Why do we bicker among ourselves.

[csharpdev]

Why can't the pro gun crowed unit and work together for our cause.

Lets put Gun Control on a scale from 0 - 10
0 - No regulations, guns for everyone literal 2nd Ammendment
1
2
3
4
5 - Today's society/laws
6
7
8
9
10 - Total Ban

We'll say everyone fits into this scale somewhere. >5 is anti gun <5 is pro gun, makes sense right?

The anti's all work together. The 6,7,8,9 and 10 people all work together to raise the bar 1 level to a 6. The 7 - 10's don't care that the 6's will stop there, after they achieve 6 they will try and convert some of them to 7's.

On the Pro side the 0's fight with the 2,3,and 4's and the 2's fight with the 3,4's etc. trying to convert everyone to a 0. Maybe the theory is once we get everyone to be a 0 we can all beat the anti's...but lets be realistic. Why can't we all work together to bring gun control down 1 level at a time, it certainly went up one level at a time.

People often say the anti's and govt. use incrementalism, take away our rights slowly enough and most people won't notice until it's too late. Why can't we fight back using the same tactic, it appears to work for them.

Start by educating the public as to why the new laws they want to pass are irrational and rediculous and why they won't work. There's no logic basis for it. Make them look like morons. Stop the problem from getting worse. Next show what the current iteration of laws has done, and what they have not done. Slowly widdle away their laws one at a time... logic and reasoning is on our side.

It seems all most of us do is scream DON"T TAKE MY GUNS, RKBA, 2nd Amm. etc., and we're playing right into the hands of the anti's, we're too predictable. The anti's have made the general public affraid of guns, and we sit here is say "I have a right to have a gun". Well if Joe Public is affraid of guns he's thinking, "well no you don't have the right to terrorise me, guns are bad, that's all I know" and they join Sarah Brady's team.

 

[kevin9]

There ya go again being logical

Seriously, that sounds good. My only quibble, and it is a minor one, is that when the opportunity presents itself to jump 2 or 3 levels then TAKE IT! That's the problem I have with the Republican so-called-conservative administration and legislature of recent years; they've at best been slowly, incrementally moving the line back (ex. letting AWB expire) rather than trying to push it back more aggressively. The antis have no qualms about rapid changes if they can do it, just ask the Brits and the Aussies.

 

[Admin]

Why can't the pro gun crowed unit and work together for our cause.

The simple answer is too much ignorance... Plain and simple. You can lead a horse to water you can't make them drink. Fudds have been told time and time again to join the fight but they consistantly blow it off...

 

[csharpdev]

The anti's use the media to sway public opinion but what do we do to try and sway public opinion? The anti's accuse us of being gun pushers and then we go and act like it. The only way we are going to win this war is if we work together to discredit the "gun grabbers". (only without the name calling)

 

[kevin9]

+1

The simple answer is too much ignorance...

and apathy.

 

[csharpdev]

ig·no·rance
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

ignorance can be fixed with education and information....

 

[Weerd Beard]

+1
and apathy.

+2

Most people just want to do their 9-5 grind, then settle down and do whatever gets them through the night. None of that concerns OTHERS.

 

[csharpdev]

There ya go again being logical

Seriously, that sounds good. My only quibble, and it is a minor one, is that when the opportunity presents itself to jump 2 or 3 levels then TAKE IT! That's the problem I have with the Republican so-called-conservative administration and legislature of recent years; they've at best been slowly, incrementally moving the line back (ex. letting AWB expire) rather than trying to push it back more aggressively. The antis have no qualms about rapid changes if they can do it, just ask the Brits and the Aussies.

Yes if the oppertunity exists to take more we should, but at the same time if we try and take too much at once and fail it could hurt more than help. While taking 2 steps forward and 1 step back will work I'd rather just take 1 step forward and have the strength to hold my ground.

