Terrorists Can Use the .50 Cal Against Us...


PDA






NIGHTWATCH
June 20, 2005, 05:50 PM
http://69.6.253.242/web_pages/paternoster/thatstrue1.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Terrorists Can Use the .50 Cal Against Us..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Beren
June 21, 2005, 10:28 AM
After discussing the appropriateness of the content with a L&P moderator, I've restored the thread. Enjoy.

Double Naught Spy
June 21, 2005, 11:17 AM
NIGHTWATCH, you are welcome to leave the country anytime. Take the Dianetics folks with you.

NIGHTWATCH
June 21, 2005, 11:38 AM
NIGHTWATCH, you are welcome to leave the country anytime. Take the Dianetics folks with you.

I should leave the country because I think it important to remember? And to remind people what this arms race (gun control) is really about?

Nice. Your a real patriot.

Derby FALs
June 21, 2005, 11:49 AM
NIGHTWATCH, you are welcome to leave the country anytime. Take the Dianetics folks with you.

Is that the best you can come up with? Would you leave the country if you don't believe in free speech?:D

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 11:49 AM
I believe I'd prefer those who miss the point of the poster leave the country... :rolleyes:

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 11:59 AM
Setting aside the question of who has the biggest (ahem) patriotism, the poster is unlikely to convince anyone that banning .50s is a bad idea. In fact, the poster reinforces people's prejudice that those who still care about Waco are a bunch of nutjobs chomping at the bit for a fight with the feds.

I'm not saying anyone is, in fact, a nutjob. I'm just telling you how Joe and Jane Q. Average will react to that poster.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this poster end up in some VPC propaganda as "proof" that the gun-nuts are too wacko to be trusted with .50s -- just as that famous "voting from the rooftops" poster ended up in their propaganda.

I've stopped being surprised at how some people on our side spoon-feed propaganda to the likes of Tom Diaz.

Spare me the spiel about how you don't cater to political correctness. This isn't about political correctness. This is about handing propaganda to your enemies.

auschip
June 21, 2005, 12:03 PM
In fact, the poster reinforces people's prejudice that those who still care about Waco are a bunch of nutjobs chomping at the bit for a fight with the feds.

I would agree with that assesment, and push it further. I believe this would actually move people who are on the fence about .50s over to being against them.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 12:12 PM
Yes, the first concern must always how the anti's willutilize whatever we say or do. The first response to anything that might be manipulated by the anti's(literally anything) is to tell the poster to leave the country.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 12:20 PM
Yes, the first concern must always how the anti's willutilize whatever we say or do. The first response to anything that might be manipulated by the anti's(literally anything) is to tell the poster to leave the country. Who's missing the point? :scrutiny: Whether it should be the first concern is beside the point. It ought to be a concern -- especially in so obvious a case as this. You're trying to convince people of X, and I'm simply pointing out that you're doing nothing but help the antis convince people of anti-X.

And don't ascribe that "leave the country" crap to me. :rolleyes:

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 12:22 PM
I didn't. But as for a "first concern" yes, we hear the issue raised often enough that it does indeed seem to be a primary concern for at least some around here.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 12:33 PM
But as for a "first concern" yes, we hear the issue raised often enough that it does indeed seem to be a primary concern for at least some around here. It's an important consideration -- especially (as in this case) when the antis would need to put zero spin and manipulation on the poster to push Joe Q. Average away from us.

If the poster-maker is too tone-deaf to understand how and why, he has no business trying to help us. I'd just as soon have a trigger-happy blind man, spun around until he's dizzy and disoriented, protecting my six in a firecracker testing room.

You're in a political war, and you ignore that fact to everyone's peril. It might feel good to make posters like this. The amen-corner will rev up. But in the end -- if you're lucky -- you do nothing. More likely, you hurt us. But it feels good, don't it?

NIGHTWATCH
June 21, 2005, 04:49 PM
It might feel good to make posters like this. But in the end you do nothing. More likely, you hurt us. But it feels good, don't it?

The LEFT has learned to use images and media to manipulate the masses succesfully. And most of the time they are twisting facts or dishonest entirely. What is dishonest about this message? Is it ALARMING? Does being alarmed bother you?

And if it felt good to make, why should it make you feel uncomfortable? Is it truth that makes you uneasy? Should what happened that day be forgotten? Or is it that this image challenges you to get your head out of the sand and offer less of a "Sporting View" of our Second Amendment? One that suggests that you may be required to give your life one day in order to preserve freedom.

taliv
June 21, 2005, 04:53 PM
my problem with the poster is that i don't get the connection between ATF jackbooted thugs and the .50 BMG.

Preacherman
June 21, 2005, 04:56 PM
Nightwatch, I think you're assuming rather too much. Posters such as this one don't "alarm" me, or make me feel "uncomfortable", or any of the other alternatives you posited. Rather, they make me feel that a whole bunch of otherwise relatively sane people have their knickers in a wad over an issue that has been grossly overblown, and are spreading alarmist propaganda that actually does more damage to our cause (which I assume is the defense of the RKBA and the 2A) than good.

Sure, there have been Government abuses of power, in this and in other spheres. This is unacceptable, as is any abuse of power, and needs to be highlighted and fixed. However, these abuses have not been nearly so widespread as some seem to think. For every abuse of power, I could probably find a dozen or more examples where the police authority of the State has been correctly applied, in defense of the common good. To harp on the negatives without acknowledging the positives makes one look like a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic... not good for our side, methinks.

Balance is important. The absence of balance gives the impression that one's views are so insular and bigoted that they're not worthy of consideration by any serious analyst. Worth thinking about...

taliv
June 21, 2005, 05:16 PM
ouch, preacherman. if covering up an incident of gross abuse of power promotes a dozen correctly applied defenses of the common good, do you still support it?

that's fundamentally the logic that the patriot act is based on.

it's pretty much the logic that liberals use to support dictators like saddam and castro, right? I mean, so what they have to kill a few people to keep order? they're still fighting the good fight against the evil capitalist hegemony right?



i think i'm putting words in your mouth; please correct me.

NIGHTWATCH
June 21, 2005, 05:26 PM
my problem with the poster is that i don't get the connection between ATF jackbooted thugs and the .50 BMG.
I see what you mean. Thanks.

http://69.6.253.242/web_pages/paternoster/thatstrue1_copy.jpg

Standing Wolf
June 21, 2005, 07:15 PM
Truly appalling typography.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 07:23 PM
The LEFT has learned to use images and media to manipulate the masses succesfully. And most of the time they are twisting facts or dishonest entirely. What is dishonest about this message? Is it ALARMING? Does being alarmed bother you?

And if it felt good to make, why should it make you feel uncomfortable? Is it truth that makes you uneasy? Should what happened that day be forgotten? Or is it that this image challenges you to get your head out of the sand and offer less of a "Sporting View" of our Second Amendment? One that suggests that you may be required to give your life one day in order to preserve freedom. Congratulations, you win the coveted MISSING THE POINT BY A MILE AWARD for June!

http://www.black-river.ca/Clipart/award%20winner.gif

Your plaque is in the mail.

