The pinko liberal, the fudd, the joo, etc.


PDA






Oleg Volk
March 2, 2007, 11:38 PM
How about a moment for reflection? Is our goal to fluff our own feathers and make all "outsiders" feel bad about being them...or would making them all welcome be a better plan? If you rag on the "fudds", would people who would have stayed for a chat prefer to leave instead, confirmed in their initial disdain for the EBR fetishists? Antis "divide and rule"? Bah! We are doing it to ourselves without much of their help.

If you enjoyed reading about "The pinko liberal, the fudd, the joo, etc." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JCF
March 2, 2007, 11:42 PM
+1

Exactly right. We absolutely need to abort this type of exclusionary and alienating behavior. It is a severe detriment to our cause.

bogie
March 2, 2007, 11:46 PM
It's not like the culture isn't already fragmented... We could be the strongest political force in the WORLD if we'd just get it together.

Juna
March 2, 2007, 11:55 PM
Well said, Oleg. I have to admit, I initially found it hard to not get all fired up by some of the blatantly ignorant and inflammatory stuff I've read posted by antis on the internet & seen on the news. But now I realize that the only way to either open their minds/convert them or to be the better group taking the higher road is to be more open to calm discussion with them without getting all offensive immediately. This will help us illustrate our points of view for them and maybe, just maybe open a few minds.

3rdpig
March 3, 2007, 02:24 AM
My problem with the true Fudds goes way back, all the way back to 1994. And by a Fudd I mean someone that, like the Russian stories of riding in a sled being pursued by wolves, picks out the weakest member and tosses them out in a bid to save their own skin. Or in this case their own favorite weapon types.

I haven't hunted for 25 years and I'm guessing I'll probably never do it again except out of utter necessity. But I support hunters rights. On the other hand the Fudds don't support my rights. But even worse, they're willing to "toss me off the sled" to protect themselves. Don't doubt it, that's what was on Zumbo's mind and mind of many other people who only own guns to hunt. They did it in 94, I remember them all too well, and they'll do it again if given the opportunity. Even Bill Ruger put his boot on our backsides and gave us a push. They're just too shortsighted to realize that the anti gunners won't be satisfied with AR's and AK's, as soon as those are gone their hunting rifles, or should I say "long range sniper rifles" will be next.

This is what Zumbo planned. He picked what he thought was the weakest group, the most evil looking, the ones most wanted by the wolves and least able to defend themselves, and started the process of tossing us off. But unlike 1994, we're not the weakest group anymore, we may be the strongest. Instead of tossing us off, he, shocked to the core of his being, found it was himself laying in the snow waiting for death. In this case, fiscal death.

But that being said. I'm done with Zumbo. His latest apology (which by the way clearly shows what his original intentions were) is enough. I say Welcome Back Jim! But after apology must come atonement. Help me and those like me support ALL of our gun rights and I'll forgive and won't write any more emails.

But understand just because I've forgiven doesn't mean I've forgotten. I'm watching you and the other Fudds. I won't be tossed off the sled again so easily.

cslinger
March 3, 2007, 02:36 AM
It's not like the culture isn't already fragmented... We could be the strongest political force in the WORLD if we'd just get it together.

I have been saying the same thing on other forums. We need to unite not divide. We need to bring current gun owners of all types into the fold as well as new people. We are stronger then we know. We just need to come together.

Travis Lee
March 3, 2007, 04:04 AM
3rdpig, I completely concur!

We were sold out by the "sport-shooters", like Petzal, in 1994, and Zumbo's blog article was him addressing his fellow "respectable" shooters to get set to do it to us again.

Zumbo felt that "his people" should cast us out of the "respectable shooting fraternity"..... he wanted to divorce "our kind", and "his kind".... well, he got it.
He tried to flip us out of the sled, but we grew up since 1994, and Zumbo just got...old.

I have about as much regret over what happened to Zumbo, as I would, if I had called police on a drunken old man who was driving on a rampage through my neighborhood, chasing children and running over dogs..... and the old man got busted, fined, and lost his car and license.

Zumbo's apologies have been less than convincing to me.... and Zumbo's employers, and sponsors decided that our goodwill is more important to them than that of the "hunters".

I thought that Nugent was being charitable in supporting Zumbo.... but it seems he heaps scorn upon anyone who isn't lining up behind HIM and drinking Nugent flavored Kool-Aid.

I didn't fancy being called a terrorist, and I don't care for being called "lunatic fringe cannibal" or "hippie turd chewing bubba drunkass" by Nugent.

Nugent had best quit poking us with a stick, we can poke back.

--Travis--

Nasty Jack
March 3, 2007, 04:15 AM
Mao Tse Tung -- pretty far to the left, notes:

"Politcal power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -- Selected Works, 1965, Vol. II, p. 224.

Being myself a bit to the left of Mao, I have a "gun room" and a collection that would likely embarrass most here, to include a small cannon.

Don't lets be harping about "pinko liberal." GOP lost that last election. :neener:

Nightcrawler
March 3, 2007, 04:38 AM
Oleg is right. Why are we still talking about this? Just let it go, I say. We flexed our muscle, and the next so-called gun writer that expresses similar sentiments will get similar results.

In the mean time, I honestly wish we could get as much mobilization and effort into fighting HR 1022. Zumbo calls us names, he's fired in four days. HR 1022 tries to ban everything Zumbo looked down on and then some, and the first thing is "can I keep my AR-15?".

Come ON, guys. Priorities, right? I say funnel all of the effort that went into gnashing of teeth at Zumbo into hammering our legislators with letters, calls, petitions, and e-mails. Ten thousand Zumbos can't do as much damage to us a couple hundred Congressman.

Brian Dale
March 3, 2007, 05:25 AM
It's simple.

Do you want to win, or do you want to lose?

Decide now.

Guntalk
March 3, 2007, 05:51 AM
>>It's simple.

