proponents disagree with is their agenda to impose gun control restrictions that not only infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights but also unduly burden innocent, law-abiding, responsible gun owners while doing nothing to prevent true criminals from illegally obtaining guns to do us harm. So if more liberals decide to become gun owners themselves and see the advantage of being able to protect themselves from being victimized by violent criminals, wouldn't that help dismantle that agenda and expose its misguided logic? And if it does help do that, even if to a limited extent, wouldn't that help strengthen somewhat the argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose?

Granted, I admit I may be completely misunderstanding the article and reading into it my own misconceptions. Just thought I'd mention this since I seem to be the only one reading it that way and may need some enlightenment for what I may be missing.

You are correct, but I think the spin the article was trying to make, was that the left are now arming themselves out of fear of the right. Although, I haven't heard of any attacks by the right against the left. The statements from the Pink Pistol representative, was more spot on than the writer intended, and actually contradicted what the writer wanted to say. Since this was written by a British "journalist" I doubt very seriously that they understand that those who embrace the Second Amendment, do so, not for political purposes, or self serving ideals, but for the basic tenants set down by the founding fathers, who had recently defeated the strongest army in the world, at that time, and it may still gall the writer, that it was Great Britain. JMHO

I've known a handful of Brits and Germans over the last ten years who have come over for work and one of the first things several have wanted to do right off the bat is go to the range.

Jusme wrote:

equin wrote:I think maybe I'm misunderstanding the article or I missed the gist of it? I took it to mean that more liberals are buying guns since the election. I think the article makes certain inaccurate generalizations of gun owners as a whole, which is probably why Mr. Cotton and others may have found it insulting? Not meaning to diminish that, but wouldn't it be considered a good sign that more liberals are deciding to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

One of the liberal ideals most of us 2A proponents disagree with is their agenda to impose gun control restrictions that not only infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights but also unduly burden innocent, law-abiding, responsible gun owners while doing nothing to prevent true criminals from illegally obtaining guns to do us harm. So if more liberals decide to become gun owners themselves and see the advantage of being able to protect themselves from being victimized by violent criminals, wouldn't that help dismantle that agenda and expose its misguided logic? And if it does help do that, even if to a limited extent, wouldn't that help strengthen somewhat the argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose?

Granted, I admit I may be completely misunderstanding the article and reading into it my own misconceptions. Just thought I'd mention this since I seem to be the only one reading it that way and may need some enlightenment for what I may be missing.

You are correct, but I think the spin the article was trying to make, was that the left are now arming themselves out of fear of the right. Although, I haven't heard of any attacks by the right against the left. The statements from the Pink Pistol representative, was more spot on than the writer intended, and actually contradicted what the writer wanted to say. Since this was written by a British "journalist" I doubt very seriously that they understand that those who embrace the Second Amendment, do so, not for political purposes, or self serving ideals, but for the basic tenants set down by the founding fathers, who had recently defeated the strongest army in the world, at that time, and it may still gall the writer, that it was Great Britain. JMHO

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I missed that. Makes sense now.

I think Wheeler is just trying to be inflammatory. This is not the kind of news analysis we need now with political divisions growing deeper.

He noted an increase in gun sales that he thought was because of the threat of increased regulation when Hillary's polls looked good. So what, this is nothing new. Folks stockup on almost anything that might be in limited supply for whatever reason. California's upcoming restrictions on semi-automatics encouraged a lot of sales for the same reason. Again, so what. I think increased sales among liberals/minorities/anti-Trumpers is fake news... but as someone already pointed out, if that's part of the reason for increased sales, those new gun customers might learn something worthwhile.

I enjoyed many business trips* to UK but I always dealt with other technical types and politics seldom came up. The only snide remarks I heard from the locals about Americans was about our cars being big gas guzzlers. I admire their driving culture, fast but with full attention on the road at all times. I recall doing 95 mph and being passed by a Jag like I was standing still. Traffic laws seemed to only be enforced if you were not driving carefully or not getting out of the way for faster traffic. [* I admit this is ancient history because I've been retired for over 22 years!]

I get a kick out of their monarchy and kind of envy their weekly PMQ sessions. It seems like maybe we should have PQ (president questioned by congress) weekly sessions for better communications and meaningful debate. UK has been a good ally of US for many years and I hope that relationship continues.

I'm probably missing some negatives about Brits... but let's not judge them all for a few nut cases like Wheeler.

dale blanker wrote: but let's not judge them all for a few nut cases like Wheeler.

Or Prince Charles?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... f-the-past