WHY

[kenpoprofessor]

What makes you think there is a "large majority" of gun owners who don't vote?

Simple, because of Kamel's recent flip flops on guns, two studies were done on that specific topic. While nobody can give an exact number one study said over 70% of gun owners do not vote, and the other said only 16% of gun owners do vote.

So say both of them are full of crap, but kind of close. Double their percentages, and gun owners still suck at protecting our rights, does the word FUDD come to mind?

Take your own statement:

Every gun owner I know is very politically aware and votes. And I know a LOT of gun owners. In fact, some of the gun owners I know became politically aware because they bought a gun. They went from being ignorant of the 2A to supporters of the 2A.
I don't intend to be argumentative but what do you base your premise on? I realize that less than 5% of gun owners are members of pro-gun organizations like the NRA but that doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of

Out of all the gun owners you know what percentage is that of 120 million gun owners. Why does NRA only have 5% support by gun owners, and if you or they don't like NRA how about GOA, SAF, JPFO, or locally AZCDL.

You see I will be argumentative on this, gun owners are slugs. They won't write they won't call, they won't speak, they won't even join an organization to hire someone else to speak for them.

Why didn't you and all your gun totting buddies step up to help us fight the BLM closing thousands of acres to shooting and planning for thousands more. Several thousand members amongst three local shooting forums, 17 people stepped up to help.

So yeah I believe most gun owners are lazy, and frankly I laugh my arsse off when they cry "from my cold dead hands" and "let them try to take it". A real joke.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

[hrob]

What makes you think there is a "large majority" of gun owners who don't vote?

Simple, because of Kamel's recent flip flops on guns, two studies were done on that specific topic. While nobody can give an exact number one study said over 70% of gun owners do not vote, and the other said only 16% of gun owners do vote.

So say both of them are full of crap, but kind of close. Double their percentages, and gun owners still suck at protecting our rights, does the word FUDD come to mind?

Unnamed "studies"? Sorry, I don't buy it. Give me more and maybe I'll get on board.

Take your own statement:

Every gun owner I know is very politically aware and votes. And I know a LOT of gun owners. In fact, some of the gun owners I know became politically aware because they bought a gun. They went from being ignorant of the 2A to supporters of the 2A.
I don't intend to be argumentative but what do you base your premise on? I realize that less than 5% of gun owners are members of pro-gun organizations like the NRA but that doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of

Out of all the gun owners you know what percentage is that of 120 million gun owners. Why does NRA only have 5% support by gun owners, and if you or they don't like NRA how about GOA, SAF, JPFO, or locally AZCDL.

I already told you why - they're cheap. I am a member of the NRA - have been for decades. Also, more recently, GOA and AZCDL.


You see I will be argumentative on this, gun owners are slugs. They won't write they won't call, they won't speak, they won't even join an organization to hire someone else to speak for them.

While I used to write and call my legislators multiple times a day for firearms related issues, I soon realized that gun control supporting lawmakers wouldn't care if every person in the state contacted them opposing gun control. They'll do what they wish as they watch you crawl. And I, for one, will no longer give them the satisfaction. Anti-gun politicians do not see you as a constituent, they see you as a peasant - someone to be controlled. Call your anti-gun overlords if you wish but realize you are not accomplishing anything.

Why didn't you and all your gun totting buddies step up to help us fight the BLM closing thousands of acres to shooting and planning for thousands more. Several thousand members amongst three local shooting forums, 17 people stepped up to help.

Because it was futile. It wouldn't have mattered if 17 million people showed up. They (the BLM) will do what their leftist agenda dictates. You should know that by now.

So yeah I believe most gun owners are lazy, and frankly I laugh my arsse off when they cry "from my cold dead hands" and "let them try to take it". A real joke.

I believe some are, I just don't think most are.

[YNOTAZ]

Unnamed "studies"? Sorry, I don't buy it. Give me more and maybe I'll get on board.

And

Every gun owner I know is very politically aware and votes. And I know a LOT of gun owners. In fact, some of the gun owners I know became politically aware because they bought a gun. They went from being ignorant of the 2A to supporters of the 2A.

