Icanhazcheezburger as an activism tool.


PDA






rd5589
December 12, 2008, 01:32 PM
I have found the LoLBuilder is a great way for us to get our message across by mixing and matching photos from the other sides and mocking mercilessly.

http://mine.icanhazcheezburger.com

Here are some good ones I found. Now if we could get a generator for Oleg Volk's style.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/12/128735797062256515.jpg

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/11/128735067889601517.jpg

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/10/128734444485130324.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Icanhazcheezburger as an activism tool." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rd5589
December 12, 2008, 03:04 PM
More fun!

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/11/128735126251103001.jpg

kingpin008
December 12, 2008, 03:49 PM
I prefer to use facts and grown-up conversation rather than silly meme's and mockery to argue my position on gun rights.

Making fun of the other side isn't going to convince anyone of anything, except that we've got nothing better to offer than funny pictures. What we need is logical, factual discussion. By stooping to their level, we accomplish nothing.

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 04:00 PM
I prefer to use facts and grown-up conversation rather than silly meme's and mockery to argue my position on gun rights.

Making fun of the other side isn't going to convince anyone of anything, except that we've got nothing better to offer than funny pictures. What we need is logical, factual discussion. By stooping to their level, we accomplish nothing.


Given that most Americans get their news from "The Daily Show" it is critical that we use humor to draw new people over to our point of view.

Things that are funny are easily remembered and the prohibitionists give us no shortage of idiocy to poke holes into.

Rahm Emanuel is an ardent Iraq War supporter and given the current popularity of the war it makes sense to tar him and his fellow prohibitionists with it.

Dianne Feinstein has made a ton of money off the Iraq War by steering contracts to her husband's company. Hit the prohibitionists on it!

Also have we ever stopped to consider that maybe we are too stodgy in how we present ourselves?

We need to come across as hip, cool, and straight up fun.

Instead we sometimes come across as this.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/19/128715730831525448.jpg

Logic and reason are awesome. Now we just have to know when to combine humor and snark.

I would recommend reading books on Neuro Linguistic Programming, 48 Laws of Power, and BradP's Fashion Bible for more information on how we can make our cause into something that people want to join.

BHP FAN
December 12, 2008, 04:15 PM
look folks,facts are just that....plain dry facts,and guns are an emotional issue.You can argue,explain and cajole,but there's only one thing that works.Take people shooting.I,personally have converted two dyed in the wool tie dye hippies to gun folk,just by takeing them shooting!And I don't know how many of my son's friends are solid gun folk because they grew up at our house as much as their own.

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 04:16 PM
look folks,facts are just that....plain dry facts,and guns are an emotional issue.You can argue,explain and cajole,but there's only one thing that works.Take people shooting.I,personally have converted two dyed in the wool tie dye hippies to gun folk,just by takeing them shooting!And I don't know how many of my son's friends are solid gun folk because they grew up at our house as much as their own.

Very true. We have to get to them when they're young. If culture is an ocean, we ride the waves.

hso
December 12, 2008, 04:25 PM
I agree with Kingpin that our struggle with gun prohibitionists is serious business, but humor has been, and always will be, an effective way to reach people and provoke thought. Satire has been used from as early as the Egyptian dynasites and the Greeks and Romans lauded great satirists. Our own Benjamin Franklin was a great one to use humor to skewer the enemies of America.

It is difficult to use though. It is a subtle weapon that has to be used with great sill because we're wanting people to be drawn to think AND laugh and not just snort at the humor. Care must be taken that the level of great satirists be the sought instead of Beavis and Butthead.

Good idea, keep at it.

Zundfolge
December 12, 2008, 04:32 PM
Humor is the foot in the door of the mind.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 12, 2008, 04:45 PM
Given that most Americans get their news from "The Daily Show" it is critical that we use humor to draw new people over to our point of view.

Most Americans, you say? Perhaps that was more satire... :rolleyes:

kingpin008
December 12, 2008, 04:52 PM
I agree with the above comments - let me clarify my comment, if I may. I think what I was getting at when I mentioned the use of mockery being detrimental to our cause, was the couple of images comparing Sarah Brady with a turkey, and the last one, with the overweight gentleman and Paul Helmke, with a remark about candy.

The individuals who oppose our rights will be on the lookout for any little thing to hold up as evidence that we as a group are ignorant, mean, spiteful, etc, and those sorts of images are prefect examples for them to use.

Do we know they're just a joke? Sure. But at the same time, they don't do anything to advance our position, and the possibility for them to be used against us is always present.

That's all I'm getting at. Satire is fine. Poking fun is fine. But as Oleg stated in the rules of this community - attack the argument, not the arguer. Know what I mean?

JImbothefiveth
December 12, 2008, 05:03 PM
given the current popularity of the war
It's probably not as unpopular as it's made out to be, now that we're winning. And where does the 500,000 number come from?

TXdave
December 12, 2008, 05:03 PM
Fact is, humor IS tough to use when a lot of the issues around gun control are definitely NOT funny.

Take this story- Last year in Chicago, a man went into a Lane Bryant store and took four or five women hostage. They were all unarmed (and had unknowingly been training their entire lives to be sheep).
They did exactly as he told them to do; they went to the back where he took money, they got on their knees with their hands behind their heads, and they sat there as he capped them all.:banghead:

How do you turn that into a quirky sketch?

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 05:18 PM
Fact is, humor IS tough to use when a lot of the issues around gun control are definitely NOT funny.

Take this story- Last year in Chicago, a man went into a Lane Bryant store and took four or five women hostage. They were all unarmed (and had unknowingly been training their entire lives to be sheep).
They did exactly as he told them to do; they went to the back where he took money, they got on their knees with their hands behind their heads, and they sat there as he capped them all.

How do you turn that into a quirky sketch?

You don't.

You have to know when to go serious and when to go humorous.

If you want an example of a parent with a heartbreaking story who is on our side, Channon Christian's dad is a perfect example. :(

As for those who work to deny us our rights, they deserve all the ridicule that comes their way.

As for Chief Comey of the Jersey City, NJ PD (the chubby guy in the picture with Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign) he is fair game since he leaves the door wide open for a gag or too. In his case, VERY wide open. :evil:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/11/128735052636105390.jpg

So how does the picture of Chief Comey with Paul Helmke work as a gag?