NIGHTWATCH
June 21, 2005, 07:43 PM
That is funny C. :D ... but I get the point. Some think it can hurt the cause, got it..........I disagree.

When watching the WACO documentary there was a scene where they were covering the response from local TV and radio stations. People were calling in and commenting on the situation after Koresh decided to "wait for God".

What disturbed me was that some of these people were calling on the FBI to just go in and end it. You could actually hear people telling the FEDS to rush the place, knowing full well that the building was filled with women and children.

My point is that there will always be people on the LEFT and on the RIGHT who will condone murder by government as long as it is killing a political element that they dislike. Its up to us in the middle, or right of center to remind both sides that government as a whole is evil. If you disagree with that then you are on the wrong side of our history.

El Rojo
June 21, 2005, 07:57 PM
This is about handing propaganda to your enemies.I disagree as well. Our enemies don't need any ideas of propaganda from us, they will lie and create plenty of propaganda with or without our help. The anti's could care less what we do or say really, it won't stop them from trying to take away our liberties.

I guess the most interesting aspect of this whole undertone of "Be careful of what you say around anti's, they might use it against us" is that if what we are saying or doing isn't going to sit well with the anti's or the fence sitters, then maybe what we are doing and saying is wrong. Either the 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right inherently belonging to all human beings or it isn't. So even if there are wack jobs out there that make gun owners look bad, that shouldn't change this debate any.

So I say make all of the posters and comparisons you want, it won't hurt me any. I am still going to talk to my friends and neighbors about liberty and freedom. I am still going to teach it in my high school classes and try and influence the next generation in the name of liberty and freedom. If they look at that poster and decide to go the other way, then someone else failed before that point and so I don't think the poster hurts us much.

So as far as being careful of what I say and do because it might give the anti's fuel for their fire, screw that. I am not afraid of them. I am not going to cower and do anything differently with them around or not around. I am who I am, the message we are trying to spread is what it is. I know they are going to lie and deceive people to accomplish their agenda and I know the only way to stop it is to educate as many people as I can.

As far as the content of the poster goes, it most certainly isn't my style. The ATF and FBI don't make laws, Congress does. If you want to critisize anyone, critisize politicians, not their occasional soldiers.

Gung-Ho
June 21, 2005, 08:31 PM
I believe I'd prefer those who miss the point of the poster leave the country...

Same here. :rolleyes:

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 09:09 PM
NIGHTWATCH: That is funny C. ... but I get the point. Some think it can hurt the cause, got it..........I disagree. Ah, so you responded with a string of glaring non sequiturs on purpose. Interesting tactic. Is that a stealth thing?El Rojo:So even if there are wack jobs out there that make gun owners look bad, that shouldn't change this debate any. It shouldn't, but it does. The fact is that this poster would turn potential allies away from the RKBA. You being comfortable losing those potential allies doesn't change that fact that we'll lose them.

There are effective, ineffective and counterproductive ways to convert people. This poster is ineffective at best. I'd rather we stuck to effective ways.

antsi
June 21, 2005, 09:34 PM
--quote-----------------------------------
The LEFT has learned to use images and media to manipulate the masses succesfully. And most of the time they are twisting facts or dishonest entirely. What is dishonest about this message? Is it ALARMING? Does being alarmed bother you?

And if it felt good to make, why should it make you feel uncomfortable? Is it truth that makes you uneasy? Should what happened that day be forgotten? Or is it that this image challenges you to get your head out of the sand and offer less of a "Sporting View" of our Second Amendment? One that suggests that you may be required to give your life one day in order to preserve freedom.
-------------------------------------------

The poster doesn't "alarm" or "disturb" me. I simply believe it is counter-productive as a propaganda piece.

We who favor second ammendment rights are in a propaganda war with the anti's. Both the anti's and us are fighting to win as many hearts and minds of "undecided" people over to our way of thinking. We want them to support our point of view. Our t-shirts and posters and TV commercials and press releases and everything else we use in the propaganda war has to be calculated for the effect it will have on the average undecided people who read/see/hear them.

Yes, I happen to think the .gov was way out of line at Waco and Ruby Ridge and other incidents. But I don't think these incidents form an effective basis for pro-gun-rights propaganda. Address those incidents through other venues, yes, but don't mix up your messages in the gun rights propaganda war.

There may be some truth to the message you are trying to get across with this poster, but that doesn't really matter in the gun rights propaganda war. Anyone who is undecided or a fence-sitter on gun rights issues is going to look at this poster and think gun owners are a bunch of whack jobs who shouldn't be allowed outdoors without supervision. This is exactly the image the antis' are trying to portray of gun owners.

El Rojo
June 21, 2005, 09:42 PM
It shouldn't, but it does. The fact is that this poster would turn potential allies away from the RKBA. You being comfortable losing those potential allies doesn't change that fact that we'll lose them.I don't believe it will turn anyone away from us. If it does, they were never with us to begin with and we all failed by not getting out and talking to them. Personally, I don't think the anti's cruise the High Road and look for things to copy and publish. I don't think that poster is going to have a bit of an effect on anyone on the fense. That is just my opinion with just about as much validation as your opinion that the anti's use that against us and we are losing the war because of it.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 09:55 PM
It shouldn't, but it does. The fact is that this poster would turn potential allies away from the RKBA. You being comfortable losing those potential allies doesn't change that fact that we'll lose them.

This is a continuation of your sig line, essentially. A) I think you are utterly wrong. It's doubtful it would turn anyone "against us". B) It doesn't matter if it does. Our job is not to spend our lives walking on egg shells because OH GEE! We might upset someone's tender sensitivities. Read Rojo's post. He says it pretty well.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 10:15 PM
El Rojo: If it does, they were never with us to begin with and we all failed by not getting out and talking to them. True, getting out and talking to them is vital. But what's the point of pushing them away -- especially when you're unlikely to convince anyone with a particular behavior?El Rojo: Personally, I don't think the anti's cruise the High Road and look for things to copy and publish. You apparently weren't around (oh, 2000 or 2001, I think) when VPC took an image off TFL (or perhaps one of the other gun sites) and used not only the image in a propaganda piece, but the words in the picture as the title of the piece. The photo was of a fellow on a rooftop aiming a .50. His T-Shirt read, "Voting from the Rooftops." The VPC propaganda piece is titled, "Voting from the Rooftops."

That propaganda piece is the main force behind the drive to ban .50s. It's effective propaganda, some of it created by unwitting pro-gun folks.

As well, Oleg's work has been misappropriated by the anti's (although Oleg's stuff is rarely as counterproductive as the poster in this thread).2nd Amendment: Our job is not to spend our lives walking on egg shells because OH GEE! We might upset someone's tender sensitivities. I'm hardly asking anyone to walk on eggshells. There are productive and counterproductive ways to get your point accross. This is counterproductive.