 

[csharpdev]

There is apathy on both sides. There are plenty of people who don't like guns who could care less about the issue and vote based on other issues. Most politicians are going to have the opinion that they precieve will give them the most votes on election day. Sway public opinion (or the preception of) in our favor and I'm sure many politicians will switch sides.

 

[Cato]

Yes if the oppertunity exists to take more we should, but at the same time if we try and take too much at once and fail it could hurt more than help. While taking 2 steps forward and 1 step back will work I'd rather just take 1 step forward and have the strength to hold my ground.

Your premiss is wrong. You are not "taking" anything. You already have these rights.

 

[Wingwiper]

There is also people from both sides of a point of view, who refuse to debate the issues and retort to name calling and accusations. This gets nothing accomplished. People will listen and debate reason but when it comes to name calling and insults, you end up with yelling matches and no one wins.

 

[Lugnut]

I thought this thread was referring to us on this forum. Here's my spin on that.

I think we have varying level of agreement of what is acceptable and what isn't wrt gun laws (or proposed). Most are likely between 0 and maybe 3 on this forum. However even if some may in concept agree with "some" laws- many of us will fight ALL proposed gun laws as it is part of the incremental movement of the antigun crowd.

Why do we bicker? Because we love our "rights" and care deeply about protecting them. We are a common audience that we don't have at home or amongst our other friends. Besides- many of us do a lot more that just post on this forum- we ARE active in working together with GOAL and our clubs to promote and support gun use and sports. We do write to our legislators and politicians to try to make postive changes for us. I guess "most" of the time I think it's healthy bickering. I do feel that it's often not productive in helping some people understand the basis of their arguments which means they may not have a good position with an anitgun person that is willing to listen to rational ideas.... that's the bad part.

 

[Gabe]

The anti's use the media to sway public opinion but what do we do to try and sway public opinion? The anti's accuse us of being gun pushers and then we go and act like it. The only way we are going to win this war is if we work together to discredit the "gun grabbers". (only without the name calling)

This is an important point. Currently, our region is a welcome audience for antigun stories, whether in print or on television. The antis have it easy here, if anything happens that can be spun to make guns appear evil, it shows up on the news or in the globe. I've read stories where a gun was mentioned even though it was completely irrelevant to the story, but it was an opportunity to associate guns with criminals rather than law abiding citizens.

But this is not an impossible nut to crack. Just think of what news media outlets value, and play to that. You've all seen some of the drivel that shows up on the evening news or on the middle pages of newspapers - they are looking for interesting stories. They know it's drivel.

So, try to think about things that you take for granted, and tell the story in creative ways. Pitch it to the news media. There are lots of ways to tell a story that involves guns in positive, interesting ways. Even if you just go to the range with friends, that could be a story worth printing or filming if you're creative. Spin it like, "Instead of going to shoot 'em up movies, we go shoot 'em up! It's a blast!"

This is much more about public opinion than legislation. Legislation pretty much follows the former. And for god's sake, if there is ever a situation where anyone would see a gun as a helpful thing, as a life saver or a crime stopper, get it out there! Call channels 4-7, call the globe/herald; don't assume someone has, or that they'll never accept the story. They're more interested in money than causes, I guarantee. You pitch a story that is more interesting than some of the crap we see and read every day, and they'll bite.

 

[csharpdev]

The media loves stories of raceism and sexism and any other form of discrimination... our LTC license process should be big news. I wonder if we could find cases were 2 or more people all else being equal other than race or gender in a given town were some got LTC's and some didn't.

Or perhaps they could do a sting type opperation... pick like 5 - 10 towns and then in each town have 3 or 4 similar applicants with only race,gender differences and then see who gets LTC A ALP and who doesn't. And then ask WHY?

edit: NBC Ch 7, has done a story on LTC in the past: http://www3.whdh.com/features/articles/hank/BOS4033/

here is another one from a few years before that http://www3.whdh.com/features/articles/hank/25/ the tone is much different.

 

[drgrant]

We'll say everyone fits into this scale somewhere. >5 is anti gun <5 is pro gun, makes sense right?