Coming from a family with police and law enforcement folks, his lack of physical fitness is an embarassment on his shield. The prohibitionists always tell us to just rely on the police for our safety. His appearance pokes holes in that.
Chief Wiggum is a cultural icon in America. Chief Comey plays on that image that everyone knows and chuckles about.


The co-opting of cultural icons is another point that we can make use of due to their flexibility. Think of them as delivery vehicles for our cause.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/10/128734448138347622.jpg

Here we are using a scary, recent, and very popular cultural icon to get our message across. It tells the viewer that a bad guy like the Joker really wouldn't take any silly laws seriously, let alone gun prohibition.

It's probably not as unpopular as it's made out to be, now that we're winning. And where does the 500,000 number come from?

As for Iraq, I dont want this thread to go off-topic, I believe the Lancet had a count of about a hundred thousand killed or so. Internal displacement and the refugee issue is much worse. A lot of the fighting died down since most of the Sunni on Shia and Shia on Sunni ethnic cleansing happened in 2006 and 2007.

But either way it makes sense to paint prohibitionist politicians as people who have no problem sending us to die yet they don't trust us to own a gun to protect our families. That is the meme we are going for.

JImbothefiveth
December 12, 2008, 05:33 PM
I still don't think it's a good idea. Seems unpatriotic, and distorting numbers isn't good either.

Sunni on Shiite and Shiite on Sunni
Those aren't Iraq war casualtys. Yes, they happened in Iraq, but there is a distinction.

Perhaps portray something the person has done that is wrong, such as: Dianne Feinstein has made a ton of money off the Iraq War by steering contracts to her husband's company.

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 05:43 PM
I still don't think it's a good idea. Seems unpatriotic, and distorting numbers isn't good either.


I understand your concern. The point of the Rahm Emanuel poster is to erode the demographic/ideological base of the rank and file democrats who casually support the Brady Campaign. It creates cognitive dissonance. It sends the message of "All is not well in CHANGE-land."

MikePGS
December 12, 2008, 05:51 PM
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/MikePGS/128735958558332445.jpg

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 05:52 PM
Nice work!

Blago can also have his hideous muppet hair! :barf:

MikePGS
December 12, 2008, 06:03 PM
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/MikePGS/vtech.jpg

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 06:36 PM
Good one!

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 07:27 PM
More fun from the Brady fundraisers!

HTTp://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/12/128736016506199164.jpg

Dean Williams
December 12, 2008, 07:30 PM
If you're going to do this, then you need to make a point with your humor, and the humor has to actually be humorous. The "Haz Kittehs" thing will look old and juvenile in short order.

Making fun of someone's appearance will just have the antis regarding you as booger eatin' morons, (referring to the Sarah Brady/turkey comparison in first post). It's the visual equivalent of name calling, and will will end up being turned back on you by a savvy gun grabber type.

The humor will have to be fairly broad to work at all. The pic of the governor with the "I can have 'em, You can't" thing is only effective if the target viewers already knew that he is an "anti" with a gun permit. No one outside that group will get it. Inside jokes will serve no purpose.

I'm not saying it is a good idea to start with, but it IS a free country, (mosty), so do what you like. If you actually know how to use parody and satire properly, it may be effective. Most people know parody/satire when they hear or see it, but it is easy to look like a goof when trying to present it, and that will just make you, (and worse, us), an easy mark for the grabbers.

I think sticking to facts and presenting a clear headed argument is a better way.

hso
December 12, 2008, 08:22 PM
The Joker one works. It is clear and current with that ironic touch of humor that might be thought provoking. The "You look fabulous" is neither clear nor funny and therefore not thought provoking (except for :scrutiny:).

The basic idea is good, but the execution can be a real booby trap for the humor-bomb maker. Take great care how such explosive material is handled.

**************************************************

Successful ideas so far? Joker, Professionals, Consistency

Unsuccessful? Fabulous, VT, haz gunz, fruit and candy bowl, turkey

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 08:26 PM
Dean,

It is not that facts and a clear-headedness are wrong. I think there is a continuum between facts and statistics ("sighted fire") and humor and snark ("point shooting"). :)

rd5589
December 12, 2008, 08:29 PM
Your idea is good, but the execution can be a real booby trap for the humor-bomb maker.


This is where the vetting process for us as a community comes in.

We could set up a section for political artwork that grades and critiques the art we make on its merits.

Trial and error among ourselves is the best way to find out what works.

Memes can be very powerful tools for us.

Oro
December 12, 2008, 11:55 PM
RD - great idea. I think some of the flak you are getting is maybe people here don't understand the context of LOL Cats and the venues there. Most of your things fit in nicely, and it would be refreshing to see something non-lefty there for a change! Go for it with some of your ideas if you haven't posted them yet.

hso
December 13, 2008, 12:16 AM
This is where the vetting process for us as a community comes in.

And that's why the thread is in AD so that we can look at it from a lot of different perspectives to refine it.

Gaiudo
December 13, 2008, 12:22 AM
I like the Joker one. Its a good use of image and satire, and left his words from the move "why so serious...." echoing in my ears.

rd5589
December 13, 2008, 02:41 AM
The first two are to make you giggle. Not really activism related.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/12/128736004533929036.jpg

So much of comedy is about timing. A routine will fall flat on its face or knock 'em dead depending on the moment.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/12/128736000705156548.jpg

The second one is cleaned up version of the first.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/12/128736275994732363.jpg

saint
December 13, 2008, 03:02 AM
I'm gonna go with pic #2 not being appropriate for grammaw.

xsquidgator
December 13, 2008, 09:10 AM
I think it's a good idea, but handle with care.

I also like the idea of "vetting" these memes here before spreading them, to avoid "Unintended Consequences".

Queltor
December 13, 2008, 10:12 AM
There's a huge problem with the Brady and Rahm pictures: Lack of context. A joke that has to be explained generally isn't funny.

A random fat man being presented a bowl?
Three people, an award, and a reference to Iraq?

There's nothing funny about those unless you have intimate knowledge about where those picture came from, who the people are, AND what their political beliefs are.