One study, that 65% gun owners don't vote was from CNN, the 16% study was a Trump statement during his Gutfeld interview, you can question them about their sources, OR, better yet, post something to the contrary. I’m always willing to learn, post some contrary or supporting figures.


You’ve only given anecdotal evidence "Every gun owner you know....." how many is that I'm certain it's not in the thousands, how are they active if they aren’t willing to stand up for shooting rights through individual efforts and do something, exactly how are they active and how do you know?

Here is my anecdotal evidence, three local gun forums over 10k cumulative membership total, yet 17 members actually were active helping protect gun rights, not slugs, like the rest. Let’s do the math, to see what is closest to reality not conjecture. Let's say out of all three sites there are only a cumulative 100 members posting and actively participating in the gun forums. 17 folks doing something, would be 17%.
lets go even further, let's halve the number and say cumulative from all three sites, only 50 members are actually active on the sites. 17 out of 50, that's still only 34%. Both fall within the ranges I quoted in my post.

"Because it was futile. It wouldn't have mattered if 17 million people showed up."
So you suggest nobody even try. We just roll over and let BLM close thousands of additional acres to shooting land, charge a fee to use their crappy ranges, allow the city of Phoenix to continue to break firearms laws with total impunity and allow Pima country to maintain the illegal laws they implemented against firearms owners.

Fighting "this is futile." I wonder who said that in 1776 against the world’s largest and strongest navy/military?

Don't worry you've made your point you won't get any more arguments from me. Just one more question, what part of California are you from and how’s your Gal, Kamel doing?

[Creeker]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612417

https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2020/1 ... des-voting

Trump didn’t respond to requests for his sources for his claims, so it’s likely something he just made up because it sounded good in the moment. Speaking of, you originally claimed the number was 70% and now say it’s 65%. Which made up “fact” is it?

[Creeker]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/surprisin ... report.amp

And then there’s this. I assume you want all of them turning out too?

[hrob]

"Don't worry you've made your point you won't get any more arguments from me. Just one more question, what part of California are you from and how’s your Gal, Kamel doing?"

You can have your jab if it offers you some satisfaction. I will admit it raised my ire for a while and I deleted a lot of potential responses. In the end, I decided to just let it go. There is enough division in our ranks. I hope you can calm down and have a pleasant evening. I'm going to shoot my ten meter air pistol now and see if I can improve my personal best score.

Maybe we can speak more civilly in the future.

[YNOTAZ]

"Don't worry you've made your point you won't get any more arguments from me. Just one more question, what part of California are you from and how’s your Gal, Kamel doing?"

You can have your jab if it offers you some satisfaction.

Maybe we can speak more civilly in the future.

For other topics I'm happy to speak very civilly but for the idiotic inaction of gun owners, I will shout FUDD, I will poke fun, I will be accusatory.

You haven't been around long enough to know very much but a group of us have tried to get gun owners off their collective a$$e$ for a lot of years.

So, when discussing this topic, I am perfectly willing to wear the crown of head A$$hole. If you want to join a small group for a day out shooting, I think we can have a good conversation on this and other firearms related topics. On the Internet however, with people I don't know, there are way too many keyboard warriors, with the "let them try", and "cold dead hand" comments, for me to waste my time trying to tone down.

Yeah I could be nicer on the net but, paraphrasing the line from Roadhouse, be nice, be nice, be nice, right up until the time not to be nice. We are about to lose our state firearm rights. We've already lost our consistent number 1 position of firearms friendly states. I'd rather not lose, but if we do, I'm not willing to sit around and wonder what happened.

It's time not to be nice.

[YNOTAZ]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612417

https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2020/1 ... des-voting

Trump didn’t respond to requests for his sources for his claims, so it’s likely something he just made up because it sounded good in the moment. Speaking of, you originally claimed the number was 70% and now say it’s 65%. Which made up “fact” is it?

Do you even read the crap you post?

