Name calling and gun folks


PDA






cold dead hands
April 29, 2007, 04:07 PM
In another thread I called what I consider to be weak, government dependent and illogical type folks...well...sheep.

What do we call them so that we do not offend them considering that they are offended by our willingness to use self defense and the tool required to so?

Shall we call them something nice like... oh...i know...unenlightened?

Help me out here. This is very gun related because we need to call people who are against us or fear us and those who blindly follow the anti-gun parade something.

If you enjoyed reading about "Name calling and gun folks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nomad, 2nd
April 29, 2007, 04:20 PM
Sheeple. It's what they are.

If they are offended what do we care? They don't have any guns!:D
(Joke)

Cesiumsponge
April 29, 2007, 04:20 PM
Well, the term ignorant comes to mind. Ignorant seems to have a negative stigma attached to it with ties of racism or similar. Ignorant just means:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

It basically means not knowing something because you haven't learned it yet.; it doesn't mean someone is stupid, just unknowledgable in a particular subject (ignorant to the fact).

Derek Zeanah
April 29, 2007, 04:22 PM
The problems as I see them are twofold: We need to try to understand the motives of various gun-banners. This is the only way we'll learn to form our message so that it fits into their worldview in an acceptable way. Failure to do this will result in loss of 2nd Amendment rights over the long term, as the number of active shooters in our population continues to dwindle as urbanization continues. (Ask yourself what percentage of the US Population lives within 10 minutes of an area where they can hunt, and you'll see where I'm coming from.)
Lots of people believe what they're taught in school; as far as guns are concerned, what's taught seems to mirror what DARE teaches about drugs. Eventually you'll find folks who mostly fit the mold they were poured into, who are beginning to question the validity of what they've been taught. We can welcome them and help them learn, or we can alienate them at every turn because we insist on insulting them for their beliefs. I believe we need to make allies with these folks, personally."The Unenlightened" is certainly better than "bliss ninnies," "sheep,' "sheeple," "Eloi," and the like. I'd also do away with pejoratives aimed at liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Libertarians, atheists, Muslims, homosexuals, pacifists, and the rest.. But it's not completely up to me, so...

GhostlyKarliion
April 29, 2007, 04:27 PM
Heh, good luck finding something that doesn't offend them...

they live offended by virtue of what they are.


That being said, I can come off a bit "rough around the edges"... "blatant"... "offensive"... ok ok, I don't give a rats equus asinus what they think and will say what I decide is necessary at the time.


However, I have used "unenlightened" before and it works really well, places them below everyone else and defeats them in their own mind. once they are broken down it is easy to reeducate them correctly, for example.

U. "You shouldn't own guns, they are dangerous and only criminals have them"
M. "hrmph... typical of the unenlightened ones"
U. "(PO'ed) what is THAT supposed to mean?"
M. "What you just said is based on feeling, not thought, you don't understand guns, much less have any right to have an opinion about them."
U. "(Defensive) no, I just think guns are dangerous and you don't need them for anything."
M. "Look, I'm not saying you are STUPID (emphasized), just ignorant. You havenít thought it through and you don't know what you are talking about, I'd bet you havenít even ever held a gun."
U. "No, I havenít"
M. "Well, then you should at least go shooting with me... who knows, you might learn something."
U. "Well, I don't think so, it's too dangerous"
...
Week goes by
...
U. "Hey, I took your advice, I went shooting with my brother"
M. "Oh, and?"
U. "I really liked it, maybe I was a little overboard"
M. "I've been wrong before too, I'm just glad you went out and tried it"
U. "Yea, hey I was looking at the .22 rifles, would you help me find one"

Then I got a date... ooh, yea.


What? hugh? Oh, right.... sorry, back on topic.

Anyway, yea, if you find something, I'll be watching this thread ;)

DakotaDude
April 29, 2007, 04:28 PM
If you truly don't want to be insulting, then I would simply refer to them as "unarmed" if they are people who choose not to own/carry weapons, and "anti-gun" if they are trying to get guns out of the hands of everyone else. I don't think they would find these terms to be loaded with negative connotations.

FWIW, I despise the gun owners who use terms like "sheep," "sheeple," "hoplophobes," "liberal," "communist," etc. I think it demonstrates thoughtlessness, ignorance, and hostility.

alucard0822
April 29, 2007, 04:35 PM
I prefer the term "subject", apparently that is all the rage in england. Those of us that are vigilant in our defense of the rights and freedom that our forefathers sought to found the greatest nation under, I would consider "citizens".

Aguila Blanca
April 29, 2007, 04:38 PM
FWIW, I despise the gun owners who use terms like "sheep," "sheeple," "hoplophobes," "liberal," "communist," etc. I think it demonstrates thoughtlessness, ignorance, and hostility.
And I was going to suggest using "hoplophobe" as a better alternative. Just goes to show that everything is a matter of perception. Did Jeff Cooper coin the term "hoplophobe" or did he just popularize it?