Do you want to win, or do you want to lose?

Decide now.<<

Interesting. Almost 10 years ago I was writing that in Guns & Ammo magazine. I think what I said was that there has always been a small group gun owners who are more concerned with fighting than with winning.

Blunt force certainly has a place in politics, but so do sophistication, slight-of-hand, misdirection, moves which might even seem counterproductive.

An example of the last item: Voting in favor of a the worst version of a really bad gun control bill, in committee, in order to make it so bad that it could not possibly pass on the floor. The elected official then is bombarded with cries of "You SOB! You voted for that gun control bill." When, in reality, he was making sure it came out of committee in a form that could not be passed.

And that's one of more simple examples.

redneck2
March 3, 2007, 09:15 AM
An example of the last item: Voting in favor of a the worst version of a really bad gun control bill, in committee, in order to make it so bad that it could not possibly pass on the floor. The elected official then is bombarded with cries of "You SOB! You voted for that gun control bill." When, in reality, he was making sure it came out of committee in a form that could not be passed.

And that's one of more simple examples.

I guess sometimes it's difficult to determine one's true motives. If a legislator has been A+ for 20 years, then suddenly seems to jump ship, one should ponder a reply long enough to figure out the true motives.

My biggest peeve are the chimps here that post "every congresscritter is an idiot" type remarks. I worked on the campaign for our local congressman after shooting with him at a sporting clays event. Since he was an "evil" Republican", he went down in flames. We now have liberal Dem that's probably going to support the AWB. Congrats to the members here that wanted to get even with GWB. That's what you voted for, and that's what you got.

Travis McGee
March 3, 2007, 09:22 AM
Seems to me that Fudd One, speaking for Fudds generally, called us terrorists, and called for a ban on our weapons.

The reaction should not be a surprise.

NukemJim
March 3, 2007, 09:22 AM
The internet gun community has shown it has teeth ( Ask Zumbo ).
Lets show them that we also have heart and mind in being willing to forgive Zumbo ( he has apologized and is trying to correct his mistake) and mind in knowing when to stop attacking and start helping.

NukemJim

qajaq59
March 3, 2007, 09:39 AM
A rifle is a rifle, period. The bullets don't care what color the rifle is. And a semi auto is no more dangerous then a single shot in the right hands. All the antis do is try and split us up so each of us becomes an easy target.
If there is a type of rifle you don't like then don't buy it, but make sure you protect the guys that do, because your rifle is going to be next on the ban list after theirs is gone.
There is no such thing as giving up a "Little" freedom.

SteveS
March 3, 2007, 09:57 AM
Seems to me that Fudd One, speaking for Fudds generally, called us terrorists, and called for a ban on our weapons.

The reaction should not be a surprise.


I thought he was speaking for himself? The fact that he "resigned" from OL, which I doubt has many non-hunting readers, certainly shows that he speaks for a very small group.

Oleg, I agree with you. I have seen plenty of justified anger and some non-high road behavior.

Leatherneck
March 3, 2007, 10:16 AM
Back on Oleg's original topic, it's been my observation that calling a person with whom you don't agree, or whom you don't like, etc, seldom makes you appear smart.

TC

Shadan7
March 3, 2007, 11:08 AM
Back on Oleg's original topic, it's been my observation that calling a person with whom you don't agree, or whom you don't like, etc, seldom makes you appear smart.


What Leatherneck said. And it isn't terribly "High Road", either.

Note my post number - low, right? Note my sign-on date (which was at least a year after I had been hanging out here as a visitor). Now, I'm not generally the type to keep my mouth shut when I have something to contribute. But I gotta admit, as someone who is an independent but decidedly left-of-center on many things (and right on some others), the hostility to liberals (even 40-year gun-owning ones like myself) turns me off in a big way. And it needlessly alienates a whole lot of gun owners - people who are your natural allies, and maybe even more effective at controling the 'gun-grabbers' in an environment where Dems are likely to do well in coming years.

I've long believed that a united front on the part of gun owners should be non-partisan. There's no better way to protect our gun rights than to take it out of the political interests of one party or the other to support it. Restoring the RKBA as a broad-based *American* ideal is the way to go.

7

feedthehogs
March 3, 2007, 11:21 AM
Lets all sit around the camp fire and sing cumbaya and then have a group hug while they take our guns away from us.

The name calling should stop, but the intent behind it should not wean.

Pilgrim
March 3, 2007, 11:35 AM
It seems to me the intent of this whole Zumbo affair is to make sure whoever replaces him at Outdoor Life will either be friendly towards EBR owners, or at least have the sense to keep his mouth shut if he isn't. I think that has been accomplished.

I don't see anything useful will come from pursuing Zumbo all over the place reminding everyone of his 'sin'. If he wants to redeem himself by joining our 'side', then let him. His actions will speak for themselves.

Pilgrim

Tommygunn
March 3, 2007, 12:03 PM
... as someone who is an independent but decidedly left-of-center on many things (and right on some others), the hostility to liberals (even 40-year gun-owning ones like myself) turns me off in a big way. And it needlessly alienates a whole lot of gun owners - people who are your natural allies, and maybe even more effective at controling the 'gun-grabbers' in an environment where Dems are likely to do well in coming years.