Quite honestly, I'm remineded of the the guy with the long beard and tattered robe who stands on the corner howling "You're all going to burn in the eternal pit of flame! Sinners! Sinners! EEEEvil EEEEvil Sinners! Come forward and repent!" The best he gets is laughter, but certainly no converts.

Meanwhile, the quiet minister down the street spends his life quietly converting hundreds without resorting to such counterproductive tactics.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 10:25 PM
*shrug*

I am not certain how to put this without offending you and that is not what I am looking to do, HOWEVER, this IS my perception every single time you get rolling on this issue...

I see a mouse trembling in a room full of cats. He thinks, as his whiskers twitch uncontrollably, if he's very very quiet they won't notice him. But, of course, they smell the fear, if nothing else...

Whether the minister up the road from the madman gets more "converts" is immaterial, if he's leading them down the path to hell. I'd guess Jesus himself heard something about not giving the enemy anything to work with. I know he was laughed at and dismissed as that guy in tatters you mention. He certainly didn't shrink from saying what he believed, though. The Pharisees and others meanwhile kept on raking in the "faithful" and the dollars...

But who won in the long run?

*shrug*

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 10:26 PM
Here's the TFL thread about VPC trolling gun boards for images to use as propaganda: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83936&highlight=voting+from+the+rooftops

See the last post for reference to the T-Shirt with voting from the rooftops.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 10:30 PM
Which T-shirt wound up auctioned off and remains wildly popular. The local PD wanted me to find out where to get them some, recently. I still need to do that...

Anyway, that was something I forgot to note: You're claiming that shirt and "Vote from the rooftops" provided these loons with the impetus they needed for the anti-.50 campaign, or put enough fear in them to originate such an idea, or both? I'd have to say horsefeathers to either. It was just something they picked up because it saved them some artwork expense and it has had zero effect on anyone not already involved in the issue one way or the other.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 10:38 PM
I see a mouse trembling in a room full of cats. He thinks, as his whiskers twitch uncontrollably, if he's very very quiet they won't notice him. But, of course, they smell the fear, if nothing else... And that's where you're missing the point. I don't care if the anti's notice us. In fact, I hope they notice us good and loud -- but for the right reasons.

If you are being productive, be loud. If you are being counterproductive, shut up. This poster is counterproductive.

cuchulainn
June 21, 2005, 10:48 PM
You're claiming that shirt and "Vote from the rooftops" provided these loons with the impetus they needed for the anti-.50 campaign, or put enough fear in them to originate such an idea, or both? Nope. I'm simply saying they found it useful to use as propaganda against us, and we handed that to them. Whether some PD you know likes it doesn't change the fact that nearly three years later it's still being used against us, and with effect.

"Voting from the Rooftops" is a memorable slogan, whether it's put on T-Shirts by progun folks or on an anti-.50 piece by VPC.

However, I'd seriously doubt that "Voting from the Rooftops" stuff has changed a single mind to our side. It has changed minds away from our side. Of that, I'm sure. It's also created a concrete anti-gun image in the minds of California legislators, and that has helped drive the ban effort out there.

Yeah, maybe VPC would have come up with another just-as-good image on their own. But the point is that we gave this one to them. For what? So a bunch of guys could wear a cool T-Shirt and indulge in fantasies.

it has had zero effect on anyone not already involved in the issue one way or the other.It most certainly has had an effect on legislators in California.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 11:21 PM
And you're missing the point of whose definition of productive/counterproductive is correct. I find yours to be 180 degrees out of sync with reality.

I note you dropped the ragged beggar analogy completely.

Please prove that it has swayed a single person's opinion against us. Not your opinion, proof. OTOH pro-gunners have found a GREAT deal of satisfaction in it, which is easily provable. How do you quantify which is of more value, assuming you could give actual proof of an altered view against us?

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 12:55 AM
Most people on the fence can go eitherway depending on what moves them. What happened at WACO will forever be etched in the minds of those who witnessed it. Wether on TV while it happened or on DVD at a later time. The words "Remember WACO" is enough I would hope to sway people who know little of it to look into it further.

I hate to say this but that horrible incident did more to sway non-conservative voters towards supporting gun rights than anything else. It was fear that moved them. And the documentary is the greatest tool we have right now to remind people what the Second Amendment is really about. It is a recorded incident of premeditated murder by our government. From begining to end. Which left men, women and children nothing more than contorted and charred bodies in smoldering rubble. A mass homicide where the children were used to retaliate against and punish the resistance of the adults.

It is not a comfortable thing to remember or learn, but remember and learn they must. And if someone who looks at this image and somehow comes out in favor of the government powers, they were and are apart of the problem anyway. Nothing is going to change their mind except becoming a victim themselves.

I am not holding my breath until they do. I want to move as many on the fence as I can with whatever skills I have. What more than to remember those dead and have people look at their children and fear a future without a well armed citizenry? And question any further efforts by government to infringe and take away these tools.

Spreadfire Arms
June 22, 2005, 01:15 AM
in the true anti-police attitude that permeates this discussion forum i am hardly surprised this ended up being posted here.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 01:19 AM
OK, feel free to expound on that. Is it Waco you are "defending" by implication, or is it just the pic that bothers you?

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 01:22 AM
In the true anti-police attitude that permeates this discussion forum i am hardly surprised this ended up being posted here.

Oh please!!! This isnt anti-police!!! This is anti-federal taxpayer funded helicopters, machine guns, CS gas and rolling tanks killing us attitude here!!!

This has nothing to do with the average LEO!!! Give it a break!!! :fire:

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 01:26 AM
If you are going to propose to "Remember Waco", you better remember all of the hell that Koresh was distributing to his "followers" as well. Incest, abuse etc.. The government may not have handled that situation perfectly, but there was certainly a problem there that needed to be addressed. Evil was inside that compound. Don't forget that in your rallying cry.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 01:28 AM
If I remember correctly none of it was ever proven. Also, if I remember correctly, the "authorities' went through a series of excuses, from weapons to taxes to drugs to abuse to justify the attack. Regardless, even if any of it were true it's meaningless in the face of what happened.

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 01:30 AM
It most certainly has had an effect on legislators in California.That is speculation unless you care to offer some sort of proof. As a Californian, I would say it wouldn't matter what we said or didn't say or what the enemy said or didn't say about the .50 BMG, they were going to ban it anyway. I would not use my home state as a litmus test for the opinion of the rest of the nation. In fact, I would argue that obviously their "Voting from the Rooftops" campaign didn't work out too well because on the national scene the .50 ban just died.

Maybe the reason you are receiving so much opposition towards your PC "lets not offend anyone" ideas is because PC encourages people to be accepting and look at ideas and rights as relative. As a high school teacher, I would argue that is exactly what our youth don't need. They need someone to tell them right from wrong and tell them about the concept of liberty and a conservative government. Since most of my students are marijuana smokers, they know about government control and they don't like it. So I throw in guns there and talk about the 2nd Amendment actually being about "Voting from the Rooftops" as that is what it is for and suddenly if they see a "Voting from the Rooftops" message somewhere, they understand that it isn't something bad. Maybe it could be phrased better, but they know the 2nd Amendment was and is about citizen power over a tyrannical government. Dancing around the issue and being sensitive to their beliefs isn't going to change their minds.