Article one significant points:
“Since 1970s possessing a firearm increases likelihood of voting republican increased by 50%”

A 50% increase from 2 voters = 3 voters. They give no number or even estimates, of percentage of gun owners who vote at all much less how many are "likely" to swing republican. Meaningless


Article Two significant points:

“There’s a much larger probability between a person who owns one gun and another who owns 10 of voting for a Republican”

In English real gun folks will likely vote republican. FUDDS, who knows how they will vote? But once again, no numbers no percentages. Meaningless

“is that owners are more likely to vote in general than non-owners.”

“Currently, nearly 40% of households contain some type of firearm, “

“With all these factors in play, the author is surprised this hasn’t become a bigger issue during the election.” Meaningful

He is no more surprised than me. He should get an account on this site, perhaps read your posts. It might answer his questions.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/surprisin ... report.amp

And then there’s this. I assume you want all of them turning out too?

Article Three: A Fox New article with a headline:

“Surprising': Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report”

Referring back to your Article two, this refutes whatever point you tried to make with this.

“Obviously, if someone is a Democrat who bought a gun in March, they’re not going to run out and immediately vote for Trump or any other Republican. But my book does suggest future elections might be affected by this national increase in gun owners,”

He just defined liberal FUDDS and says they won’t change their vote.

Finally:

Who would expect Trump to respond to correspondence likely printed in crayon, based on your other posts on this topic.

NO SOUP FOR YOU

As far as my number 65% v 70% it was from my recollection, giving the benefit of the doubt let’s say it is only 65% of gun owners that don’t vote, do you feel less offended now Bunky?

[kenpoprofessor]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612417

https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2020/1 ... des-voting

Trump didn’t respond to requests for his sources for his claims, so it’s likely something he just made up because it sounded good in the moment. Speaking of, you originally claimed the number was 70% and now say it’s 65%. Which made up “fact” is it?

Do you even read the crap you post?

Article one significant points:
“Since 1970s possessing a firearm increases likelihood of voting republican increased by 50%”

A 50% increase from 2 voters = 3 voters. They give no number or even estimates, of percentage of gun owners who vote at all much less how many are "likely" to swing republican. Meaningless


Article Two significant points:

“There’s a much larger probability between a person who owns one gun and another who owns 10 of voting for a Republican”

In English real gun folks will likely vote republican. FUDDS, who knows how they will vote? But once again, no numbers no percentages. Meaningless

“is that owners are more likely to vote in general than non-owners.”

“Currently, nearly 40% of households contain some type of firearm, “

“With all these factors in play, the author is surprised this hasn’t become a bigger issue during the election.” Meaningful

He is no more surprised than me. He should get an account on this site, perhaps read your posts. It might answer his questions.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/surprisin ... report.amp

And then there’s this. I assume you want all of them turning out too?

Article Three: A Fox New article with a headline:

“Surprising': Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report”

Referring back to your Article two, this refutes whatever point you tried to make with this.

“Obviously, if someone is a Democrat who bought a gun in March, they’re not going to run out and immediately vote for Trump or any other Republican. But my book does suggest future elections might be affected by this national increase in gun owners,”

He just defined liberal FUDDS and says they won’t change their vote.

Finally:

Who would expect Trump to respond to correspondence likely printed in crayon, based on your other posts on this topic.

NO SOUP FOR YOU

As far as my number 65% v 70% it was from my recollection, giving the benefit of the doubt let’s say it is only 65% of gun owners that don’t vote, do you feel less offended now Bunky?

You realize, rational, logical discussion is not available for the user mentioned. There's really no point trying to educate them.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

[YNOTAZ]

You realize, rational, logical discussion is not available for the user mentioned. There's really no point trying to educate them.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

If one of the people with the 674 views, gets up off their A$$, joins AZCDL, starts writing letters, starts using Arizona RTS, votes for pro-gun politicians, basically comes out of the "it will never happen here" coma, it's worth it.

[YNOTAZ]

Latest newsletter from AZCDL about the slugs in Arizona:

133,000 Arizona Firearms
Owners Can't Vote!
Are you one of them?