I can understand your sentiments, Shadan7, we should keep together. The problem I have with your statement (not you) is that, while it doesn't surprise me that there are liberals who own guns and support gun rights, every time I look up and there's some new antigun law being proposed, the majority of the time it's a liberal pushing the law. It's liberal McCarthy from NY who's behind H.R. 1022. Bill Clinton pushed the 94 ban through. FDR and his ilk were behind the NFA of 1934.
I'm not saying republicans/conservatives/..."neo":barf: conservatives are terrific on this; look at Giuliani, McCain, and some other reputedly "right-wingers".
While this is a gun forum, the fact is there are other political issues, such as health care, education, taxes, etc. In most of these issues I consider the left wing of this country (the Pelosis, Ted Kennedys, Feinsteins, et al), my mortal enemies (politically speaking). While I welcome the fact that any liberal would support the second amendment, I do see it as ... "making for strange bedfellows,"... as the old saying goes. It strikes me as a jarring dichotomy that a liberal supports gun ownership when so many seem bound and determined to diminish and erode our rights and liberties (again, not saying they're are no repukes who will do the same).
It just causes me a wee bit of schizophrenia ... is all;) :o :D

Brian Dale
March 3, 2007, 12:06 PM
I'm not being sarcastic here: it will make for strange bedfellows, and I recommend that we all get used to it.

That's what we want. :cool:

Sharps-shooter
March 3, 2007, 12:48 PM
Liberal, schmiberal, that's what I say. It doesn't matter to the 2a question where someone else stands on any other issue. It only matters whether they are pro-gun or anti-gun rights. As far as the gun question goes, It makes no difference where someone stands on abortion, homosexuality, white supremacy, social security, or freedom of religion.

Maybe I'm a hippie. Maybe I have hair so long I can sit on it, a big bushy beard, wear tie-dyed home-made clothes, and practice the religion of the ancient druids. None of this is relevant to 2A. What is relevant is that I own guns. I give thousands every year to the gun industry, and I teach young people how to hunt. My family owned guns when they were prohibited to us (before they came to this country), and have plans to continue owning them if they are ever outlawed here.

Decades ago, say in the thirties and early forties, white supremacy was considered part of the Democratic "package deal"-- those values which are not necessarily part of the party's platform, but are associated with it-- especially in the south. Now, that has changed. I would like to see a political change by which gun control is no longer a part of the "package deal" for Democratic party values. I think that attitudes have changed a lot in the past decade at the grassroots level, so that a great number of the liberal and even hippie type people that I am aware of have taken a liking to guns, including semiautos (this is in a historically gun-friendly area).

If people like that could get on the horn to their political representatives, and let them know that they aren't interested in gun control anymore, that could make a big difference in how politicians act. Of course, these things often change at a ground level long before they change at a political representation level.

Mortech
March 3, 2007, 01:02 PM
I know what you mean Guntalk , I believe the term is called 'poisoning the well' in politics . Most people here don't know that the conservatives in congress did that to alot of the bills that were offered during Clintons tenure . I find political machinations interesting and challeging as watching a chess match between masters . Unfortunately too many of the gun fraternity are very quick to fly off the handle and instead of watching , analyzing the situation and applying the proper 'leverage' to resolve the issue .

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 01:27 PM
"the joo"? :rolleyes:

- The Economist (who is wearing his yarmulke)

old4x4
March 3, 2007, 01:34 PM
"the joo"?
Someone better explain that one real fast...:confused:

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 01:42 PM
I don't get it either. With organizations like the JPFO, it would seem "joos" are plenty on the side of gun-owners.

Not all, true - and I don't totally understand that myself - but not all of any group are on one side of any issue.

SuperNaut
March 3, 2007, 01:45 PM
I read it as yet another arbitrary division between 2a supporters, isn't Oleg (the OP, Mod & owner of THR) Jewish?

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 02:03 PM
haven't a clue here.

I just didn't realize that it was really another division. Seems like divisions amongst gun-owners really just comes down to intended uses and willingness to defend the 2A in its purest form.

purest probably should be "purest" if you know what I mean. I don't think we'll ever have any SC decision say the 2A means we can store nuclear weapons in our basement.

Biker
March 3, 2007, 02:08 PM
Why the extreme sensitivity? Oleg, I'm sure, was caricaturizing popular bigotries as they apply to modern culture.
Get some thicker skin, folks, and put things into context instead of actively seeking out and embracing every opportunity to be insulted.

Biker:scrutiny:

AndyC
March 3, 2007, 02:24 PM
Same way I read it, yup - break out the Scotsman references and I'll likely be the first to grin ;)

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 02:25 PM
not really sensitivity (and not insulted either) - just wondering what it's all about.

noops
March 3, 2007, 03:10 PM
I have been saying the same thing on other forums. We need to unite not divide.

I think we also need to be less sweeping in hatreds and more focused in uniting. I think there are plenty of places where uniting works. People like Rep. McCarthy give an aweful lot of rural Democrats a taint when they do what they do, but just calling them all dimocrats drives them further from the issue. I live in Oregon where there a lot of prog-gun Dems. The Democratic Party of Oregon even passed a resolution to support the Second Amendment aggressively, and we now have an official Gun Owners Caucus in the party. One of our leading Democrats (Burdick) apparently hasn't gotten the memo, but the rest have. I personally have converted a number of Dems here in Oregon.

So the low hanging fruit is in swing states or states where you typical Democrat doesn't believe all the same things as a Massachusetts Democrat. I know it well because I grew up and spend most of my life in Mass, and now live in Oregon. Work hard to bring into the fold Democrats from states like Oregon, Indiana, Colorado, West Virginia and the andti-gun people start getting awefully marginalized (certainly true on both sides with people like bloomberg and guiliani as well).

N

Mannlicher
March 3, 2007, 03:18 PM
redneck2 I guess sometimes it's difficult to determine one's true motives. If a legislator has been A+ for 20 years, then suddenly seems to jump ship, one should ponder a reply long enough to figure out the true motives

and it would help, when a constituent writes an inquiry, that the congress kritter would actually write back. I hardly bother communicationg anymore with those guys. If you write, you get back a form letter, rubber stamped by some functionary. I doubt that elected officials ever see the mail that is sent to them.
Most of the elected folks up in DC, and in the State legislatures, are very far removed from their constituents.