Again, get to people and get to them early. Don't worry about people's posters that you can't change and only a few people see. And for you VPC lurkers who are looking for something to publish, here you go. "SCREW YOU!" You are losing and we are going to beat you. Freedom and liberty will prevail.

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 01:34 AM
If you are going to propose to "Remember Waco", you better remember all of the hell that Koresh was distributing to his "followers" as well. Incest, abuse etc.. The government may not have handled that situation perfectly, but there was certainly a problem there that needed to be addressed. Evil was inside that compound. Don't forget that in your rallying cry.

T. Bracker........ so that evil was eradicated by killing children? Please, explain to me how you agree with the actions taken. Explain to me how you think that the evil inside the compound was a greater evil than what roamed outside. And that how killing the children was a reasonable solution.

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 01:35 AM
2nd,

Well, I had seen the interviews with some of the former members. I guess there was enough concern to start the process in the first place.

T. Bracker
June 22, 2005, 01:38 AM
I never said that killing any children was justified, but I have also seen the various documentaries after the fact and am not convinced that the goverment "purposefully" killed all those inside. True that they went in but I saw nothing that convinced me that the intent was the death of all those people inside.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 01:40 AM
Look, I am not defending Koresh. I am pretty sure he was a nut. But if the feds had anything legit they would have not "shopped charges" and they would have nabbed him away from their home. In fact, if they were serious about anything other than grandstanding, especially serious concern for the welfare of the Davidians, they wouldn't have even showed up. They'd have simply had the Sherriff haul Koresh in on one of the instances they were in the same place having breakfast.

Waco is just utterly indefensible on so many levels it's absurd. That is why it is still such a hot-button issue to so many.

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 01:44 AM
I never said that killing any children was justified, but I have also seen the various documentaries after the fact and am not convinced that the goverment "purposefully" killed all those inside.

God help us.

Art Eatman
June 22, 2005, 02:40 AM
The people to whom we must make our arguments are not the anti-gun folks. They're 99% hopeless, generally. It's that vast number of "neutral" or "undecided" that can be persuaded to see the Second Amendment as we do.

I have been in this pro-gun/anti-gun thing for almost forty years. I've gone face to face with many, many folks who are or were hostile to the very concept of armed self-defense. I have done the same with some who have infinite faith in the police as to protection.

The great majority of these folks had no real understanding of the Bill of Rights beyond "free speech" and maybe--maybe--some notions about search-and-seizure and a tad about self-incrimination. TV stuff. But, basically, they were good people. Lotsa soccer-mom types, whether male or female. The soccer-mom attitude toward the world at large.

So: I guarantee you that they won't see the point of that Waco poster. They don't relate it to the world they live in. Since it implies things contrary to their own world-views, they are repulsed. And anybody who tries to use it as part of any pro-gun argument will have no credibility.

Avoiding inflammatory statements or posters or argument is not at all "PC". It is not sheepleness. There is a reason that the lessons of Aesop's fables have been around for thousands of years: The lessons are real.

"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Never forget that.

While El Rojo is correct that the realities of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be emphasized in school, the fact is that they are not. That means that you have to start from scratch with an adult to make your case. Unless you have credibility with your audience, you're just another Nowhere Man. Bummer...

Art

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 07:50 AM
Avoiding inflammatory statements or posters or argument is not at all "PC". It is not sheepleness. There is a reason that the lessons of Aesop's fables have been around for thousands of years: The lessons are real.

"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Never forget that.

While El Rojo is correct that the realities of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be emphasized in school, the fact is that they are not. That means that you have to start from scratch with an adult to make your case. Unless you have credibility with your audience, you're just another Nowhere Man. Hear, hear! Well said Art.

Be heard, but be smart. This poster is not smart.

p.s
2nd Amendment,
You utterly missed the point of my analogy about the crazy man on the corner screaming at strangers (which wasn't J.C.'s style BTW), and I didn't see the point in sorting it out. That's the problem with arguing by analogy.

El Rojo,
"Voting from the Rooftop" was entered as part of the record in the California debate. It defies credulity to deny that it had an effect on that. The legislators read it and voted accordingly. You car argue that they were already primed to vote that way. Perhaps. Nonetheless, the propaganda helped to push them -- and we handed some of it to VPC.

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 10:52 AM
Do you have a link or some other evidence? Again, even if it were there, I don't think it would matter much to California. They are going to ban things no matter what anyone else says. Give me a link talking about Voting from the Rooftops and its use for AB50. I would be interested to read that.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 11:05 AM
Do you have a link or some other evidence? Control-F for "voting".

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:HGrHJimVQnMJ:www.fiftycal.org/AB50/AB50ACPubicSafetyAnalysis.pdf+AB+50+%22voting+from+the+rooftops%22&hl=en

and

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:i7vj6Fic3rMJ:www.fiftycal.org/resourcesAB50.php+AB+50+%22voting+from+the+rooftops%22&hl=en

They are going to ban things no matter what anyone else says. Maybe so, but we handed this "evidence" to them on a silver platter -- we handed VPC a memorable title that crystalized their position in people's minds. "Voting from the Rooftops" made it harder for our guys and easier for their guys. What's the problem with having the discipline to at least refrain from doing that?

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 11:30 AM
Points taken, but I still do not think the VPC can use the subject matter (WACO) and the subsequent fear of Govt it created in their favor.

A fully armed federal ATF agent wearing a ski-mask does not exactly portray transparent government or promote the trust of government. In fact I specifically sought this image because I remembered during the DC shootings how a friend of mine was appalled at the sight of an ATF agent directing traffic in a ski-mask. She is a card carrying member of the democratic party and Clinton lover. "What the hell is that about" she said. "That scares me more than some nut job loose with a rifle".

It is an expression. And if it ingnites truthful rememberance and debate of the crime at WACO and the need to prohibit further gun control, that is a good thing IMHO. People who already harbor a fear of weapons or lost already are going to go that way nomatter what you do. Shoot, you have people here who are still not convinced that what happened was criminal.:barf:

The machine is prepared to assault us with much more than .50 BMG's. They have proven that. Its a fact. Why sugarcoat it?

Gung-Ho
June 22, 2005, 11:45 AM
If you are going to propose to "Remember Waco", you better remember all of the hell that Koresh was distributing to his "followers" as well. Incest, abuse etc..

Yeah they did a good job of demonizing Koresh to just about all segments, didn't they? And as I remember, those "followers" were free to go anytime they wanted to. Besides, just when did armed federal agents in helecopters with machine guns, start doing the job of the HRS?

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 11:45 AM
Points taken, but I still do not think the VPC can use the subject matter (WACO) and the subsequent fear of Govt it created in their favor. Here's the problem with your poster. It juxtaposes fear of losing guns with fear of violent government agents. It's clearly a warning about some impending violent confrontation between gun owners and government agents. That doesn't convince people to lay off banning .50s, and it doesn't convince them that Waco was bad (you've got a mixed message, which is death to a poster, BTW).

