Interesting conversation, to be lost in the great threadapalooza of 2020

[Tactically Fat]

Aren't pistols just used in a fight to get to your rifle?

Faulty thinking. (Not you specifically - the quote itself is the subject here)

You'll be in the fight with what you have on you. There will not be the time to make a tactical retreat to a vehicle to retrieve a long-gun and then return to the fight.

 

[bwframe]

We should take this as a lesson.

When we had all three branches of gov't just short of four years ago, we should have put ALL EFFORT to push the Hearing Protection Act right through. Instead we wasted time and effort with reciprocity, constitutional carry and other stuff that will never happen on the coasts.

We should not have to sign up with the gov't, pay a stupid tax or ask permission to have a hearing safety device.

 

[Tactically Fat]

We should take this as a lesson.

When we had all three branches of gov't just short of four years ago, we should have put ALL EFFORT to push the Hearing Protection Act right through. Instead we wasted time and effort with reciprocity, constitutional carry and other stuff that will never happen on the coasts.

We should not have to sign up with the gov't, pay a stupid tax or ask permission to have a hearing safety device.

Way too many Republicans to accomplish anything logical.

 

[bwframe]

There are plenty of republicans to choose from. Lets get our's where they need to be.

 

[jamil]

“We”. “Ours”. Who is this we? Who is this ours? You do understand that everyone in the set of “we” is an individual with unique perspectives, sensibilities and preferences. At best you might say “we have some shared goals in common”. “We” didn’t get suppressors legalized because only a subset of republicans even know that they’re not “silencers”. They think they’re main use is by “hitmen” to assassinate people. The majority of their knowledge about “silencers” is from Hollywood. If you want suppressors legalized it’s going to take educating people on something they really don’t care to know as deeply as we do. That’s why Republicans didn’t get it done. F.U.D.

 

[jamil]

There are plenty of republicans to choose from. Lets get our's where they need to be.

Not really. There aren’t enough of “ours” and there aren’t enough of “us”. Grow the tent first.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not really. There aren’t enough of “ours” and there aren’t enough of “us”. Grow the tent first.

Most of “us” or “ours” don’t want to run. Most are not politicians. Maybe we’re too direct or lack the talent of answering a direct question with an answer that doesn’t say anything or commit ourselves to any specific position. Most of us don’t like that we’d have to play the political game to even get elected much less get anything done. Most of us just would rather be left alone...and since nature abhors a vacuum, that leaves the playing field wide open to those that have a lust for power or an agenda to change society closer to their hearts’ desires.

 

[ghitch75]

i have a SLR95 with 75rd drum behind the seat of the van and a Defender in the glove box.....i guess i need to get a couple suppressors....

 

[jamil]

Most of “us” or “ours” don’t want to run. Most are not politicians. Maybe we’re too direct or lack the talent of answering a direct question with an answer that doesn’t say anything or commit ourselves to any specific position. Most of us don’t like that we’d have to play the political game to even get elected much less get anything done. Most of us just would rather be left alone...and since nature abhors a vacuum, that leaves the playing field wide open to those that have a lust for power or an agenda to change society closer to their hearts’ desires.

I don't see much evidence of a silent majority. I tend to think it's a myth. I don't think there's as much "we" as you guys think there is. Sure as hell don't have any power if there were.

 

[bwframe]

That is why it is called "silent majority."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't see much evidence of a silent majority. I tend to think it's a myth. I don't think there's as much "we" as you guys think there is. Sure as hell don't have any power if there were.

It probably depends on the topic and where, along the continuum of “mainstream” vs. “extremist” you’re talking about. I not so sure that most people aren’t “lukewarm” about most things.

 

[Alpo]

Suppressors are cool...but I've always used the Harley Axiom: Loud guns save lives. A good flash suppressor is worthwhile though.

 

[jamil]

That is why it is called "silent majority."

 

[Hohn]

I don't see much evidence of a silent majority. I tend to think it's a myth. I don't think there's as much "we" as you guys think there is. Sure as hell don't have any power if there were.

It doesn't matter whether the "silent majority" is silent or merely cowardly-- it doesn't do a dang bit of good either way. The "majority" thinks that electing trump was all it had to do for everything to get fixed.

America is in a cultural war-- a complete war, and half the people in it don't even know there's fighting going on. They don't care. Too wrapped in posting selfies and watching mind-numbing TV or getting dumbed down further by their favorite "news" source.

Electing Trump wasn't the end. It wasn't even the beginning of the end. But maybe, it was the end of the beginning. That's what we're facing.

 

[two70]

I don't see much evidence of a silent majority. I tend to think it's a myth. I don't think there's as much "we" as you guys think there is. Sure as hell don't have any power if there were.