Brian Dale
March 3, 2007, 03:28 PM
TheEconomist,not really sensitivity (and not insulted either) - just wondering what it's all about.As I read it, it's an example. Oleg's Jewish. His original post included the sentence,Is our goal to fluff our own feathers and make all "outsiders" feel bad about being them...or would making them all welcome be a better plan?Make sense?

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 03:46 PM
Happy Bob - yeah I suppose.

I just didn't realize religion had anything to do with guns.

I guess what he must have been saying was to end whatever differences we have at all, whether they be gun related or not, and focus on the issue at hand - such as making sure there is no new AWB, etc.

If so, I'm a little surprised. I've been coming to the conclusion lately that anti-semitism is declining rapidly.

I didn't realize it was still considered a major hurdle.

I grew up being told that gun-owners were largely anti-semitic, but as long as I've been a gun-owner, I've found no more of it than I would find otherwise. Either things have changed, or the anti-semitic-gun-owner stereotype is overblown.

Which it is, I haven't a clue.

Sure, I see plenty of Nazi relics/flags/etc. at gun-shows, but I attribute it to more of an interest with history than with people actually relating to Nazi ideals.

SoCalShooter
March 3, 2007, 03:58 PM
I try to be nice and have pleasent and informative discussions but the other side just wants to play on emotions nd not rationaly think. I agree however that the community is hurting itself.

Brian Dale
March 3, 2007, 04:02 PM
TheEconomist, part of the frame of reference for this thread is the cat-fight over the recent Zumbo affair. One response by THR members is this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=257129). Please see especially Fly320s at Post #46, with Sage of Seattle's example photos at Post #105.

Religion, ethnicity, national origin, wealth, occupation, sex, sexual orientation, height and weight: all irrelevant.

The issue is fundamental human rights, and RKBA in particular.

And anti-semitism is somebody's own personal screwed-upness.

Shadan7
March 3, 2007, 04:03 PM
...to concur that there is a large segment of the Democratic leadership and even the urban rank & file who are antis. Given the massive battles I have with some of these folks on Daily Kos (yup - I'm one of them) trying to talk some sense into them, I'd be a fool to deny it. Just this week we had one thread over there which generated 1500+ comments - in 24 hours. And the majority were pro-RKBA, or accepting that the sensible thing is to recognize the 2nd A along with all the others as a *personal* right.

I'm not saying 'trust' the Dems. Heck, I don't trust any pol. There are those idiots like McCarthy who are catering to her urban constituents (and who is acting out of grief over her husband and son being shot - an understandable, if misguided reaction. I say that because my own dad was a cop killed on the job, yet I went the other direction and blame the man who did it, not the gun he used.) HR 1022 will probably not even make it out of committee, and is the same legislation she has sought to introduce for the last 12 years. It doesn't have a single sponsor. Yeah, I'd be happier of the Dem leadership would quash such nonsense, because it hurts Dem chances.

Anyway, my point is that demonizing all those with a liberal inclination is foolish in this forum, yet I see it constantly. It almost drove me away - and I'm strongly on your side. Save it for talk radio. I'll be happy to fight those fights elsewhere. But let's join together on this issue, and take the RKBA off the table as a partisan issue.

7

davhina
March 3, 2007, 06:55 PM
I was in the midst of writing this, when the original post was closed.
I think this applies for general gun discussions.

We better unite or we are doomed. I really don't care, why any one of you reading this, wants a gun. I used to hunt. I no longer do. I don't care why you want to hunt, or choose not to. Go hunt. Good luck to you. I have friends that hunt and share in the spoils of their efforts. Yummy! You should be able to own the guns you want to own, for whatever reason you choose to own them.

My guns, are for one thing only, self defense and SHTF situations, should one ever arise. Will i ever hunt again? Maybe. But i would have to buy more guns, than i have now. :evil:

Hunter? Self defense? Sport shooter? Competition shooter? Who cares?
We all own guns, and want to continue to own guns. Everyone should get off the "i'm better than you, because "this is what i do with my gun, and i am right and you are wrong" thing, before we all lose what we all cherish.
If we keep this up, only the "elite" will have guns.
Done with my rant:)

TexasRifleman
March 3, 2007, 06:58 PM
I've been coming to the conclusion lately that anti-semitism is declining rapidly.

Off topic and I'm not Jewish but I don't see that it's in any decline in the places I work and travel.

GEM
March 3, 2007, 07:16 PM
Anti-semitism is rising strongly in Europe. It could happen here in a flash.

I note that on the cover of this month's American Rifleman is a nice Jewish girl - the Prez - as pointed out clearly in the article.

Also, I despair when liberal is used as insult or a necessary predictor of being antigun. It is as useful as saying gun owners are fascists. There may be some correlation that folks with social liberal beliefs are more likely to be anti and social conservatives are more likely to be pro but the correlation isn't perfect. The gun list ranting use of liberal is very counterproductive.

On a gun mailing list of quality, I expressed an opinion negative to GWB's support of the AWB and was called a political provocateur by a ranter. Me - so RKBA - it hurts. A picture of me shooting a Desert Eagle in my office in a college, an Oleg poster (about Jews and guns) and a slogan from John Lott - More Guns, Less Crime. But I'm quite socially liberal.

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 07:19 PM
Off topic and I'm not Jewish but I don't see that it's in any decline in the places I work and travel.

Really? Maybe I'm just not noticing it then.

Whatever. :confused:

The original point though that Oleg made is valid.

We need to unite regardless of what we do with guns (well, so long as it's not unethical and blatantly illegal of course) - and defend the 2A as best we can. Skin color, religion, ethnicity, native language, whatever, I don't care - if we want to protect our collective right, we need to make the best of our population and put aside petty differences, or we WILL lose our right to bear arms.

Hunters, casual plinkers, enthusiasts/collectors, CCW'ers, survivalists, etc. - we all need to unite.