No, it simply confirms their prejudices. It solidifies their sympathies for the arguments of the anti-gun crowd.

Whether you think a violent confrontation is necessary is beside the point. Whether you think such violence would be noble, brave or good is beside the point.

The point is that now -- when we are clearly in a political situation -- posters like yours do nothing to convince anyone of anything. The Amen-corner will rev up and slap you on the back, but the fence sitters won't come over to our side. At best -- at best -- you'll accomplish nothing, and you'll have wasted your effort, resources and time. At worst, you'll hand some propaganda to the likes of VPC.

Look, I'd be willing to bet that if asked to testify against a gun control bill, you wouldn't show up in cammie pants and a violent T-shirt, shouting about revolution and the blood of patriots. No, you'd wear a tie, and you'd speak calmly and attempt reason.

I'm simply asking you to apply that discipline to other matters in the RKBA fight.

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 01:56 PM
Look, I'd be willing to bet that if asked to testify against a gun control bill, you wouldn't show up in cammie pants and a violent T-shirt, shouting about revolution and the blood of patriots. No, you'd wear a tie, and you'd speak calmly and attempt reason.

I agree, but we are not talking about appearing in an open public forum. We are talking about a small provacative image that will be circulated on the net for the purpose of recalling the massacre at WACO and the further efforts by government to prohibit the very kinds of weapons citizens may need to halt another WACO. If we lose the .50 BMG then, what next? The "sporting purposes" argument is what got us here in the first place and that was an argument that sought to avoid offending and scaring people. The creep mission of grabbing more of our guns will continue nomatter how nice and pleasant we may represent ourselves. THEY DONT CARE!

Some of us believe Cuchalain that blunt messages are necessary sometimes. Especially when the intellectually dishonest argument of "sporting purposes" has dominated the discussion. WACO is something we must use. We must use it because it is the most recent and available media tool we have to show that criminal government is real. Its not an historical reference dating back to the revolution. It has survived and has raised its ugly face in our lifetimes.

The last thing some anti-gun politician or organization will do use this image as a tool to advance more gun control. That is like a used car dealer trying to sell a car (gun control) that has been in a tragic accident and the dead charred bodies are still in it!!! They dont want to remind people of the experience because it will bring debate and expose them further as the enemy. It will expose their agenda which is to ban all of it.

Id rather scream now and excersise my First Amendment rights with conviction and truth than repress these convictions simply to avoid scaring people. And then truly suffering later when they come ten years down the road to take my guns. We need to try to alarm people sometimes. The American people have not been alarmed enough IMO.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 02:02 PM
2nd Amendment,
You utterly missed the point of my analogy about the crazy man on the corner screaming at strangers

I "got it" quite well, as my reply demonstrates. I seldom have a problem with analogies, even very, very bad ones. I'll just accept you didn't grasp mine and leave it at that.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 02:28 PM
NIGHTWATCH: Some of us believe Cuchalain that blunt messages are necessary sometimes. I agree. However, you aren't being blunt; you're being politically stupid.

Was that blunt enough for you? ;)

Here's a challenge. Print out your poster and go out on the street. Pose as some Poindexter doing a psychology survey. With clipboard in hand, spend an hour or so showing the poster to people. Say, "Excuse me sir/ma'am, I'm a psychology student at NYU doing a project for class. Could you give me your gut reaction to this poster." Write down their responses.

That's not a joke. Seriously, do it. Do a little market research on your poster if you're actually going to use it to try to convince the general public of anything. Heck, afterwards, you can even ask your Democrat friend who didn't like cops wearing masks.

It doesn't matter how the poster affects you and your buddies. It doesn't matter how it affects me. What matters is how it affects people in general.

Go find that out for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Go straight to the source.

2nd Amendment: I "got it" quite well, as my reply demonstrates. Actually, your reply was a non sequitur about JC also wearing a robe and his criticism of the Pharisees. You absurdly compared JC to my howling madman because both wore robes and JC showed anger on occasion. Interesting tactic you guys have, replying with non sequiturs. Again, I ask: is that about stealth? ;)

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 02:55 PM
Thank you. I hadn't really expected you to demonstrate the misunderstanding. Here's the piece again:

Whether the minister up the road from the madman gets more "converts" is immaterial, if he's leading them down the path to hell. I'd guess Jesus himself heard something about not giving the enemy anything to work with. I know he was laughed at and dismissed as that guy in tatters you mention. He certainly didn't shrink from saying what he believed, though. The Pharisees and others meanwhile kept on raking in the "faithful" and the dollars...

You understand this as comparing Christ to your corner nut because they both wear a robe? And what Pharisses is your madman criticizing?

What the point ACTUALLY was(and you might have seen it if you were not so totally devoted to your own preconceived notions) is that Christ was entirely in the business of saying very unpopular things, saying them plainly and saying them with authority and letting the chips fall where they may. There is absolutely no question this style offended many, drove off the weak and easily frightened and got him killed in the end. Meanwhile, in the short term, his enemies used his own words against him and made hay over the entire issue. But in the long run the victor is obvious. It had almost nothing to with your poor analogy of the madman and literally nothing to do with robes or anger. You utterly and completely missed the point as thoroughly as I have ever seen anyone miss one before.

Also, I note you also completely ignored the point about your "minister". Again I'll note, on what WAS the actual comment on your analogy, that it doesn't matter how successful he is if he's leading his followers down the wrong path. This country is full of churches(to stick with a religious context) which manage to become some of the largest and yet are leading their followers nowehre, at best, and straight to hell quite probably. Your madman would be far better to follow in that context if he at least had the basics down pat, but that would scare off too many and better to let them all go than save a few of the smarter(and less squeamish) ones?

Yeesh. Talk about nonsequiturs.

NIGHTWATCH
June 22, 2005, 03:00 PM
Here's a challenge. Print out your poster and go out on the street. Pose as some Poindexter doing a psychology survey. With clipboard in hand, spend an hour or so showing the poster to people. Say, "Excuse me sir/ma'am, I'm a psychology student at NYU doing a project for class. Could you give me your gut reaction to this poster." Write down their responses.

You know what C, that is actually not a bad idea. I will print a copy and ask people what they think and post what happens. This will be interesting. :)


PS- Guys, please stay on topic. ;)

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 03:07 PM
2nd, Amendment,

Like I said, you responded with a non sequitur. You ignored the point of my analogy and responded with a vaguely related non sequitur about JC (and a minister leading people astray).

But we're really getting into silliness now. Let's let it go, shall we?

What's really important is whether NIGHTWATCH will show enough responsibility to field test his poster as I urged in REPLY # 55.