Suppose you are absolutely correct. I don't think that is the case but for the sake of discussion, suppose that you are. My response is: What is the point? What good does it do to be so defeatist so early? Is despair somehow made more bearable by engaging in it before it is necessary? The only possible reasons I can see to promote such doom and gloom are either to provide an excuse to oneself to do nothing or to actively encourage others to do nothing. Clearly the media does it to actively discourage people from voting but I don't see much value in it for someone who opposes the excesses of the Left.

 

[jamil]

It doesn't matter whether the "silent majority" is silent or merely cowardly-- it doesn't do a dang bit of good either way. The "majority" thinks that electing trump was all it had to do for everything to get fixed.

America is in a cultural war-- a complete war, and half the people in it don't even know there's fighting going on. They don't care. Too wrapped in posting selfies and watching mind-numbing TV or getting dumbed down further by their favorite "news" source.

Electing Trump wasn't the end. It wasn't even the beginning of the end. But maybe, it was the end of the beginning. That's what we're facing.

This is what this so-called "silent majority" is. It's just people living their lives outside of politics. I'm not gonna fault them for that. In a way I'm kinda jealous because I can't.

 

[jamil]

Suppose you are absolutely correct. I don't think that is the case but for the sake of discussion, suppose that you are. My response is: What is the point? What good does it do to be so defeatist so early? Is despair somehow made more bearable by engaging in it before it is necessary? The only possible reasons I can see to promote such doom and gloom are either to provide an excuse to oneself to do nothing or to actively encourage others to do nothing. Clearly the media does it to actively discourage people from voting but I don't see much value in it for someone who opposes the excesses of the Left.

Hold on. Defeatist? I'm talking about what we decide to commit to belief. I see no evidence that there is a silent majority of people who will come to the polls and vote for Trump. That's not to say that can't happen. There's just no reason at this point to believe that this will happen. I'm mostly commenting to the people who are so confident without cause. I'm not in despair, but if I were, I don't see that as a valid reason to believe or not believe anything.

And actually I'm quite curious why of all the reasons I might be skeptical of this grand majority you guys believe in, the only possible reasons you can see is to excuse myself, or encourage people to do nothing. That's absurd. Why would THAT be the logical conclusion of, "I don't think there's a silent majority". I'm actually astonished at this. And you are not the only person to say or insinuate this. I mean, WTF? Are you guys projecting? How is that something anyone would naturally conclude?

I'm writing these things on the pages of INGO because I suspect you guys are wrong about this silent majority. It's more about the standards we use for what we commit to belief. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go out and vote, and it doesn't mean I think you shouldn't bother to go out and vote. It's quite the opposite. I doubt there is a calvary of two70's out there, but for the fact that they don't want to show themselves until the election. So that means that everyone who believes the bat**** crazies should not have the power of public office, you ***damn sure you better vote.

It's possible though, that there is a large enough number of people who see what's going on and they want to stop it before it's too late, and maybe they think that it's not wise to go with the party of bat **** crazy right now, it's possible that enough people might vote R. I'm not at all confident in that. It's not something I've committed to belief. I'm just hopeful.

Before I want to commit such things to my belief, I'd like some facts to substantiate it. I'm saying guard your belief. That doesn't mean don't vote. Please do vote. I plan to. That doesn't mean you should despair. But if you think what I'm saying is despair or discouraging, I'm sorry. Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[BugI02]

Hold on. Defeatist? I'm talking about what we decide to commit to belief. I see no evidence that there is a silent majority of people who will come to the polls and vote for Trump. That's not to say that can't happen. There's just no reason at this point to believe that this will happen. I'm mostly commenting to the people who are so confident without cause. I'm not in despair, but if I were, I don't see that as a valid reason to believe or not believe anything.

And actually I'm quite curious why of all the reasons I might be skeptical of this grand majority you guys believe in, the only possible reasons you can see is to excuse myself, or encourage people to do nothing. That's absurd. Why would THAT be the logical conclusion of, "I don't think there's a silent majority". I'm actually astonished at this. And you are not the only person to say or insinuate this. I mean, WTF? Are you guys projecting? How is that something anyone would naturally conclude?

I'm writing these things on the pages of INGO because I suspect you guys are wrong about this silent majority. It's more about the standards we use for what we commit to belief. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go out and vote, and it doesn't mean I think you shouldn't bother to go out and vote. It's quite the opposite. I doubt there is a calvary of two70's out there, but for the fact that they don't want to show themselves until the election. So that means that everyone who believes the bat**** crazies should not have the power of public office, you ***damn sure you better vote.

It's possible though, that there is a large enough number of people who see what's going on and they want to stop it before it's too late, and maybe they think that it's not wise to go with the party of bat **** crazy right now, it's possible that enough people might vote R. I'm not at all confident in that. It's not something I've committed to belief. I'm just hopeful.