As to understanding the motives of the antis, I believe first you have to divide them into two major groups ... of which one is a lot larger than the other. The large group is the group comprised on the "sheeple," the innocents who don't really understand the issue but who have been programmed (perhaps "brainwashed" is a more accurate but less politically acceptable term) to believe that all firearms (all weapons, in fact) are bad, and that in order to have peace and security in the world we MUST surrender responsibility for our personal safety to "the authorities." These people are not (all) stupid, but they are all ignorant. They blindly accept the blatherings of the gun control movers and shakers as gospel.

The smaller but infinitely more dangerous group is comprised of those either in political power or in a position to influence politicians and who are actively seeking to disarm the populace. These people are not innocent, and they are not ignorant. They are not being mislead, they are doing the misleading. I honestly don't pretend to understand what their ultimate objective is, but I'm always inclined at times like this to wonder if "new world order" might be more than the ravings of a handfull of tinfoil hat-wearing Luddites.

I have on my shopping list a roll of large-size, heavy-weight aluminum foil. I hope it's enough.

bthest86
April 29, 2007, 04:43 PM
Heh, good luck finding something that doesn't offend them...


No kidding. Good luck with that. I've had antis get offended because I called them "anti-gun."

cold dead hands
April 29, 2007, 04:43 PM
dakota dude...unarmed is a great adjective, but i find the term to be inadequate.

Defenseless does not work either.

We need a better terminology.

As far as some "name calling" goes, I have always said that people need to call "it" what "it" is and quit beating around the word bush. Like I told my kids, a horse and a car are transportation devices but a horse is not a car... get it?

Gunpacker
April 29, 2007, 05:34 PM
How about "Lemmings"? Follow the leader off the cliff.

I have to admit that I think the inventor of "sheeple" nailed it. And as for not insulting them? I don't think they ever think about not insulting us. They are either stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or all of the above.

DakotaDude
April 29, 2007, 05:53 PM
As far as some "name calling" goes, I have always said that people need to call "it" what "it" is and quit beating around the word bush. Like I told my kids, a horse and a car are transportation devices but a horse is not a car... get it?


I agree completely. That's why a think a person who doesn't have a gun should be called "a person who doesn't have a gun," and people who don't want anyone to have a gun should be called "people who don't want anyone to have a gun."

Inventing new labels loaded with negative connotations isn't telling it like it is.

Werewolf
April 29, 2007, 06:06 PM
THR is double posting AGAIN!

Deleted...

Werewolf
April 29, 2007, 06:08 PM
It doesn't really matter what you call 'em.

If the faeces ever hits the fan for real and one of the Eloi, (gentlest term I can imagine and your typical anti might very well imagine that term a badge of honor - assuming they even understood the reference) is in the physical or temporal vicinity their title will be moot because Darwin will have won once again and they'll be dead.

And so might some of us but at least we'll have gone down fighting and not muttering something like "this is impossible, this can't be", as they're being murdered by what ever evil they had the misfortune to be confronted with.

Mr White
April 29, 2007, 06:24 PM
How about "ballistically challenged"? Does that offend anybody?

The way I see it, the antis (can we still say antis?) have no qualms calling us gun nuts, gun crazies, Elmer Fudds, Bambi killers, ticking time bombs, terrorists, cretins, rednecks, mouth breathers, knuckledraggers, ... The list goes on.

I'm not gonna start being politically correct so as to not offend those who are doing their best to outlaw my favorite passtime. If someone wants to suggest not using such names, that's fine. You have the right to suggest it just as I have the right to ignore your sugestion.

If it becomes board policy, then I guess I'll have to choose whether to abide by it or find a lower road to inhabit.

beaucoup ammo
April 29, 2007, 06:39 PM
Vulnerable or susceptible! For an actual name, however, not so easy. Among ourselves (off the boards) what does it matter? Call someone who doesn't believe in RKBA whatever comes to mind.

In a public forum or one on one conversation, "unarmed" seems more than adequate. As in "the unarmed." Let conclusions be drawn from that. It might even start someone thinking: "What if they hadn't been unarmed?"

horge
April 29, 2007, 06:40 PM
Hold on...
Your problem isn't with the unenlightened, but with the arrogantly malicious,
who often enough, hypocritically bear arms themselves, and want to deny
the ability to others.

Using terms like sheeple, eloi, etc. can sound arrogantly malicious as well.
Insult the ingrained gun-grabbers all you want, but the "undecideds" that
seem to make up the majority of Americans deserve more respect from you,
since ALL of you were once "sheeple".

I give as much credit to someone who takes on the responsibility of being
armed from prior reluctance, than to someone who's been born into it.
It seems those who WERE born into the tradition are as haughty as those
born into wealth and privilege.