JImbothefiveth
December 13, 2008, 10:17 AM
I think people know who Rahm is by now.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 13, 2008, 01:36 PM
Queltor nailed it.

JImbothefiveth, I be willing to wager if you took that picture out to the public and asked who this guys was, you'd have less than a 1% recognition rate.

giddonah
December 13, 2008, 01:45 PM
I have no idea what half of these are about. Can't recognize most of the people. If I'm having trouble with it, how is it going to go over with people who don't care about guns either way?

MikePGS
December 13, 2008, 01:49 PM
on a related note, i recently discovered the /k/ forum on fourchan. Very fun, but definitely NSFW

rd5589
December 14, 2008, 02:18 PM
Encyclopedia Dramatica is NSFW fun as well. The gun section is interesting.

rd5589
December 15, 2008, 07:43 PM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/15/128738615980992190.jpg

JImbothefiveth
December 15, 2008, 08:24 PM
I suggest changing the wording on the "consistency" one from "but gun violence is bad" to "but guns are bad".

After, wouldn't it be nice if we could stop senseless violence? Yes. Nice if we could get rid of guns? No.

Sinixstar
December 18, 2008, 09:24 PM
I agree with Kingpin that our struggle with gun prohibitionists is serious business, but humor has been, and always will be, an effective way to reach people and provoke thought. Satire has been used from as early as the Egyptian dynasites and the Greeks and Romans lauded great satirists. Our own Benjamin Franklin was a great one to use humor to skewer the enemies of America.

It is difficult to use though. It is a subtle weapon that has to be used with great sill because we're wanting people to be drawn to think AND laugh and not just snort at the humor. Care must be taken that the level of great satirists be the sought instead of Beavis and Butthead.

Good idea, keep at it.


I think one of the other hurdles that we have to look at - is the image that seems to exist of gun owners. The crazy ranting survivalist holed up in a shack somewhere waiting for "them" to come after him. Humor can be a great thing, and satire can be a great tool - provided you have some sort of connection with your audience, and more importantly - your audience has some connection with you on the issue you're satirizing.
Case in point - the above pictures. I doubt most people not involved in the gun issues (and even some who are) even know who Sarah Brady is, let alone what she looks like. We might get a chuckle out of that stuff here, but I doubt very many people would get it.
The picture of Blago. I doubt many people even picked up on the thing about him having an FOID card, let alone the irony considering IL gun laws - since I doubt many people are even AWARE of IL gun laws (outside of, us - and people in IL).

So - what does that get us with the uninformed, or those who simply have not taken a stand on the issue. It gets some confusing looks at best, probably not enough to even register though. For those "leaning" antis - if it's done in a snarky spirit - it re-enforces the childish irrational stereotype that's been fed by the hard-core antis.

I'm sure i'll catch some crap for saying this - but if we want to make progress, we have to do some of the "image building" that was done in the past. People standing up with rifles in their hands screaming "from my cold dead hands" pretty much painted us into a pretty dark corner with a lot of people. If we want to win those people back - we have to soften that image a bit.

Humor can work towards that softening, but it has to be done very carefully. Making fun of fat people, or how people look, or painting the police in an unprofessional light - isn't going to work.

Sinixstar
December 18, 2008, 09:26 PM
I think people know who Rahm is by now.


They might know the name, but I doubt many people could identify a picture.

JImbothefiveth
December 18, 2008, 09:42 PM
What about putting "Rhambo"'s(Don't flame me, even Obama called him that) head on a rambo poster?

Sinixstar
December 18, 2008, 09:51 PM
What about putting "Rhambo"'s(Don't flame me, even Obama called him that) head on a rambo poster?

I don't think enough people are going to get it. I think most people would just laugh it off as a play on his name, probably even think it's something painting him in a good light.

MikePGS
December 19, 2008, 02:04 AM
Some Revisions as suggested by a fellow THRer:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/MikePGS/vtechrevised.jpg

rd5589
December 19, 2008, 07:44 AM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/19/128741642889380785.jpg

rd5589
December 19, 2008, 08:22 AM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/19/128741670123479377.jpg

rd5589
December 19, 2008, 03:38 PM
I'm sure i'll catch some crap for saying this - but if we want to make progress, we have to do some of the "image building" that was done in the past. People standing up with rifles in their hands screaming "from my cold dead hands" pretty much painted us into a pretty dark corner with a lot of people. If we want to win those people back - we have to soften that image a bit.

Humor can work towards that softening, but it has to be done very carefully. Making fun of fat people, or how people look, or painting the police in an unprofessional light - isn't going to work.

The Chief Wiggum image always makes people laugh. You just have to find a really choice photo and run with it.

I like the antiwar sentiment posters since they erode the base of what got the democrats elected in the last two cycles to begin with.

Read books such as 48 Laws of Power, BradP's Fashion Bible and books on pickup artist techniques for ideas on how we can improve our image.

conw
December 19, 2008, 04:11 PM
books on pickup artist techniques for ideas on how we can improve our image.

Right...

BTW, I don't think the purpose of one humorous poster is to completely persuade the viewer. The point is, as has been made here before, to get fence sitters thinking of our side as reasonable and accessible.

There are a certain percentage of people who, for whatever reason, we won't be able to convince without an excessive amount of effort (and even then, usually it just ends in an argument). We want strength in numbers by convincing people who are undecided or easily persuaded on firearms issues. A huge part of that is just infesting news blogs, comments pages, etc, with our side's point-of-views backed up with facts and offered as a reasonable point-of-view.

The humorous pictures are just another form of saturation, another way to get the dialogue going, and another way to get some fence sitters percolatin' on our ideas. The facts are on our side, we just need saturation and to get the undecided people whom the message hasn't reached.

JImbothefiveth
December 19, 2008, 04:17 PM
Since when has the U.S. "firebombed Iraqi children"?! :mad: Insulting these guys is fine, but don't start insulting our troops.

I think the new Rahm poster is retty good, though.

rd5589
December 19, 2008, 04:43 PM
Right...

Don't knock the material before you've read it.

There are very useful principles in those books that pertain to influence.

conw
December 22, 2008, 12:55 AM
What little I've read is very derivative, and only useful (if at all) for people who want to "develop" their "personality" to "succeed" with "women."