Yes - I'm talking to you guy who owns one gun in his home to protect his family, as much as I'm talking to you, lady with a pistol in her purse, and even you - person with no interest in guns personally, but who has an WWII relic passed down by their father or grandfather.

Everybody - you want to keep them - work together to ensure that.

good post Oleg - even though you had me confused for a minute there.

QuestionEverything
March 3, 2007, 08:26 PM
Gun ownership has some high barriers to entry, and this is something gun owners need to work on. There are the technical barriers, which are being overcome through Appleseed shoots and other outreach efforts, and then there are the cultural barriers.

When a liberal who's thinking about buying a gun walks into the shop and sees a "Liberal Hunting Permit" and other insulting bumper stickers, how do you think they will feel? How about a Muslim who wants to start shooting, looks for gun discussions online, and sees the THR posters with "kaffir" labels in their signatures? The gun shows in my area have banned racist literature, but there are still some where you can find tables with copies of the Turner Diaries proudly displayed.

Remember that Digg thread on gun control the other day? There were tons of great pro-gun arguments, and one guy who said "I'm a law-abiding gun owner, we have to go after the criminals, and you have to admit that blacks are more likely than whites to commit crimes." That one guy probably did more damage to the RKBA cause than the dozens of other people in that thread helped.

The Democratic "package deal" has only included gun control for about a decade and a half, so it's a lot less entrenched than Democratic segregationism. But whenever you attack liberals and Democrats, you will harden their hearts toward the RKBA. Remember, only half of gun owners are Republican. Hang together or hang separately.

Wesson Smith
March 3, 2007, 08:38 PM
Being myself a bit to the left of Mao, I have a "gun room" and a collection that would likely embarrass most here, to include a small cannon. Well, good for you. I'm assuming that was tongue-in-cheek. At least I hope so...

old4x4
March 3, 2007, 09:01 PM
What the he11 is a JOO? It obviously stands for something...Does anyone know?

Oleg Volk
March 3, 2007, 09:05 PM
Joo = Jew as written by some people. I used all of those labels in jest, just to emphasize how poorly they work for actual communication.

Biker
March 3, 2007, 09:08 PM
Don't ya think that it's time to quit playing the ultra-sensitive victim? It's getting old.

Biker

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 09:08 PM
QuestionEverything - absolutely right.

The "Liberal Hunting Season", and all related anti-liberal stickers, signs, t-shirts, etc. at gun shows really do need to go.

I will admit that I have made anti-liberal comments, but the reality is that THEY are not our enemy, it is the IDEA itself that "guns are bad" that is our enemy.

Imagine it this way, your friend Joe is roomates with a guy named John, who is a friend of his, but you've never gotten along with John. In fact, John one day punched you to show how "tough" he was to a lady-friend. Joe is still your friend, and just doesn't have a personal problem with John, so he sees no reason to kick John out of the flat.

That's what's going on with liberals. They're not the enemy, instead they're simply housing an enemy because to date the enemy has not burned them personally and they have no personal problems with the enemy. It doesn't make them the enemy though. We just need to show them why the IDEA is wrong, so they'll kick that IDEA out of their house.

Whatever. It's a stupid analogy I know, but at least it gets the point across.

We need to nix the anti-liberal comments, mentality, etc. and just take issue with their ideas - not them. Calling them names, or mocking them is no better than them calling republicans rednecks.

The best things we can do is to just reform their mentality on the issue. Many of them are under the mistaken impression that your average CCW'er is a guy named Jim-Bob who drives a pickup and has a pitbull in the passenger seat (no offense meant to anybody on this forum who fits that description). The fact simply is that you can't characterize your average CCW'er. If I told the folks at temple that I carry - they'd be surprised beyond belief. Unfortunately, I can't do that for obvious reasons. You get the point though. We need to show them that law-abiding gun-owners are just average people like them.... people who may happen to own some Glocks with hi-cap mags and an AR-15 or two, three, or fifteen. We are not their enemy, and they are not ours.

What we own doesn't define us. Whether or not we stand up for what we believe in - does. Don't be a Republican, just be a gun-owner.

thirty-thirty
March 3, 2007, 09:09 PM
When nearly all the major anti-gun politicians, Schumer, Feinstein, Waxman, Cellar, Lautenberg, Boxer and Metzenbaum are "joos", you can't really expect people not to draw distinctions or go along with pretending the issue has been addressed when it has only been discussed under the suppressive influence of taboos and rules that prevent discussion of such matters. If THR is not the place to discuss these matters, then THR is also not the place where conclusions about these matters can be arrived at.
Those pretending to address these issues when counter arguments are disallowed are being intellectually dishonest, IMO.

That is the dillemma for public forums. The more rules they have concerning which viewpoints are disallowed, the less "public" that forum becomes. That decision is up to the forum's owner.

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 09:09 PM
gotcha Oleg - just wasn't sure what it had to do with the topic. Had me confused.

Biker - who's playing ultra-sensitive victim? :confused: I think a few of us were just confused about its application in the topic. That's all. It's cleared up now though.

Oleg Volk
March 3, 2007, 09:15 PM
It is impossible for us to defeat the enemy directly. You and I are not going to start a civil war, win it and be able to agree on anything with whatever coalition of convenience develops to effect that. Therefore, we should try to win the PR and the culture war. One losing strategy in a culture war is offending potential allies or neutrals by offending them with overly broad labels. You do understand our self-interest in this, right?

QuestionEverything
March 3, 2007, 09:35 PM
The basic issue being discussed here is tribalism. Humans have a natural tendency to gravitate towards "tribes" and distrust outsiders, and tribalism often overlaps with politics.

Some political issues are not tribal in nature. The effort to restore the Fourth Amendment is supported by a wide spectrum of people, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to survivalists. The Second Amendment, though, has become associated with a particular culture and particular ideology. It doesn't matter how much of a rational basis there is for the RKBA, if someone decides before the fact that "I can't own or support guns because I'm not a tobacco-chewing Bubba," the battle has already been lost.