Professional marketers, both political and commercial, test their ideas. Even with their years of experience with effectively pushing people's buttons, they still test their ideas because they know that trusting their instincts can be a very risky idea. I assume NIGHTWATCH isn't a pro. But I hope he'll take a tip from them and field test his idea before rolling it out.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 03:08 PM
You know what C, that is actually not a bad idea. I will print a copy and ask people what they think and post what happens. This will be interesting. Good on you. :) But you can't ask your friends. You need to ask strangers for it to be valid.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 03:08 PM
It is on topic, just stylized a bit. :D

Spreadfire Arms
June 22, 2005, 03:11 PM
nightwatch wrote:
This isnt anti-police!!!

you mean the evil ATF agent you had pictured is not a police officer?

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 03:13 PM
Umm, sorry, C, but no. Again you missed the entire issue. I responded to a poor analogy(which I also picked apart separately) with a better analogy. I can only assume you do this deliberately because you don't want to bother with it, since it presents the alternative to your opinion. I'll agree your non-sequitur is getting silly, though,(and I'm forced to wonder if you really even understand what one is) and I'm slightly embarrassed for you at this point.

BTW, Cuchulainn, speaking of responsibility, did you ever supply any proof of the claim you made in post #32 which I asked you to support in #33 and Rojo called into question in #40?

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 03:15 PM
Well, no, not really, Spread, unless you accept that FedGov has legitimate authority to create such a "police force". But anyway, you're another one who was asked something and didn't pony up. What exactly is it that set you off? Just that pic, or the issue of Waco itself?

Derby FALs
June 22, 2005, 03:21 PM
Professional marketers, both political and commercial, test their ideas. Even with their years of experience with effectively pushing people's buttons, they still test their ideas because they know that trusting their instincts can be a very risky idea. I assume NIGHTWATCH isn't a pro. But I hope he'll take a tip from them and field test his idea before rolling it out.

In other words, you could be just as wrong as you believe NIGHTWATCH to be? :D

Spreadfire Arms
June 22, 2005, 03:28 PM
sorry 2nd Amendment didn't know you were talking to me. it is unclear who's talking to who in this thread.

i am not set off by Waco actually. i have my opinions about it but they are not deep-rooted. i didn't grow up in Central Texas so i don't feel the same way about it as alot of other people did and still do here.

i just think it's very standard that the ATF agent (a federal police officer) is being demonized here since this board is generally anti law enforcement. if you wanted to demonize the government perhaps a photo of the White House or a symbol of government would have been more appropriate, or how about a photo of a U.S. military soldier? we don't seem to be anti military here.....

just my thoughts, im not really opinionated in this matter.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 03:33 PM
2nd Amendment: Umm, sorry, C, but no. Again you missed the entire issue. I can only assume you do it deliberately because you don't want to bother with it, since it presents the alternative to your opinion. Actually, I didn't feel like bothering with it because we were about to confuse the issue with dueling analogies. I got your analogy -- but it was nonetheless a nonsequitur. This is silly and petty. Let it go. BTW, Cuchulainn, speaking of responsibility, did you ever supply any proof of the claim you made in post #32 which I asked you to support in #33 and Rojo called into question in #40? Oh please. No, I don't have documentation that proves that Assemblyman XYZ and Assemblywoman ABC changed their minds because of "Voting on the Rooftops."

How silly of me to suggest that when VPC gave politicians a document that seemed to show there are people who want "vote" polticians out of office by shooting politicians with the specific gun they were considering that it might have an effect on those polticians -- an effect that hurt the ability of those fighting the ban effort.

Yeah, golly geewhiz, people in general don't have bad reactions when presented with documents that show people seem to want to murder them.

C'mon. You're committing the logical fallacy of denying a strong inductive argument. It's called being purposefully obtuse.

"Voting from the Rooftops" is literally a political death threat. That's going to effect politicians. You cannot reasonably deny that.

Asking me to prove that politicians were effected by people who make political death threats is purposefully obtuse.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 03:36 PM
Umm, no, some of us simply do not accept your unsupported opinion as fact and asked you to supply some objective support thereof.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 03:36 PM
In other words, you could be just as wrong as you believe NIGHTWATCH to be? Well, the difference is that I don't have an idea that I'm taking to the public. But we'll see who's right. ;)

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 03:43 PM
Umm, no, some of us simply do not accept your unsupported opinion as fact and asked you to supply some objective support thereof. Yeah, it's absurd of me to suggest that politicians were negatively effected by a document that seemed to show they are the targets of people advocating their murder.

Yes, we must have documented proof that people are negatively effected by a document that seems to show people want to murder them.

We also need proof that women are negatively effected when they find out that someone is targeting them for rape.

As well, we need proof that parents are negatively effected when finding out that a pedophile has been hanging around the playground.

Me? I'd demand proof that a shopkeeper would be effected upon finding out that gangbangers are targeting stores in his neighborhood for breakins.

Yep. We need proof -- undeniable, documented, and in triplicate -- that people are negatively effected when they find out they are the targets of crime.

Spare me.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 04:08 PM
No, it is absurd of you to insist your claim is the default position and then dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. You simply offered your opinion. We do not agree. This does not give you a moral or intelectual high ground or lessen our opinions as opposed to yours, nor does it relieve you of the burden of proof, or at least support. Your apparent presumption of ..."superiorotiy" for lack of a better word... is making you come across as arrogant. Now stop that. :p

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 04:16 PM
Your apparent presumption of ..."superiorotiy" for lack of a better word... is making you come across as arrogant. Now stop that.Yeah, it's so very arrogant and superiour of me -- downright imperious, in fact -- to reject the need to "prove" that people would be negatively affected by thinly veiled death threats.

While I'm looking for that proof, I'll also look for proof that women are negatively affected when they learn someone has targeted them for rape. I might want to make that shakey assertion in a future conversation.

I'll be right back with that proof. Start holding your breath in 1 ... 2 ... 3. I'll be right back. Honest.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 04:30 PM
Maybe it's just me but I don't really think you've helped your credibility at all in this. :scrutiny:

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 04:36 PM
Maybe it's just me but I don't really think you've helped your credibility at all in this I agree: Maybe it's just you.

My Imperial edict is that I shall not need to "prove" people are negatively affected by death threats.

Was that to arrogant of us? Yes? Shucks, the next thing you know, we'll start using the royal we. Oh my, it's happened. We're using the royal we.

Does our tiara make us look fat?

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 04:42 PM
Does our tiara make us look fat?

Yes, lose the spandex and you'll be ok...

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 04:47 PM
I thought I told you to hold your breath.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 07:03 PM
*GASP!*

Sorry, that was the best I could do. HEY! 2hrs, 15 minutes. People will think I'm blonde if I keep this up...

:uhoh:

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 10:57 PM
Hey, I have some more points to make, so quit the bickering and take a break before this gets locked before I can finish my post and you all piss me off. Serious. I am going to start my reply. Any moderators in the process of shutting this down wait about 5 minutes please. Thanks.Control-F for "voting".

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...oftops%22&hl=en

and

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...oftops%22&hl=enThanks for the link. I however don't see that as evidence that the anti-gunners made AB50 happen simply because deep in the legislation is a reference to a VPC study that is called, "Voting from the Rooftops". The VPC could have named it "War Machines of Death" and listed that in there if they wanted to. I don't really think it makes a difference and your references to their references of it really doesn't prove anything.