I use the quotation marks because develop is a questionable term for channeling and constraining your personality specifically to get a single type of result...personality isn't really what you have when you do so...success is subjective, as I for one am past the adolescent score-keeping of how many women I can talk to or impress or pick up...and women in general don't fall for the lame tricks presented, only some women in bars and social situations who are already open to that kind of thing.

All in all it's lame and nothing new, and if the strategies are useful for anything else at all it's likely because they were gleaned from other source material and applied to the subject of "pickup artistry."

This isn't an attack on you, and I don't plan on carrying on any more in this thread - although if you feel strongly that I am misinformed, feel free to PM me and quote relevant passages.

kludge
December 22, 2008, 03:59 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/84kludge/icanhasrifleB.jpg

MikePGS
January 4, 2009, 01:03 PM
How about this one?
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/MikePGS/knifegunposter.jpg

Bartkowski
January 4, 2009, 01:18 PM
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/19/128741642889380785.jpg

Are you serious with this one? You are as bad as anti's when it comes to facts. Lets see what other things you can make up...

nrgetik
January 6, 2009, 05:54 PM
Hopefully I can offer some insight here.

It seems to me that, in general (after skimming this thread and some of the others in this forum), you guys extend the political divisiveness of the issue from the actual politicians on either side of the aisle out onto the general public. I think this is the wrong approach.

If you want laws to change you need public support. It isn't that there is anything inherent about liberal ideology that make those who would call themselves liberal pro-regulation; they're (mostly) merely victims of fear mongering regarding the issue - much in the same way some conservatives are victims of fear mongering regarding sophisticated global terrorist networks. We could go on for days about fear mongering and misinformation, and all sides are guilty, but this is mostly irrelevant.

I'm a recent college graduate living in a fairly densely populated area in the South. I have some friends that are very, very conservative and some others that are incredibly liberal. There isn't anything specific about my liberal friends that would turn them off to firearms, in fact one of them has developed a strong interest in owning a firearm but his current living and financial situation prohibits it. He is a card-carrying, marijuana-smoking, environment-loving, no-meat-eating liberal (he does not identify himself as a Democrat as he is disillusioned with both major parties in U.S. government, and the two-party system in general). I took him to a gun range one time, rented a fully-automatic SMG and he loved it. So far every person I've ever known, regardless of their party affiliation, political ideology or family background, once they used a firearm for the first time and were properly instructed on how to safely do so loved it.

Stop making it a party/political issue. If you stop associating loose firearm laws with hardcore conservatism, you'll probably start to attract a lot more people from the middle and even some from the complete opposite end to your cause. All of my liberal friends come to conclusions based upon the principles of logic and fact, if you fight your PR war with honesty, information and credibility, then you should see results. The occasional goofy picture with a caption is just fine (if it is good it will find its way to computer nerd liberals), but it must also be poignant and have some kind of callout on it to enable the viewer to locate further information.

You also must understand that a lot of liberals reside in densely populated urban areas. The environment you find yourself in affects your mind and your views in more ways than most people will admit to. Sometimes it makes sense to restrict firearms in areas where people from many different cultures and backgrounds are all trying to live within the same (relatively small) area. I agree that it is unfair for a would-be responsible gun owner not to be able to procure his firearm of choice if he happened to find himself in that same area - but that is one of the problems that would need to be addressed. In order for a lot of these weapons to be recreationally viable in these areas, facilities must be built. I live in a quasi-metropolitan area and if I wanted to go shoot my rifle further than 25 yards in some ****ty indoor range, I would probably have to drive at least 1.5 hours. So naturally authorities would be suspicious of individuals buying much more than handguns and shotguns in areas where there's nowhere to recreationally shoot such firearms - especially in areas where there is high anonymity. I could post up on a roof somewhere for 10 minutes with a rifle and be able to kill a considerable amount of people and have a reasonable expectation to make a clean getaway if I played my cards right. All of these things are factors.

For the first time in history, more people live in urban centers than in rural areas. You guys are going to have start changing your game plan and approach the argument from the OTHER guy's point of view if you want to get anything done. The best way to do this, I think, is to remove the political component from the issue completely and start talking to people about the differences in the way they live their lives, in contrast to yours. Tell them that you understand where they are coming from, but that they must consider the way you choose to live as well.

/rant

JImbothefiveth
January 6, 2009, 06:30 PM
Since when has the U.S. been firebombing Iraqi children? That poster is disrespectful of our troops!

Sometimes it makes sense to restrict firearms in areas where people from many different cultures and backgrounds are all trying to live within the same (relatively small) area.
Why? I should still be able to defend myself regardless of who I live next to.

For the first time in history, more people live in urban centers than in rural areas
Urban areas have higher crime rates, so we should focus on the ability to defend oneself, and how guns lower crime rates.

marijuana-smoking,
fully-automatic SMG
That's usually a bad thing.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 6, 2009, 06:43 PM
Kludge, I like that one.

But I'd never heard of the baby-talking cat website before, nor do I think that I (or most people) will ever encounter it again, so it's gonna be of really limited usefulness to the mainstream non-baby-talking public. :p

nrgetik
January 6, 2009, 07:47 PM
Why? I should still be able to defend myself regardless of who I live next to.
I never mentioned the complete banning of firearms, there is no situation that I can think of where that would be a positive thing. Controls on who can buy and what they can own is mostly what I was referring to, and these things DO make sense in certain circumstances, in certain areas, from a specific perspective, until a more reasonable and permanent solution can be implemented.

In this situation, a representative of the "enemy" would tell you that you don't need an AR-15 (or insert your particular dream firearm here which has little practical use in a home self-defense scenario) to adequately defend yourself, and they'd be right. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to own one? In my opinion no, but you must understand why the law varies so greatly depending on where you are. Gun control might make sense within certain communities, again until something that can sufficiently satisfy both sides can be devised. (Essentially talking about education here - I won't elaborate but perhaps in another thread sometime)

That's usually a bad thing.
The person in question is a particularly responsible individual, and MJ is no exception with him. He's been admitted to the best (not exaggerating) graduate school for his field of study in the nation, which is absolutely no easy task, especially considering that he is in engineering. I was trying to drive the point home that liberals can like guns too, they just need someone to go shooting with, and a hard lining conservative isn't about to invite them to the range sometime. This is why I'm suggesting to you people that you de-politicize the issue as much as you possibly can, that is if you want to gain support across party lines.