In order to vote, you must be registered to do so at your current address. According to the Grand Canyon Times, 133,000 Arizona firearms owners are not even registered. For many, it may be due to complacency or they think their vote doesn't matter. And if you are one of the many shooters who think, “This is Arizona, it can’t happen here,” you are dead wrong.

Pro-rights legislators have only a one-seat majority in the state House and state Senate. If even one of those seats “flips” in each chamber, everything we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years could be lost in a single session! Our fanatically anti-gun governor will sign any legislation limiting your right to keep and bear arms that hits her desk and her party is already proposing some doozies.

It is absolutely vital that pro-rights legislators maintain a majority in the state legislature!

In tight elections, even a small number of votes can mean the difference between a gun-friendly legislature and one bent on restricting your rights.

Register to vote today, then vote for those that will protect your right to keep and bear arms!

[knockonit]

nuff said

[Creeker]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612417

https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2020/1 ... des-voting

Trump didn’t respond to requests for his sources for his claims, so it’s likely something he just made up because it sounded good in the moment. Speaking of, you originally claimed the number was 70% and now say it’s 65%. Which made up “fact” is it?

Do you even read the crap you post?

Article one significant points:
“Since 1970s possessing a firearm increases likelihood of voting republican increased by 50%”

A 50% increase from 2 voters = 3 voters. They give no number or even estimates, of percentage of gun owners who vote at all much less how many are "likely" to swing republican. Meaningless


Article Two significant points:

“There’s a much larger probability between a person who owns one gun and another who owns 10 of voting for a Republican”

In English real gun folks will likely vote republican. FUDDS, who knows how they will vote? But once again, no numbers no percentages. Meaningless

“is that owners are more likely to vote in general than non-owners.”

“Currently, nearly 40% of households contain some type of firearm, “

“With all these factors in play, the author is surprised this hasn’t become a bigger issue during the election.” Meaningful

He is no more surprised than me. He should get an account on this site, perhaps read your posts. It might answer his questions.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/surprisin ... report.amp

And then there’s this. I assume you want all of them turning out too?

Article Three: A Fox New article with a headline:

“Surprising': Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report”

Referring back to your Article two, this refutes whatever point you tried to make with this.

“Obviously, if someone is a Democrat who bought a gun in March, they’re not going to run out and immediately vote for Trump or any other Republican. But my book does suggest future elections might be affected by this national increase in gun owners,”

He just defined liberal FUDDS and says they won’t change their vote.

Finally:

Who would expect Trump to respond to correspondence likely printed in crayon, based on your other posts on this topic.

NO SOUP FOR YOU

As far as my number 65% v 70% it was from my recollection, giving the benefit of the doubt let’s say it is only 65% of gun owners that don’t vote, do you feel less offended now Bunky?

You’re illiterate. All I can do is laugh at your attempt to form a thought. Use all of the large font, bold, etc. that you want but you’re still a f*** retard.

[YNOTAZ]

Creeker:
Song by Tyler Childers:
Lyrics:

In a small corner bar he sits there a-drinkin'
Lost as a ball in a field full of corn

No need to further engage the corny guy with the lost balls drinking in the corner.

Butt..... you really should try to read your "facts" before posting them.

[Creeker]

Creeker:
Song by Tyler Childers:
Lyrics:

In a small corner bar he sits there a-drinkin'
Lost as a ball in a field full of corn

No need to further engage the corny guy with the lost balls drinking in the corner.

Butt..... you really should try to read your "facts" before posting them.

First of all, both were based on the same facts. The first was behind a paywall, which I correctly assumed you don’t have access to, so the second was an article about the author/works of the first. In the second, you can read that they concluded gun owners were more likely to vote. The point had nothing to do with who they were voting for, which is was you became infatuated with. If you were 1/10th as intelligent as you think you are would have put two and two together as the names are right there.

The point of the Fox article, which clearly went way over your head, was that maybe you shouldn’t b**** about gun owners not voting if liberals make up a growing share of new gun owners.

Just because you’re too retarded to actually read and comprehend facts doesn’t mean they aren’t there, b****.