Second, without a real investigation into the origin of "Voting from the Rooftops", we are assuming it was originally a pro-gun saying picked up by the anti-gunners. How do we know that the anti-gunners didn't coin it and some pro-gunners didn't start using it to mock them? What was to prevent the anti-gunners from going and buying a rifle, making a shirt that says "Voting from the Rooftops", and taking pictures and using it as the basis of their report? Being critical of "Voting from the Rooftops" misses the real point. The real point is there are enough liberals in the State of California to elect liberal politicians and then they had enough votes to pass AB50 and not enough people stood up to Arnold to stop him from signing it. That is where we failed. I am not about to blame this defeat on some guy shooting his rifle with a "Voting from the Rooftops" shirt on somewhere not in California. This was squarely our fight to lose and we lost it. With or with out "Voting from the Rooftops" we lost this on our own merits.

With that being said, I spent about 3 hours this afternoon going to local businesses to promote our Taft Friends of the NRA event coming up on August 5th. We raise money so we can get grants for our local jr. pheasant hunt and get some more kids out there shooting. We raise money for range development. I take that opportunity to talk to people about guns and get our message out. By the looks of it many of you spent hours on this gun board bickering about the effectiveness of a poster that probably only 100 people have ever seen and only about 100 people will ever see.

So I ask you, what damages us more?

Everyone take note. This fight isn't happening on firearms discussion boards. It isn't happening at the VPC website. It is happening in your schools and in your neighborhoods. What are you doing to talk to people? Your right, taking the poster in questions to new converts might not be a good idea. Showing it to shotgunners who could care less about AWs or handguns might work. Use your best judgement. Sometimes you will be effective, sometimes you might rub someone the wrong way. I just know I am not going to cower and worry about what the other side tries to do to stop me. Let them try. They can't. I might be outnumbered in the PRK, but the rest of the country is still free and I am going to keep fighting to free us someday too. Good luck.

cuchulainn
June 22, 2005, 11:31 PM
Thanks for the link. I however don't see that as evidence that the anti-gunners made AB50 happen simply because deep in the legislation is a reference to a VPC study that is called, "Voting from the Rooftops". Of course, I never claimed that the law passed simply because the study was in the record. I said it helped and that the title came from us.

And yes, "Voting from the Rooftops" originated on our side.

And you seem to confuse bickering with bantering.

El Rojo
June 22, 2005, 11:53 PM
I said it helpedHell we all helped if you want to make those kinds of comparisons. Don't we all manage to do business with an anti here or there? I could care less if it helped, was it a big enough factor that it made the deal? No. So why worry about it? We have bigger issues to deal with in my opinion to make me take pause with what I do on my own time. I am who I am and I don't need to live in fear of what the other side might think of me. Heck I have better things to do than worry about getting some bone head shooter somewhere not to do something stupid. People are stupid, they do stupid things. I will encourage my friends not to be stupid and that is about all I can do. I guess that is really what cuchulainn is saying too. However, if someone does something stupid and the anti gunners try and use it, it is because we are failing in other places for people to buy into it. We need to work harder on fence sitters so they don't buy into this garbage, not try and censor all of the people on our side. That is my new hypothesis and I am sticking to it.

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 12:04 AM
Yup, no bickering here, just having some fun. :D

That being said, I want to throw something else out and see how far it crawls...

C, what is the reason for the 2A? It's not about hunting or sport, correct? It's a Right, and it deals with the potential need to keep our own government in check. That's the primary reason for its inclusion in the BoR. That is a fact we make some issue about, dealing with the eventuality of a corrupt government, and we talk about this in no small detail.

You think that isn't an open death threat against politicians? I mean really, how else could you characterize it? The short version being, If you get too corrupt or over-reaching we're going to rise up and remove you, and that obviously means killing a few(or more than a few). And this is the core of the 2A. Otherwise all we have is sport and hunting and that carries no more legitimacy than any other hobby, exactly as the anti's claim.

What is "Vote from the rooftops" if not merely a visual statement of the same point? Would you have us not discuss the fact of the existence of this Right for fear we'll scare some political sheep? You'd really have to to be consistent here and I don't think you'd restrict the discussion to that degree, would you?

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 12:12 AM
We need to work harder on fence sitters so they don't buy into this garbage, not try and censor all of the people on our side. I'm not attempting to censor them (as if I had that power). I'm attempting to convince them apply discipline and discretion to their speech.

If what we say doesn't matter, why don't we all go out and say, "The 2nd Amendment exists so I can shoot people I don't like, like my neighbor who doesn't cut his friggin grass or that bee-atch who wouldn't go on a date with me." Golly, it wouldn't be our fault if statements like that pushed away fence sitters. Nope, it would be the fault of some other gunners who didn't somehow prepare them.

As Art told you earlier, we shouldn't have to worry about these things. People should be better educated. But they aren't. In politics, you can't deal with people the way you think they ought to be. You deal with them the way they are.

In any event, you seem to be relying on a false division. It isn't a matter of either behaving in a disciplined manner or working to educate people. We need to do both.

And FWIW, VPC has been the primary driving force behind the .50 bans and "VftR" has been its primary propaganda.

El Rojo
June 23, 2005, 12:20 AM
And FWIW, VPC has been the primary driving force behind the .50 bans and "VftR" has been its primary propaganda.And they just lost nationally when the .50 ban died in Congress. So how effective is it?

When I taught the 2nd Amendment to my students last semester, I told them what the 2nd Amendment was really about. It is about overthrowing the government. I also said that no one really wants to get to that point and as long as we can vote and have a free press, we aren't there. I told them the idea isn't popular and no one really wants to do it, but it isn't about sport or about hunting, it is about power and who has it. They seemed to get it fairly well. If we can't stand on the 2nd Amendment as a right to overthrow the government with force, then it no longer deserves to exist. There is a way to sugar coat it to some degree, but it is what it is.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 12:25 AM
You think that isn't an open death threat against politicians? I mean really, how else could you characterize it? The short version being, If you get too corrupt or over-reaching we're going to rise up and remove you, and that obviously means killing a few(or more than a few). People in general neither know nor understand the history of the 2nd. If you want to educate people in the that history, do so. But you'd better do so in a more disciplined manner than "vote from the rooftops!" Start doing that, and they won't listen to you -- and you'll lose your chance to educate them.

Is "VftR" an extension of the rebellion-factor in the 2nd? Perhaps. OTOH, taking that logic to its end, so would be a letter saying, "Dear Politician X, if you don't vote the way I want tomorrow, I'm going to shoot you."

But lets assume for the sake of argument that "VftR" is an extension of the rebellion-factor of the 2nd. Even if true, saying it doesn't help win us political support.

And declaring that you'll say what you like without worrying about who it scares may sound noble, but as a practicle matter, that translates to "I'll say what I like without worrying about whose votes it drives away from my cause." Is that smart?