Libertarians will see parallels between this and the drug issue. Some people think "I'm no long-haired dope-smoking hippie, there's no way I could support drug legalization!," despite the violations of liberty brought about by the drug war. In both cases, logic and reason don't enter into the thought process. It's all about acting in a way that's consistent with your tribal identity. To prevent this, you have to separate the issue from the "tribe."

.cheese.
March 3, 2007, 09:36 PM
I wouldn't just say that it's a matter of offending them.

It's also a matter of us automatically labeling them "enemies" when they really are not.

They could potentially be allies, if we do our part to win the PR war like you say Oleg.

If we label them enemies, and they label us enemies, then we both lose. We need to keep in mind that we're all Americans, and this is a true-American issue.

QuestionEverything - you don't need to be a drug-user to see potential benefits in legalizing drugs. That's a whole other thread though. I've pondered the issue from an economic standpoint though, that's for sure. However, that all aside - exactly. We need to separate the issue/idea from the tribe as you say.

Brian Dale
March 3, 2007, 09:44 PM
It's also a matter of us automatically labeling them "enemies" when they really are not.Yes, I'd be foolish to deprive myself of an ally by writing someone off in my own mind, or by convincing them that they don't want to be associated with me, before I find out what they actually think.

DakotaDude
March 3, 2007, 10:33 PM
I'll take this opportunity to identify myself as a "liberal." (Really, I'm an Independent, but I side with Democrats on a lot of issues.) I'm new to shooting, and new to THR and other gun forums. The hostility shown toward people like me often makes me want to stop reading.

It's fine with me if you want to blast people who are pushing anti-gun legislation, but it bothers me to see it framed as a Democrat-vs.-Republican issue. Sure, there are more visible Democratic gun-grabbers than visible Republican gun-grabbers, but that doesn't mean that Democrats are evil and Republicans are good. When you categorize things that way, you punish pro-gun Democrats, and reward anti-gun Republicans.

It bugs me when threads go off-topic into non-gun-related areas like immigration reform, welfare, education, religion, Middle East politics, etc. Since I don't agree with many members of this forum on those subjects, it makes me feel isolated and unwelcome. The rampant racism and acceptance of it also bugs me.

I don't expect it to bother you that I "feel bad," but consider that you are driving people away who could be your allies. For every person like me who toughs it out, there are probably others who just decide that gun owners are a bunch of right-wing extremists who need to be watched closely.

Partisanship and non-gun politics don't need to play roles in this forum. Why can't we just talk about guns?

Whiny liberal complaint finished.

ReadyontheRight
March 3, 2007, 11:02 PM
Good call Oleg.

Hopefully the latest issue with Jim Zumbo will help more folks realize that RKBA is not about hunting.

Bruce H
March 4, 2007, 12:39 AM
I said it before and I'll say it again. I hope Zumbo winds up in a dark alley with a tin can begging for pennies, with it thirty below, and ten feet of snow. If Nugent wants to embrace him, at the same time slandering firearm owners, he can join him. Being nice doesn't win against people trying to legislate agains firearm owners. Pure fear of their very exhistance does.

ArfinGreebly
March 4, 2007, 03:19 AM
Why can't we just talk about guns?

Sure.

As long as the guns we talk about are the ones we still own.

As long as the ones we still own are whatever we damn well please.

Until that's been secured, there will also be some discussion of those barriers to ownership.

chas_martel
March 4, 2007, 09:45 AM
Oleg, I am not sure I totally agree with you on
not labeling people. What is wrong with the concept
of if the show fits wear it. What is wrong with educating
people about how their "group" is wrong? This always being
as much concerned with "feelings" as facts is a losing
proposition, IMO. Just look at the Republican party,
worrying about "feelings" is what has done them in.

I'm a Jew and I am hear to tell ya, virtually every Jew
I know or have meet is WRONG on the topic of self
defense. It steams from their belief that Yahweh does
not work thru us, that he is always an external force.

OH and I am the dirtiest of Jews, I believe the
Messiah did indeed already visit us. I'm a Jew nonetheless.

beaucoup ammo
March 4, 2007, 10:49 AM
Giuliani's gun control tendencies while in New York State and Local Politics might very well be the same he'd force on the nation if elected president,IMO.

As pointed out in this thread many times, the desire for 2A protection transcends the political spectrum and we should all pull together on this. Infighting makes no sense if a cause is to be successful.

Regardless of affiliation, I'll get behind the candidate with the most vocal Pro Second stance.

BryanP
March 4, 2007, 10:56 AM
It's not like the culture isn't already fragmented... We could be the strongest political force in the WORLD if we'd just get it together.

Unlikely. Just because we are gun owners who (mostly) agree about the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we agree about other things

But to Oleg's original point, the name calling gets a little old. I find myself drifting away from this site more and more, and that's part of the reason.

Sharps-shooter
March 4, 2007, 11:41 AM
We could be the strongest political force in the WORLD if we'd just get it together.

***
Unlikely. Just because we are gun owners who (mostly) agree about the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we agree about other things

In this corner.. all the gun owners in the world!
and in this corner...everybody without guns! :ding ding:

I'm betting on the people with guns. But I think the point is that not agreeing on other issues keeps us apart on second ammendment issues, when it needn't.

Owen
March 4, 2007, 01:37 PM
chas, the problem isn't the grouping, its the naming of the groupw with an insulting term.

If we are trying to get these people to our side, then the worst thing we could do is call them an insulting name to get their attention.

believe it or not, pinko commie and Fudd are insultiing to the people they are aimed at.

Green Lantern
March 4, 2007, 01:57 PM
A note about liberals - I was grouping NC Sen. Boseman into that group for trying to make the CCW law here MORE repressive...

Then I read that she also wants to restrict gun use in VIDEO GAMES as well.