Before I want to commit such things to my belief, I'd like some facts to substantiate it. I'm saying guard your belief. That doesn't mean don't vote. Please do vote. I plan to. That doesn't mean you should despair. But if you think what I'm saying is despair or discouraging, I'm sorry. Facts don't care about your feelings.

I for one question your claimed motivation. You are skeptical that Trump will win in November and that a silent majority will provide that winning margin, cool. How do you find the demand for empirical evidence, that you have good reason to believe cannot be provided, to be personally useful if you indeed are not proselytizing? Do you need reassurance for your conclusions? I'm skeptical

The evidence of shifting sentiment toward law and order isn't ever going be apparent in massive street demonstations. Personally, I think the Richmond 2A protests and the turn-out for anti Antifa events like in Idaho and N Cali are indicative of what's bubbling under the surface; but that's anecdotal. I don't have enough faith in polling to quote that either, although I think there are positive signs there also if some of it can be believed. The absence of evidence for a particular future is not the same as evidence of absence, and of course the future is as yet unwritten

So maybe keep the Silent Majority 2.0 in the memory hole where you keep such things as string theory and supersymmetry; an area of tantalizing hypotheses for which a case can be made, for which evidence is largely non-existent, but for which the proof will solve many problems and create as many new ones

 

[jamil]

I for one question your claimed motivation. You are skeptical that Trump will win in November and that a silent majority will provide that winning margin, cool. How do you find the demand for empirical evidence, that you have good reason to believe cannot be provided, to be personally useful if you indeed are not proselytizing? Do you need reassurance for your conclusions? I'm skeptical

The evidence of shifting sentiment toward law and order isn't ever going be apparent in massive street demonstations. Personally, I think the Richmond 2A protests and the turn-out for anti Antifa events like in Idaho and N Cali are indicative of what's bubbling under the surface; but that's anecdotal. I don't have enough faith in polling to quote that either, although I think there are positive signs there also if some of it can be believed. The absence of evidence for a particular future is not the same as evidence of absence, and of course the future is as yet unwritten

So maybe keep the Silent Majority 2.0 in the memory hole where you keep such things as string theory and supersymmetry; an area of tantalizing hypotheses for which a case can be made, for which evidence is largely non-existent, but for which the proof will solve many problems and create as many new ones

Well. Maybe we could start with you getting right the thing I'm actually saying because you haven't said it yet. I'm not going to assert a motive for why that is. At most I can only suspect that you don't understand what I'm saying or why I'm saying it. I'm trying to be as straightforward as I can be. I'd appreciate some reciprocity.

You said, "You are skeptical that Trump will win in November and that a silent majority will provide that winning margin."

That does not represent my thinking. I don't know if Trump will win in November. I have my doubts, depending on which way the wind blows. Earlier in the year I thought he'd win. Now after covid and protests I'm more doubtful. But he could win. I hope he does win. I don't think he's the right person to bring us out of this culture war. But at least voting for him isn't just handing it over to the bat **** crazy left. So I think the wind has a bit more to do with it than you apparently do.

So I'll try again to explain what I'm saying so that maybe you can take a stab at saying what I'm saying in away that I'd agree with. You have what I think is an unsubstantiated confidence that he'll win. Kinda like a faith. And it's been said by more than one of you that the silent majority, which by the way, are all just like you, but silent, will bring about Trump's glorious victory. Well, I have my doubts. Especially that you have this silent army of Trumpers who will descend on the polls in November.

I think it's reasonable to believe there's an apolitical class of people who don't really care about politics and mostly just want to live their lives. I suppose if you'd like to call them silent, okay. And if such a group exists, maybe current events have encroached on their lives enough that they'll trudge out to the polls and make their preferences known. But to assume that they're like-minded with you is presumptuous. To claim it with the confidence you assert, without substantiation, is what I'm calling into question. At most there may be enough allies across the spectrum who don't want the world the radical left proposes. MAYBE there are enough sane people to hold their noses. That's a very long step away from the silent majority you all seem to believe in.

Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out why you guys are going ape**** about it. jamil said there's no silent majority that will save us! He's dashing our hopes! He's...He's...CRITICAL!

Seriously. Why do you guys care so ****ing much that I'm skeptical about the thing you're so confident in? You guys accuse me of encouraging people to stay home, and so on? Jeez. WTF? I don't think this silent majority thing is all you think it is. So the **** what? How does that destroy your world? Why attack it so hard? I'd really appreciate an explanation. That or if you can't handle skepticism, maybe you should just put me on ignore because whether I support something or am skeptical of it, I'm gonna say it.

 

[KLB]