Of course, if you guys want to continue using the same close minded tactics that have gotten you essentially nowhere in the past then that is your prerogative. In general I am against firearms control, but I do not see this as my battle to fight, I was merely trying to offer some ideas, insight, from a younger generation's perspective on the issue. I thought it may have been useful.

All I want is for someone to answer me this: are you better equipped to convince a man of something after having walked a mile in his shoes than you would be if you never even considered the removal of your own as a possibility?

bp78
January 6, 2009, 07:58 PM
Humor is the foot in the door of the mind.
+1. Way too many people in my 30 & under age bracket only watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report for "news". This may be a useful venue to push, highlight the utter lack of logic behind 'sensible' gun laws.

orionengnr
January 6, 2009, 08:44 PM
You were doing okay until about the fifth paragraph, when your credibility began being stretched. Then you totally derailed yourself with this:

So naturally authorities would be suspicious of individuals buying much more than handguns and shotguns in areas where there's nowhere to recreationally shoot such firearms - especially in areas where there is high anonymity.

This mindset gives rise to the so-called "reasonable" gun restrictions that antis are so fond of. It is so easy to start down that slippery slope that you don't even notice how fast you're accelerating...until you go off the cliff.

Fact is, I owned three bolt-action Remington M-700s in different calibers until recently, and I had not fired any of them in nearly 10 years. Add a Mini-14 to that list. Those rifles lived in my safe through three moves to/from three large metro areas in three states (two of which are frequently referred to as Socialist Republiks).

However, none of them has ever killed anything but paper (or perhaps a deer in the hands of their new owners) and there is no reason why I should not be able to replace them in the future, should I so desire, authorities "natural suspicions" notwithstanding.

At the present time, the mere ownership of a legal, inanimate object is not a crime, whether or not others deem it "practical". You sound like a thoughtful type. Stick around a while, keep an open mind, and keep reading.

All I want is for someone to answer me this: are you better equipped to convince a man of something after having walked a mile in his shoes than you would be if you never even considered the removal of your own as a possibility?

I'll answer it. You know, that's a great line, but how can I "walk a mile in the shoes" of someone (and I'm not talking about you, but you knew that) who uses rhetoric over logic, emotion over reason, vitriol over legitimate argument? I can't. Try going over to DU or HuffPo or DailyKos and discussing this issue, or anything RKBA-related. You will not get a reasoned reply--you will get shouted down, cussed out, threatened anonymously, and banned from the forums. BTDT. :)

kludge
January 6, 2009, 09:05 PM
Kludge, I like that one.

But I'd never heard of the baby-talking cat website before, nor do I think that I (or most people) will ever encounter it again, so it's gonna be of really limited usefulness to the mainstream non-baby-talking public.


Are you serious?

If you are, then go to icanhascheezburger.com and have a look

It is an internet phenomenon, and (almost) eveyone who uses the internet knows about lolcats or icanhazcheezburger.

JImbothefiveth
January 6, 2009, 09:09 PM
and a hard lining conservative isn't about to invite them to the range sometime.
I beg to differ.

in this situation, a representative of the "enemy" would tell you that you don't need an AR-15 (or insert your particular dream firearm here which has little practical use in a home self-defense scenario
An AR-15 is a good home defense weapon for the weak and elderly in particular, since it is light, and fires a low-recoil round, and has high capacity.
And what about rifles for hunting?

TimboKhan
January 6, 2009, 09:21 PM
Controls on who can buy and what they can own is mostly what I was referring to, and these things DO make sense in certain circumstances, in certain areas, from a specific perspective, until a more reasonable and permanent solution can be implemented

I can see your point to a certain degree, but where this argument falls apart is in the implementation, and there are several reasons for this. First, the certain circumstances, areas and perspectives that you speak of can all describe Washington DC, and all are pretty much what Heller fought and won against.

Second, what your suggesting would amount to profiling people by socio-economic or racial characteristics. I am not trying to paint you as a racist or anything, but it isn't any particular secret that most urban high-crime areas are generally minority communities and generally low-income. People of any color or economic standing deserve the same rights as the rest of us, regardless of whether or not they live in Crapville, USA or Beverly Hills. (Some would argue this is the same place, lol)

Third, who is going to judge these characteristics and make the call? I would feel extremely uncomfortable with some politician waving his hand and saying "this area needs no guns". That is too much power, and frankly, horrifically unfair.

That being said, there are some incredibly stupid people out there that have no business being around guns. A point that I have always made is that while we have the right, we also are obliged to uphold the responsibility. Some people, regardless of color, economic standing, geographic location or criminal record, simply do not have the basic skills necessary to uphold that responsibility. Unfortunately, stupidity doesn't exempt one from the basic rights of an American Citizen.

hso
January 6, 2009, 09:39 PM
I think what nrgetik is saying is that understanding the terrain as well as the motivation and capabilities of the opposition is important if you want to win. A law from an urban center that makes no sense to a third of the state's population living in semi-rural areas isn't going to be effectively opposed without understanding the cultural/social context that the folks in the urban areas share that allows them to be convinced to support the law. Understand the target market, shape the message for them, sell them on the idea. You can't sell them on the idea if the message is shaped to a different demographic. IOW, you can't sell nearly as many working pickup trucks, overalls and mud boots in the city as you can in the country regardless of how many ads you run if they're focused on your traditional market.

We're very guilty of being insular and self-righteous when we need to be shaping our message for the people doing the voting.

nutter
January 7, 2009, 12:25 PM
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6946/stealinwp1.jpg

JImbothefiveth
January 7, 2009, 01:07 PM
That walrus has his finger on the trigger. Just sayin'.

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 01:59 PM
You were doing okay until about the fifth paragraph, when your credibility began being stretched. Then you totally derailed yourself with this:

This mindset gives rise to the so-called "reasonable" gun restrictions that antis are so fond of. It is so easy to start down that slippery slope that you don't even notice how fast you're accelerating...until you go off the cliff.
Actually, I beg to differ. The slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy and does not hold water within the context of a formal debate (which this is not, but I attempt, at least, to hold myself to high standards when discussing something that is at least somewhat important to me). Here's an easy explanation of what is sometimes known as the "Camel's Nose" fallacy:

1) If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C, ..., X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
2) Z should not happen.
3) Therefore, A should not happen, either.