The anti's all work together. The 6,7,8,9 and 10 people all work together to raise the bar 1 level to a 6. The 7 - 10's don't care that the 6's will stop there, after they achieve 6 they will try and convert some of them to 7's.

No such thing. The thing you've forgotten is that everyone who likes
anything between 4-10 is an anti, period. This debate has very little middle
ground. Most of the so called middle ground groups like AHSA, AGS,
etc, are really just "brady lites" and are fraudulent front orgs for the
bigger gun control entitites.

IMO if you want a "moderate" group look at the NRA. Their end-game
is really only to reach level 3. I still support them because by and large
most of the gun laws in the US (federal and state) are far WORSE
than that.

On the Pro side the 0's fight with the 2,3,and 4's and the 2's fight with the 3,4's etc. trying to convert everyone to a 0. Maybe the theory is once we get everyone to be a 0 we can all beat the anti's...but lets be realistic. Why can't we all work together to bring gun control down 1 level at a time, it certainly went up one level at a time.

I think you're overstating the actual reality of this quite a
bit. There is much bickering/discussion/etc about the nuances of
gun control but I think by and large most RKBA supporters are on the
same page. There are some real conflicts however (eg, the NRA won't
tell you that they were basically trying to derail Parker vs DC into not
being a 2nd amendment case) but for the most part we're all on the
same page. Most RKBA supports agree that any gun laws reeking of
oppression are a bad thing. Most of us realize that we'll deal with
the minutae later... the battle isn't even to "4" yet so it's a non issue
at this point.

I guess what I'm getting at is it's possible to have your cake and
eat it too as, 99 out of 100 times most RKBA groups are generally
pushing in the same direction. I still support the NRA but I can
still criticise them for not being agressive enough. If nobody did
this over the years, the NRA would be a LOT worse than it is now, as a
lobbying group. Years ago they were only interested in protecting
ownership rights, and now they appear to support a lot more than that.
None of that would have been possible without a little bit of "lobbying from the
inside". Some of the bickering is about getting rid of the weak
links in the chain. While I agree with "hang together or die
separately" one cannot forget that the "chain is only as strongest as its
weakest link".

People often say the anti's and govt. use incrementalism, take away our rights slowly enough and most people won't notice until it's too late. Why can't we fight back using the same tactic, it appears to work for them.

We've been doing that.... eg, right to carry initiiatives, etc.

Start by educating the public as to why the new laws they want to pass are irrational and rediculous and why they won't work. There's no logic basis for it. Make them look like morons. Stop the problem from getting worse. Next show what the current iteration of laws has done, and what they have not done. Slowly widdle away their laws one at a time... logic and reasoning is on our side.

How about educating GUN OWNERS first? There are 80 million gun owners in this country, most of
which don't even vote.

It seems all most of us do is scream DON"T TAKE MY GUNS, RKBA, 2nd Amm. etc., and we're playing right into the hands of the anti's, we're too predictable.

I don't know about playing into their hands; per se. I agree in some cases the debate can't be
pushed on purely constitutional grounds... we do have to venture beyond that, often.

The anti's have made the general public affraid of guns, and we sit here is say "I have a right to have a gun". Well if Joe Public is affraid of guns he's thinking, "well no you don't have the right to terrorise me, guns are bad, that's all I know" and they join Sarah Brady's team.

IMO this is another myth. I don't think most people are inherently full blown antis. Most of the antis wins are
all piggybacked on the "hollywood liberal agenda momentum". One thing you have to remember is their agenda
is based purely on some emotional BS. It only gets where it gets because the platform gives it a free ride,
and not enough people stand up to the antis to call them on their bullshit. Not enough people care so the bills
get passed and that is that- essentially the antis win via rugsweeping. Brady et al spend more time with politicos
than they do with people. The failure of the MMM is a prime example of how limited the public exposure of brady
et al really is. Most people know brady got shot and ended up in a wheelchair but they have no idea that he
is the part of some gun control org.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The media loves stories of raceism and sexism and any other form of discrimination... our LTC license process should be big news. I wonder if we could find cases were 2 or more people all else being equal other than race or gender in a given town were some got LTC's and some didn't.