That's censorship. And I think I have the "liberal" view on that myself - IF YOU'RE OFFENDED BY IT, DON'T WATCH/READ/PLAY IT!

So I don't think she's a liberal - she's just nuts! Fair enough? :neener:

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

I don't think I'll EVER understand why some people hold a deep anti-Jew sentiment....:confused:

But from what I understand....some people that hold that sentiment are also pro-2A. Which brings up all kinds of "uncomfortable" topcs for being a united RKBA front...!:eek:

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

So I guess what to take away from this is to take the "High Road" when discussing liberals that support gun control and hunters that only care about THEIR hunting guns?

(YES, there are people that would claim to be Republicans, even/or "conservatives" that are gun-grabbers (Bloomberg anyone) - just sticking to the topic at hand)

Fair enough. Just so long as we don't mistake "civility" for "TRUST." An enemy of the 2A is an enemy of the 2A, whether an outside enemy (the former) or an inside enemy (the latter).

Converting an enemy is better than defeating an enemy, but you HAVE to do one or the other. In Zumbo's case, it looks like we might even be able to do both!

kb2iaw
March 4, 2007, 02:46 PM
I think ,the high road is high class , and should be kept that way...i always belived you can catch more flies with honey than ...than viniger.

Speer
March 4, 2007, 02:49 PM
When nearly all the major anti-gun politicians, Schumer, Feinstein, Waxman, Cellar, Lautenberg, Boxer and Metzenbaum are "joos", you can't really expect people not to draw distinctions...

A fair point.

It's tragic that sides have to be taken on such a fundamental right.

JCF
March 4, 2007, 09:14 PM
It bugs me when threads go off-topic into non-gun-related areas like immigration reform, welfare, education, religion, Middle East politics, etc. Since I don't agree with many members of this forum on those subjects, it makes me feel isolated and unwelcome. The rampant racism and acceptance of it also bugs me.

You are not the only one, believe me.

Personally, I believe that this type of rampant ignorance, and it's repeated and unabashed display, is one of the most dangerous forces threatening gun rights in America. It is easy to convince the public that the gun lobby is extremist when when there are enough of these folks spouting their poisonous garbage.


I don't expect it to bother you that I "feel bad," but consider that you are driving people away who could be your allies. For every person like me who toughs it out, there are probably others who just decide that gun owners are a bunch of right-wing extremists who need to be watched closely.

I highly doubt they feel bad. I highly doubt they care at all. Many of these people WANT conflict. It makes them feel good to jeer at the middle ground and watch them run... as if that somehow makes them more resolute.

The truth is, I doubt many of these people have the ability to defend or debate their position intelligently... there has been far too much time invested in developing a database of rhetoric and one-liners; too much time talking about what they are going to do when "the government" comes.

Guntalk
March 4, 2007, 10:54 PM
Whenever I speak to a group, I make the point that we have to stop talking about liberals and conservatives. We alienate those who are good Second Amendment supporters who also consider themselves to be Liberal.

I always have people come up to me later to say thanks -- that they are Liberal, but don't feel comfortable around all the nasty Liberal-bashing talk.

If the goal is to WIN, we can't affort to alienate supporters.

Unfortunately, some of the loudest folks on our side don't realize the goal is to win. They think the goal is to FORCE the other side to admit that we are right.

Ain't gonna happen, and in the process, they drive people who are in the middle to the other side.

swingset
March 4, 2007, 11:38 PM
So what we're supposed to do, if I've got this right, is to stop using descriptive terms when talking about a group of people (either in our community or out of it). Because, we might insult people who are too dim to understand that our generalities are describing a specific person, and not everyone in the group, yes??

So, instead of saying "Fudd", we should say "A hunter who is ignorant of the RKBA and pursues selfishly his sport with no regard for anyone else".

Sounds like a mouthful.

Instead of "liberal", we should say "Someone who is left-leaning politically, but may or may not own and support guns and their ownership".

Whew.

I think I'll stick to the easy terms. Dunno if my wrists will be able to tackle all of the typing it's going to take to accurately describe people when a single, easy-to-recognize word will suffice.

It's almost like we're asking to become [scary music] Politically Correct [/scary music]

I guess that will work, since the anti-gunners will play by our noble rules too, right??

Patriot-Brewer
March 5, 2007, 12:38 AM
Yeah, labels may offend some people, but it works both ways. Some of you complain about the liberal "hatred" in the gun community, but we're just expressing our distrust towards our primary opposition.
Then you post on here telling us we're racists because of the immigration issue, among others. Oh boy, do I have some more choice words for your hypocritical, double-speak, politically correct nonsense you spout as reason.
The ILLEGAL ALIEN problem and the resultant complaining about it is NOT a race issue. It's a law issue, it's an economic issue, it's a quality of life issue, it's a safety issue, etc etc. That is not to say all illegals are bad people, but they are here illegally, period.

Stop calling me a racist.:cuss: :banghead: Any while you liberals here are at it, stop with the "extremist, survivalist, exteme right wing, religious wacko, insensitive, uncaring, starve the children big mean angry bully man" labels too.

"gun nut" is OK!:D

Green Lantern
March 5, 2007, 07:15 AM
Stop calling me a racist. Any while you liberals here are at it, stop with the "extremist, survivalist, exteme right wing, religious wacko, insensitive, uncaring, starve the children big mean angry bully man" labels too.

Glad SOMEONE said it!

Though I can see now why this forum is meant **JUST** for 2A issues - keeps us more focused (and united) that way. :cool:

JCF
March 5, 2007, 09:55 AM
Stop calling me a racist. Any while you liberals here are at it, stop with the "extremist, survivalist, exteme right wing, religious wacko, insensitive, uncaring, starve the children big mean angry bully man" labels too.

Why would an anti-gunner do any such thing? Why would they stop? It serves their purpose exceptionally well. That is the whole point.