This is obviously fallacious.

(http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)

There's also a Wikipedia entry which uses this subject as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Examples

All good reading.

If you can provide me of an example where you can show that some seemingly benign or reasonable legislation A was enacted that led to an undesirable social result Z later in history (and can enumerate each step in the process by which B was introduced because of A, C was introduced because of B, etc), then I will stand corrected, but I'm 99% sure you won't be able to. Forget about the slippery slope, it is ultimately useless in determining what action should or should not be taken, therefore a waste of time.

The snippet that you quoted from me was my attempt at painting a picture from an authority figure's point of view. Say, the police chief in [insert urban area here] dealing with high violent crime rates. Such a law would make sense for him because he is the one that has to answer to the public when people get killed. Sure, if everyone had a gun and were educated on how to use it then the problem would fix itself, but let's face it, law-abiding citizens in urban areas already have such a negative view toward firearms (because the only time they see a firearm is either on a gangster or a policeman [which, sometimes can be one in the same], both of whom they probably resent), that they don't even want to hear it. And you have to ask yourself if you would think the same way if you lived their life.

Fact is, I owned three bolt-action Remington M-700s in different calibers until recently, and I had not fired any of them in nearly 10 years. Add a Mini-14 to that list. Those rifles lived in my safe through three moves to/from three large metro areas in three states (two of which are frequently referred to as Socialist Republiks).

However, none of them has ever killed anything but paper (or perhaps a deer in the hands of their new owners) and there is no reason why I should not be able to replace them in the future, should I so desire, authorities "natural suspicions" notwithstanding.
That is because you are a responsible gun owner/enthusiast who has the proper respect for firearms. But the police would not know that until they talked to you first, and if anyone knows a policeman (or woman), then they know that in that line of work you must ALWAYS assume the worst, otherwise you get killed. So, to that cop, you're just another potential shooter (since it makes little sense for you to own such a firearm for recreational purposes in that area, and the cop will go through this same line of reasoning I guarantee it) until you can prove otherwise.

I'll answer it. You know, that's a great line, but how can I "walk a mile in the shoes" of someone (and I'm not talking about you, but you knew that) who uses rhetoric over logic, emotion over reason, vitriol over legitimate argument? I can't. Try going over to DU or HuffPo or DailyKos and discussing this issue, or anything RKBA-related. You will not get a reasoned reply--you will get shouted down, cussed out, threatened anonymously, and banned from the forums. BTDT.
Pick a website with some outlet for discussion of your choice, and a basic premise to argue and I will bet you that none of those things will happen to me. If any of them do, I will make a thread formally apologizing for my ignorance.

I beg to differ.
and a hard lining conservative isn't *likely* to invite them to the range sometime.
Better?

An AR-15 is a good home defense weapon for the weak and elderly in particular, since it is light, and fires a low-recoil round, and has high capacity.
And what about rifles for hunting?
A) While those are all valid points about the AR, the argument can EASILY be made that a simple handgun or shotgun is plenty for a home defense situation. Have you ever bought an AR-15 for the explicit purpose of defending your home? Your home in this case would be a small 1-2 bedroom apartment in the city, or perhaps even a studio.
B) There isn't anything to hunt in cities, except people and the occasional stray domestic animal.

I can see your point to a certain degree, but where this argument falls apart is in the implementation
I completely, completely agree. The rest of your post was pretty much spot-on as well, I'm not really trying to champion one thing or the other, I'm merely trying to make people consider perspectives that they potentially never have before, thus (hopefully) making them better capable at convincing those that would normally oppose their views on firearms to embrace them.

I think what nrgetik is saying is that understanding the terrain as well as the motivation and capabilities of the opposition is important if you want to win. A law from an urban center that makes no sense to a third of the state's population living in semi-rural areas isn't going to be effectively opposed without understanding the cultural/social context that the folks in the urban areas share that allows them to be convinced to support the law. Understand the target market, shape the message for them, sell them on the idea. You can't sell them on the idea if the message is shaped to a different demographic. IOW, you can't sell nearly as many working pickup trucks, overalls and mud boots in the city as you can in the country regardless of how many ads you run if they're focused on your traditional market.

We're very guilty of being insular and self-righteous when we need to be shaping our message for the people doing the voting.
That is precisely, 100% what I am saying. Thank you for this eloquent and poignant summary.

hso
January 7, 2009, 02:45 PM
Have you ever bought an AR-15 for the explicit purpose of defending your home?

Check S&T and you'll find that there is plenty of evidence that an AR-15 is as reasonable a home defense firearm as a handgun or shotgun in most circumstances.

Just as we need to understand our opponents, we also need to understand that most of our opponents may be parroting gun myths because they're ignorant of the facts surrounding firearms (and that some of them are willfully ignorant or willfully twisting them), like an AR is less suitable for Home Defense than a 1911.

nutter
January 7, 2009, 02:50 PM
If you can provide me of an example where you can show that some seemingly benign or reasonable legislation A was enacted that led to an undesirable social result Z later in history

How about:

Patriot act -> warrantless wiretaps

Legislation giving the gov't extended surveillance powers led to the gov't taking it further and illegally and unconstitutionally surveiling US citizens.

And what about the legislation removing accountability for tleecom companies for illegally providing the gov't information on customers? That was an ex post facto law, and as such 100% unconstitutional.

Definitely seems like a slippery-slope situation to me. Now that more people are aware of what the government has been doing hopefully the slide will be halted and turned back.

Now as for gun rights, certainly everyone agrees that somewhere between single-shot hunting rifle and tactical nuke there is a line, beyond which individual arms ownership should not be allowed. The more restrictive gun control becomes, the more the norm moves toward smaller and fewer (or no) guns. As the norm moves, the extreme becomes less "extreme", and it becomes feasible to ban more innocuous guns.

Don't get me wrong. At a high level I very much agree with you and think its a mistake to mis-understand and mis-characterize the opposition (and I've spent AL LOT of time talking about gun control with antis). Though while I don't think restrictions on some weapons will lead to some sort of total ban, I do think there is a real slippery slope effect.