I don't know if it would be that dramatic, although it would be pretty interesting
to take a man, a woman, both with clean records, and run them through the permitting
systems in different towns. More than likely though all it would do is expose those
that issue restricted licenses (or browbeat people into getting LTC-B's) and those that
don't. The weird variances might be enough to trigger a reaction, though. If I was
rich I certainly would underwrite some kind of project like that, to expose the
system.

It -WOULD- be really damning if we could find a city/town which would only issue
a restricted license, to say, someone who was a survivor of domestic violence
or rape/assault. That would really stir the pot. I don't believe that anyone
should have a "need", per se, but what it would to is illustrate that there are douchebags
out there that deny appropriate licenses to even to those who can "show need".


-Mike

 

[Wingwiper]

You also have the people who don't OWN guns, Don't have any interest one way or the other about guns and will follow the direction of people they know or like. They are the ones INFLUENCE in mind set by comfort zone associates. Many of these people could easily be won to the side of Pro Guners, if we could simply hold their attention for more than 30 seconds. Presentation has everything to do with wining, almost like that Website you go to, does it grab your INTEREST, does it tickle your CURIOSITY are you willing to LISTEN to more, CLICK NEXT.

I believe this is the BULK of the people out there, they are the ones that are more of a FENCE WALKER and could easily lean either way. They should be the Pro Gunners Focus.

 

[Ripach]

How about educating GUN OWNERS first? There are 80 million gun owners in this country, most of
which don't even vote.
-Mike

+1
I have tried my best to preach this to every gun owner I know. If you don't participate in the election don't complain afterwards about the results.

 

[Wingwiper]

drgrant

How about educating GUN OWNERS first? There are 80 million gun owners in this country, most of which don't even vote.

I know this is a sore subject with many on these boards, but if we as Gun Owners are to, let's say "SHINE" in the eyes of the opposition or we are to try and gather more SUPPORT from them or at least get some UNDERSTANDING we need to apply more ethics in our actions.
If we were a group that the opposition wasn't interested in doing what we do but understands and doesn't see anything about us that upsets them, then many of these laws would never form and if they did we would have much more support in over riding them. Right now it is an US against THEM routine.
Our actions within our SPORTs not only hurt us with peer support and if it is a problem with PEER support it is most definetely an even BIGGER problem with opposition support.
As far as many NOT getting out to Vote, that shows that much of what we are fighting today is SELF-INFLICTED, by our unwillingness to nip it in the bud with a simple, not much time wasted, ballot cast.
Look at us, there is how many Pro-gunners and how many Anti-gunners? I'll bet you any amount of money that we vastly outnumber the anti-gunners, but who we do NOT outnumber is the FENCE WALKERS that are easily influenced. They are the ones who could be easily giving us support or voting against us. They make their decisions on how they vote or support by what they are told or see about US te Pro-Gunners.
Look at NASCAR and that support. It is Car racing, going fast, speeding, crashing, wasting fuel etc etc etc and yet, they have tons of support. The Tree Huggers are vastly outnumbered. NASCAR has support from the people who participate, follow it and from us who never watch it but believe it is an AMERICAN SPORT and should be left alone. WHY is that? Why is it that a group like NASCAR has all the SUPPORT needed? cars kill people and in far more larger numbers that Gun Sports and people are killed in the eyes of the supporters as well and and in Gun Sports, most are killed in seclusion. It is all in the PRESENTATION of the SPORT and the ETHICs that appear to be there. Why haven't the CLEAN AIR groups gone after them, the Tree Huggers or the ANTI-RACERS? Why aren't there large protests outside of Indianapolis, Daytona, Laconia, Bristol etc etc. They have regulations as we have regulations, they have Safety rules as we have Safety rules so what is the reason that SPORT isn't attacked as much or by as many as our sport????????