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 12:30 AM
And they just lost nationally when the .50 ban died in Congress. So how effective is it? Small consolation to the people of California.

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 12:32 AM
I believe people have a somewhat more thorough understanding of the 2A than you give them credit for. It's existence as a "doomsday provision" is regularly cited by anti's and then dismissed as antiquated. That's a fairly consistent tactic on their part. It's been my experience that that is often all people DO understand about the issue, whether they agree with it or not.

I don't see how sending an explicit death threat to a politician over a piece of legislation or concept is a logical extention, either. Now if several million send such a letter, yes, but your "logical progression" would seem to demand the 2A is not only such a doomsday provision but that any single one of us can activate it at any time. I don't think anyone believes that, for both moral and practical reasons.

El Rojo
June 23, 2005, 12:40 AM
Small consolation to the people of California.Are you from California? Do you even understand the PRK's politics? The VPC has nothing to do with California's politics. They could stop and not do a darn thing here and the politicians would have still passed a .50 BMG ban. California should never be used as a litmus test for the success of the 2nd Amendment battle in the rest of the nation. I most certainly wouldn't give the VPC any credit for the .50 ban. This state didn't need the VPC to help them get that through. No the effectiveness of VftR should be gauged where there are still voters who actually can make a difference, nationally. Nationally it is a loser.

The people of California get what they deserve. I live here so I am qualified to make that statement. They choose to live this life, let them continue to live in a screwed up state. The problem is, we have no choice even if we fought as hard as we could. We are outnumbered in this state. Plain and simple. I have lived through even disappointments in this state to know when all is lost. Right now, all is lost. As sad as it sounds, the only hope we have right now is Arnold and his redistricting initiative coming up. Arnold and redistricting or a terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles is the only hope this state has.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 12:56 AM
2nd Amendment: but your "logical progression" would seem to demand the 2A is not only such a doomsday provision but that any single one of us can activate it at any time. I don't think anyone believes that, for both moral and practical reasons. Ding! Ding! Ding! However, that's exactly what VPC is making people think we believe by using our slogan "VftR" against us. For most people, "VftR" doesn't conjur up the image of a freedom fighter who is part of a legitimate and organized rebellion. Nope, it conjurs up a loony loner bent on assassination. Lee Harvey Oswald voted from the rooftop (well, the window). VPC knows this is the image that "VftR" conveys -- and we handed it to them.VPC has nothing to do with California's politics. They could stop and not do a darn thing here and the politicians would have still passed a .50 BMG ban. VPC is active in Sacramento. VPC was the organization that brought the idea of banning .50s to the Cali. legislature. While, I agree that the the Cali legislature was ripe for this move, I don't think that it would have made it on its own.

VPC created the fear of .50s. Before VPC, I doubt if many Cali. pols were aware of the rise in their popularity among civilians. It wasn't an issue to them.

And we handed VPC a very effective image to crystalize the issue.

Derby FALs
June 23, 2005, 09:24 AM
Is "VftR" an extension of the rebellion-factor in the 2nd? Perhaps. OTOH, taking that logic to its end, so would be a letter saying, "Dear Politician X, if you don't vote the way I want tomorrow, I'm going to shoot you."



How do you come to this conclusion? You don't appear to have a basic understanding of the BoR.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 09:44 AM
How do you come to this conclusion? You don't appear to have a basic understanding of the BoR. I didn't say I agreed with the logic. I was simply taking it to its end.

VftR is a political death threat -- veiled and implicit, but a death threat nonetheless. If a veiled death threat like VftR is an extension of the 2nd (as others, not me, claim), then why not other death threats against politicians?

I don't agree that political death threats -- veiled or not-- are either appropriate or logical in terms of the 2nd.

I don't see the difference between:

A) Posters and T-Shirts with VftR -- meaning "Do what we want, politicians, or we'll blow your brains out."

and

B) Sending letters to politicans warning, "Do want we want, or we'll blow your brains out."

Although the 2nd Amendment clearly has a rebellion element built into it -- that's not a license to use death threats as a political tool.

Derby FALs
June 23, 2005, 09:55 AM
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees,...However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." ___Judge Alex Kozinski

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 09:59 AM
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed Note the words exceptionally rare. I doubt that the good Judge would approve of the use of death threats --- veiled or not --- as a political tool.

And preparation has nothing to do with making death threats, veiled or not.

NIGHTWATCH
June 23, 2005, 10:48 AM
I will be going to a public park here in the city later this week to ask people what they think about the poster without my help. If their gut reaction is that they get it, the necessity of a very well armed citizenry following the WACO massacre. If they get confused and are not sure what to think. Or, that they see it as an invitation to confront government by force and therefore dangerous and extreme. Im actually curious for the feedback. :)

As far as the true purpose of the Second Amendment which has been explained to death a million times on this forum :barf: .......

Let me put it this way.....if standing armies have weapons, what are those weapons for? To kill of course. To enforce the commands of some political entity and concept of law (I say concept, cant forget the despots) to the point of death. To enforce the will of a leadership and/or political body of power.

Now, If it was the intention of our founding fathers to entrust us with these very same weapons for the sake of preserving our freedom. Not hunting and plinking but preserving freedom. Well, uh...what ya think?

"Let every man be armed".........IMO if an American citizen takes out a despotic type politician who has violated their rights and the constitution (the highest law of this land) where portions of that standing army or government force have enforced that criminal will to the point of bloodshed.......yes, its about killing....and being willing to die. And as one framer stated, "unfortunatley, the only thing government understands, FORCE".

IT IS ABOUT HAVING THE MEANS TO VIOLENTLY PRESERVE FREEDOM WHEN ALL HOPE IS LOST. :eek:

I know that is a scary place to be and nobody knows this better than gunowners. Shooting our mouth off on some street corner is important but it is the guns they fear.In the meantime we are doing everything in our power to avoid this.

Bottom line, they didnt give us these guns people to not be enabled to kill if necessary.

Anyway, guys, I hope this thread is still open by the time I get some feedback from the public. Please take a break. :cool:

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 11:21 AM
I know that is a scary place to be and nobody knows this better than gunowners. Shooting our mouth off on some street corner is important but it is the guns they fear.In the meantime we are doing everything in our power to avoid this. It is in our power to behave with discipline, discretion and self-awareness. The fact that The People someday may need to rebel is not a license today to make political death threats, no matter how veiled and implicit.

It doesn't matter whether or not you intend for your statements to be taken as death threats. What matters is how people take them. Can you control such misunderstanding all the time? No. Do you have a responsibility to try to control such misunderstanding? Yes.

But your willingness to test your poster shows you accept that responsibility.

Derby FALs
June 23, 2005, 02:09 PM
"When all else fails"...

What are you going to do? I think we need another run of shirts. The PTBs need to know that we are watching.

CAPTAIN MIKE
June 23, 2005, 10:51 PM
Don't those Terrorist know that the .50 calibre is "NOT ALLOWED" in the People's Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan????

If you enjoyed reading about "Terrorists Can Use the .50 Cal Against Us..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!