Pick a website with some outlet for discussion of your choice, and a basic premise to argue and I will bet you that none of those things will happen to me. If any of them do, I will make a thread formally apologizing for my ignorance.

Also agree.

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 03:48 PM
How about:

Patriot act -> warrantless wiretaps

Legislation giving the gov't extended surveillance powers led to the gov't taking it further and illegally and unconstitutionally surveiling US citizens.

And what about the legislation removing accountability for tleecom companies for illegally providing the gov't information on customers? That was an ex post facto law, and as such 100% unconstitutional.

Definitely seems like a slippery-slope situation to me. Now that more people are aware of what the government has been doing hopefully the slide will be halted and turned back.
Neither of these examples really apply IMO; I'll explain.

The Patriot Act never really had widespread public support, and neither, I suspect, did the legislation you refer to regarding unlawful govt/telco collaboration. Neither of these were situations where the public approved of some legislation and said "ok, let's do it, what is the worst that could happen?", which "opened the door" to change the "status quo" a number of times before whammo, police state (or whatever).

Both of these are just examples of our Government's abuse of power that were either not fully comprehended by the public and/or congress (Patriot Act | side note: if memory serves, not a single congressperson even read the Patriot Act past the first few pages before voting on it), or largely went undetected by the public until later (govt/telco as well as the warrantless wiretaps and abuses of the Patriot Act).

At best you're proving that the slippery slope prophecy is not something that can be observed within society; at worst you're comparing apples to oranges.

Now as for gun rights, certainly everyone agrees that somewhere between single-shot hunting rifle and tactical nuke there is a line, beyond which individual arms ownership should not be allowed. The more restrictive gun control becomes, the more the norm moves toward smaller and fewer (or no) guns. As the norm moves, the extreme becomes less "extreme", and it becomes feasible to ban more innocuous guns.

Don't get me wrong. At a high level I very much agree with you and think its a mistake to mis-understand and mis-characterize the opposition (and I've spent AL LOT of time talking about gun control with antis). Though while I don't think restrictions on some weapons will lead to some sort of total ban, I do think there is a real slippery slope effect.
I've only been concerned about gun rights starting within, say, the last 5 years, so I am mostly ignorant regarding the history of the issue in the United States, but can you tell me in good confidence that 2nd Amendment rights have slowly eroded since, say, the NFA in 34? There was the GCA in 68 which seemed partially unfair, but it seems the FOPA in 86 fixed most of that. Then we had the AWB in 94, which was allowed to expire in 04.

If you are right you wouldn't have to "think" that there is a slippery slope effect, you'd be able to observe it throughout history. If you or anybody else is willing to take the stance that 2nd Amendment rights have indeed significantly eroded since 34 (for the sake of argument), then by all means, because if you prove that argument then I will probably rebel.

jrhines
January 7, 2009, 04:07 PM
a few years back passed some nonsense gun bill (7 day wait or 1 gun/month or the like), even after the chairwomen said that the law would not do any good. There was testimony from at least 2 LEOs agreeing with her. An anti stood up and said "but if we pass this, it will be easier to pass more restrictive laws!" So they passed it. California is now awaiting step N I think, maybe it's step P, I lost count awhile back.
I'll go see if I can find the Youtube clip and be back. Don't look now, but your on the slope you say doesn't exist.
Oh, I remember, it was 24 hours to tell the cops your gun was stolen, (pretty sure).

nutter
January 7, 2009, 04:17 PM
Both of these are just examples of our Government's abuse of power that were either not fully comprehended by the public and/or congress, or largely went undetected by the public until later.

At best you're proving that the slippery slope prophecy is not something that can be observed within society; at worst you're comparing apples to oranges.

My contention is that it is the passage of accordant legislation which emboldened further rights violations. I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges, though I understand where you're coming from.

If you or anybody else is willing to take the stance that 2nd Amendment rights have indeed significantly eroded since 34

I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter to pick up this argument.

hso
January 7, 2009, 04:19 PM
but can you tell me in good confidence that 2nd Amendment rights have slowly eroded since, say, the NFA in 34?

Yes.

Federally, import bans removing firearms from the public market. These are as effective as bans. Reclassification of evil looking shotguns as destructive devices.

Individual states and localities restricting or outright banning possession of whole classes (Cali AWB, Chicago handgun) of firearms. Or "guns per month" legislation that hinders collectors and enthusiasts. None of which actually address the basic causes of crime, but uses regulation of firearms as a substitute.

Then the whole hodgepodge of state carry laws where a permit holder in KY can sit down in a tavern with a buddy in IN while both carry, but the guy from IN can't visit his friend in KY and the two of them sit in a tavern on the KY side of the border (or a guy from TN can join them in IN, but not in KY).

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 04:30 PM
a few years back passed some nonsense gun bill (7 day wait or 1 gun/month or the like), even after the chairwomen said that the law would not do any good. There was testimony from at least 2 LEOs agreeing with her. An anti stood up and said "but if we pass this, it will be easier to pass more restrictive laws!" So they passed it. California is now awaiting step N I think, maybe it's step P, I lost count awhile back.
I'll go see if I can find the Youtube clip and be back. Don't look now, but your on the slope you say doesn't exist.
Oh, I remember, it was 24 hours to tell the cops your gun was stolen, (pretty sure).
That's California, and since it was a city council the law can only apply within the city limits of Sacramento.

You can also legally purchase and use marijuana in California. California is neither a good nor valid example of anything that we are discussing here - there will always be "extremes" and at the moment, California is one of them.

And I'm not on any slope, I live in Florida. The only "slope" I'd ever be concerned about would have to be on a federal level, because you and I know damn well that there's no way in hell every state would pass similar restrictive gun laws independently of each other. If it doesn't happen on a federal level, it doesn't concern me. City statutes and state law can be changed much more rapidly then on the federal level.

My contention is that it is the passage of accordant legislation which emboldened further rights violations. I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges, though I understand where you're coming from.
And my contention is that since it was not something that they were ultimately able to "get away with" (thus furthering the slip on the slope), then it isn't really a slippery slope. They're coming back into check as we speak. Govt abuse is a fact of life, but that doesn't mean it can only travel in one direction.