While they may personally irritate you to no end, there is absolutely no need to integrate issues such as welfare, ethnicity, immigration, religion, etc... into the discussion of 2A rights. It CAN happen completely independently of these issues, and it CAN happen completely independently of the use of derisive labels such as fudd, sheeple, Rambo, etc...

When you display behavior that can be interpreted by your opponent as racist or extremist, regardless of whether or not it really is, rest assured that it WILL be. That is BAD for you and me.

Gun owners are already faced with a severe image problem... we don't need one more ounce of negative attention. Yes, this negative perception is based mostly in ignorance, but it doesn't matter. It motivates policy nonetheless.

It is incumbent upon us as responsible gun owners to examine our presentation very carefully so as to ensure that we present what we really mean, and so as to avoid (as much as possible) misrepresentation of our intent. Take the following quote for example:

In this corner.. all the gun owners in the world!
and in this corner...everybody without guns! :ding ding:

I'm betting on the people with guns.

What is the implication here?

"Gun owners are so politically resolute that they will overcome all challenges to their cause?"

Or...

"We'll get it our way or we'll shoot you."

Folks, sometimes there is a bit more to free speech than simply exercising the right to say whatever the h**l you want, whenever the h**l you want to say it.

Think about it... think about what other people take away from what you say.

beaucoup ammo
March 5, 2007, 10:04 AM
Oleg makes an extremely important point. If an Anti calls me by a malicious or insulting name, they've lost me at the get go. I figure this person's reasoning is composed of slurs and nothing more to support his / her argument.

Conversely, if I refer to them as "pinko liberal", "fudd", etc. my chances of engaging them in meaningful conversation, let alone converting them, plunge to nil, IMHO.

Every time we refer to an "Anti" in one of these derogatory terms in a public venue, like here on the net, we do our cause a disservice. In the privacy of my own home..well, I'll say what I please! That may very well be seen as hypocritical..but it's honest and, I think, in the best interest of those seriously involved in advancing the Pro 2A agenda.

I'm being trite, but "The High Road" says it all.

GEM
March 5, 2007, 10:37 AM
To me the only distinction for the RKBA is pro or antigun.

It is the right wing section of the RKBA that demands that being progun also must demand ideological purity towards right wing social causes.

That's why the use of 'liberal' as a generic curse is flat out stupid. You are not going to preserve gun rights by insisting it is the domain of white, christian, socially conservative males. If you think so, you are stupid.

It's that simple. So lose gun rights by insisting on your little club of the 'right' ideology. :fire:

JCF
March 5, 2007, 12:08 PM
So what we're supposed to do, if I've got this right, is to stop using descriptive terms when talking about a group of people (either in our community or out of it). Because, we might insult people who are too dim to understand that our generalities are describing a specific person, and not everyone in the group, yes??

No. Simply stop using derisive terms to refer to entire groups of people who don't agree with you.


So, instead of saying "Fudd", we should say "A hunter who is ignorant of the RKBA and pursues selfishly his sport with no regard for anyone else".

And what is the term that the anti-gun establishment uses for a gun-owner whose firearm is intended to protect his life, but doesn't care that his gun "endangers the life of his child and every other child who enter his home?" Why exactly is it necessary to have a term to describe this person? Does that term actually have any value or purpose? Fudd (and other similar words) is a worthless term that exists for no other purpose than to deride those who oppose our views. Its use has more value in degrading OUR image than anything else.



Sounds like a mouthful.

Instead of "liberal", we should say "Someone who is left-leaning politically, but may or may not own and support guns and their ownership".

Whew.

I think I'll stick to the easy terms. Dunno if my wrists will be able to tackle all of the typing it's going to take to accurately describe people when a single, easy-to-recognize word will suffice.

How about "anti-gun". My wrists made it through that.


It's almost like we're asking to become [scary music] Politically Correct [/scary music]

This has absolutely jack all to do with political correctness. It has to do with image management.

Winning a political battle (which is very much what this is) requires popular support for one's cause. It requires a succesful public relations campaign that is effective in convincing the society-at-large of their need to support your position. It is pretty hard to do that from a position of unpopularity.

This is not anything new-age, politically-correct, contemporary, liberal, hippie, Oprah-esque, etc... The Greeks and Romans understood the need to elicit the support of their people.

I guess that will work, since the anti-gunners will play by our noble rules too, right??

As a matter of fact they do for the most part. They do it quite well for the most part. Particularly when compared to us.

In the event you haven't noticed, the anti-gun establishment is widely perceived as the position of "reason" in our society. They are the people appealing to the community for "safety" and "tolerance" and "peace". They are the people "protecting children" and "the environment". They DO NOT need to fix THEIR image. The anti-gun establishment is filled with victims and kids and concerned moms.

They look great compared to us. It is hard for the uneducated and uninformed to take a position in support of a trash-talking gun owner protesting "from my cold dead hands" over a mom and her toddler appealing for "a safe neighborhood to ride my tricycle in." Suddenly the AWB doesn't seem like such a bad idea to these people.

Image is important. Words are important. Self-honoring sometines needs to take a back seat.

old4x4
March 5, 2007, 12:45 PM
old4x4...

Don't ya think that it's time to quit playing the ultra-sensitive victim? It's getting old.

Biker

Never heard (or saw) the term before, that's all. When someone uses a term that I've never heard, I like to know what it means. I'm not ignorant, just informed. Thanks, Oleg for the answer. Biker, you shouldn't be so sensitive..bad for the blood pressure.

Biker
March 5, 2007, 12:54 PM
Valuable advice. I can see why you're giving it away - *you* don't use it.

Biker;)

old4x4
March 5, 2007, 02:30 PM
Just curious, that's all....Now how's about the word Fudd!!! Just kidding..

If you enjoyed reading about "The pinko liberal, the fudd, the joo, etc." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!