I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter to pick up this argument.
Me either, but I'd like to hear from someone who is because I think we might be making some progress here.

Yes.

Federally, import bans removing firearms from the public market. These are as effective as bans. Reclassification of evil looking shotguns as destructive devices.

Individual states and localities restricting or outright banning possession of whole classes (Cali AWB, Chicago handgun) of firearms. Or "guns per month" legislation that hinders collectors and enthusiasts. None of which actually address the basic causes of crime, but uses regulation of firearms as a substitute.

Then the whole hodgepodge of state carry laws where a permit holder in KY can sit down in a tavern with a buddy in IN while both carry, but the guy from IN can't visit his friend in KY and the two of them sit in a tavern on the KY side of the border (or a guy from TN can join them in IN, but not in KY).
If you could concentrate on one example, preferably the one you consider to be the most egregious, and give or direct me to:

1) Some sort of timeline
2) Specifics
3) Supporting documentation/legitimate sources

Then we will have something. And I will go through all of it, guaranteed.

toivo
January 7, 2009, 04:42 PM
I for one believe in the "slippery slope." The reason I do is that there are groups that are on record as opposing all civilian ownership of firearms who are also actively working to promote "reasonable restrictions." I have no reason to believe that their definition of "reasonable" is anything like mine, and I'm convinced they will work to move the goalposts back with each successful restriction until they have achieved their ultimate goal.

Just for perspective, I am what most would consider a liberal on many social issues. What I see in extreme gun-ban advocates is a streak of totalitarianism that has no place in a free society.

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 04:47 PM
Well I mean, that's all fine and good toivo but ultimately I don't know if what you're telling me about these groups is true or not. Where exactly are you getting this information? Was it from any of the major news corporations, or one of their many small subsidiaries? Because I would immediately question the accuracy of anything of that nature.

JImbothefiveth
January 7, 2009, 04:51 PM
I started a thread about convincing people in urban areas, if anyone wants to discuss this there.

the argument can EASILY be made that a simple handgun or shotgun is plenty for a home defense situation.
A shotgun might be too much recoil for a senior citizen, and handguns are hard to aim accurately.

and a hard lining conservative isn't *likely* to invite them to the range sometime.

Better?
No, I'm very conservative, and I've taught (very) liberals to shoot.


law-abiding citizens in urban areas already have such a negative view toward firearms (because the only time they see a firearm is either on a gangster or a policeman [which, sometimes can be one in the same], both of whom they probably resent), that they don't even want to hear it. And you have to ask yourself if you would think the same way if you lived their life.
First of all, why would a law abiding citizen resent non-corrupt policemen?

they don't even want to hear it
I think we should point out that they would be far better able to defend themselves from crime if they had a gun. Maybe they just never considered it, and this would give them a new view on the subject.

it makes little sense for you to own such a firearm for recreational purposes in that area
Really? There is probably a range somewhere in the city, and although you can't hunt in the city, you can always go outside the city.

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 04:56 PM
Where?

Edit:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418363

JImbothefiveth
January 7, 2009, 05:04 PM
Where?
To hunt, you could go to public hunting land. To target shoot, it depends on the city. There are a number of ranges in Indiana, off the top of my head I can name Don's guns. (Although I hear he over-charges on the guns themselves.)

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 05:14 PM
I was talking about where the thread was located, because you didn't say it was in the parent forum of this forum when you said you had created another thread.

JImbothefiveth
January 7, 2009, 05:16 PM
Sorry about that. Here's the thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418363

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 05:25 PM
No problem, I posted my reply to your last one in this thread over at the other thread.

Geneseo1911
January 7, 2009, 06:57 PM
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/troll_web.jpg

jackdanson
January 7, 2009, 07:21 PM
TLDR... darn I came in here hoping for funny pics... only a few gems in the midst of the craziness...

bah, didn't want to get involved but

First of all, why would a law abiding citizen resent non-corrupt policemen?

You don't work with many low-income minorities do you? Rational or no they fear the police. I work with guys that are salt of the earth, would never hurt a fly, but they are terrified of the police.. you can try to talk them out of it, but it is so culturally ingrained in them that they won't bite. Would you trust an establishment that openly worked to opress your people up until 35 or so years ago?

That should be all the more reason to them to pre pro2a, but for some reason it isn't.

toivo
January 7, 2009, 07:51 PM
Well I mean, that's all fine and good toivo but ultimately I don't know if what you're telling me about these groups is true or not. Where exactly are you getting this information? Was it from any of the major news corporations, or one of their many small subsidiaries? Because I would immediately question the accuracy of anything of that nature.

I'm just taking public figures at their word. Tom Gresham reports this:

"When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either."

<http://www.guntalk.com/site.php?pageID=15&newsID=12>

Rosie O'Donnell, who has been active with the HCI, said the following:

"Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

<http://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/1999/220499.html>

Then there was the infamous Dianne Feinstein quote:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

<60 Minutes, CBS-TV, 2/5/95>

In all fairness, Feinstein was talking only about "assault weapons," specifically the grandfathering compromise in the 1994 ban.

I think the intention is clear.

Geno
January 7, 2009, 08:42 PM
Take my guns. Take your guns. Take the police guns. Take the military guns. Of course, no foreign forces would invade us. Wow, I could add a statement here, but am far too gentlemanly.

nrgetik
January 7, 2009, 10:25 PM
Toivo: you can pretty much ignore Rosie O'Donnell, at the end of the day she's just a moron trying to get viewers, she has no real pull or influence. It isn't like the viewership of her program is significant.

The others...well, you're absolutely right, but as long as you've got at least 1 person speaking out FOR gun rights per every ******* speaking out against them, then there's no real threat. Ideally you need to have multiple people speaking out for gun rights per every one speaking against, and the way to do that is to know the opposition

bang_bang
January 8, 2009, 12:25 AM
They can come and get mine. But they're gonna have one hell of a time picking up all my brass. :cuss:

brisendines
January 9, 2009, 01:14 PM
I found a great site with gun advocate posters, slogans, and just pretty pictures.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/?g2_page=1

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
January 9, 2009, 01:15 PM
That's a pretty sweet website you found there, bresindines; thanks! ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Icanhazcheezburger as an activism tool." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!