Privilege.... (hack, cough)
However, we're talking about a RIGHT here, one you should be anxious to
ensure for others; not some sort of badge or mark of superior status.
But then, gun-owners can never be wrong, eh?
:scrutiny:



horge



You have to decide whether your desire is to pick a fight with all who
do not share your lifestyle, or whether you want to introduce others to it.

lurkersince03
April 29, 2007, 08:35 PM
Disarmed.

-terry
April 29, 2007, 08:41 PM
+1 Dakota Dude. Insulting names don't help. People who pride themselves in their rudeness don't help. Unarmed works well, I think. Accurate and has a bit of depth of meaning.

Joe Demko
April 29, 2007, 10:08 PM
Why is it necessary that we have a nickname for them at all? Whether you want it to be a perjorative or not, it'll become one.

Robert Hairless
April 29, 2007, 10:19 PM
What value is there in calling other people names because they don't agree with you?

I don't know any U.S. law or Constitutional amendment that requires everyone to keep and bear arms, and I think that people who want to be defenseless should have that option.

My interest is that they do not prevent me from defending myself. I can't think of any names I could call someone that would help accomplish that goal. "You sheep" doesn't seem likely to help any more than "Commie," "Fascist pig," "Idiot," "Loser," "Misguided fool," or anything else that stings.

Byron Quick
April 29, 2007, 10:30 PM
Get a .22 revolver and a .22 rifle, extra eyes and ears, a few bricks of ammo, some reactive targets and locate a convenient range. Start inviting them to the range and see how many you can begin to call 'new shooters.'

Many of the unarmed are unarmed for one reason and one reason only-they were not born into a shooting or hunting family and have never been exposed to it. So expose them. The wheat will separate from the chaff and instead of gaining enemies we'll gain friends.

The majority of Americans are undecided on the issue. Give them an opportunity to decide in our favor.

Let them go at their own pace. Don't begin to proselytize concealed carry and RKBA the first day at the range. Concentrate on safety, basic competence, and fun. If it clicks with them, you'll have time for elaboration as time goes by. If it doesn't click with them what will you get? Someone who knows a shooter who isn't an extremist, knuckle dragging, etc. and who will know BS when they hear it from dyed in the wool antis. Win-win.

The majority of non-shooters out there are the last people in the world we want to alienate. They're the swing vote in our issue. We can get the majority of their vote and win our issue or the antis can gain the majority of their vote...especially if we go out of our way to offend them and I don't really think we'd like the outcome of doing that.

I vote for calling them the swing vote and working to get them to swing our way. This issue will boil down to votes in the end. Find me a political campaign where the majority of the voters were undecided and the winner of the campaign decided to call all the undecided voters unsavory names.

We need to decide what we want here. Do we want to be 'right,' do we want to be 'self-righteous,' or do we want to win? If we want to win, we'll start working on turning the unarmed into the armed along with us and-failing that- folks that nod and wave when we meet them.

tinygnat219
April 29, 2007, 10:45 PM
Just let them open their mouths, then when they use the typical Brady talking points, defeat 'em in detail. It gets exhausting, but I don't refer to them by any names other than Anti-Constitutionalists.

telomerase
April 29, 2007, 11:12 PM
Get a .22 revolver and a .22 rifle, extra eyes and ears, a few bricks of ammo, some reactive targets and locate a convenient range.

A safe, quiet range... a range without drunk rednecks sweeping the handgun stalls with shotguns. A range with no M44 in the next stall. A range with no full autos showering you with hot empties.

You can see where I am going here... it's a lot easier to teach someone if they're not overwhelmed by the "wolfles" :D .

It's tough to find a good place nowadays :(

For that matter, it's tough to find a .22 revolver with a decent trigger pull. I think Byron is using the old "Large Rotating Cylinders" (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v9/i8/p2203_1)trick... we can't all afford to do that.

Byron: any suggestions for equipment available in this century :confused: ?

TallPine
April 29, 2007, 11:46 PM
I vote for calling them the swing vote and working to get them to swing our way.

So just call them "swingers" then ...? ;)

JerryM
April 29, 2007, 11:48 PM
There seems to be some disdain for those who do not wish to carry. That is foolish and immature.

I personally know more folks who do not want to carry than who do. Many of those who do not want to are retired LEO, even off duty LEO, retired military who have proven their courage, and dedication on the foreign fields of battle or the Cold War.

They are not sheep in the manner used here. Personally I resent hearing of them being referred to in that way. Many have exhibited more courage and love for this nation than many of you who have never had to put your lives on the line, and make sacrifices in time, blood, and family.

Referring to those who do not carry in a manner that shows contempt for them is pure arrogance, and immaturity.

It is obvious that to some carrying a handgun is an idol.

If and when the nation needs men, many who do not carry would be at the forefront, while some who do carry and are always shouting about their rights would flee to Canada, and claim it was not a lack of courage, but just an illegal war. I continue to think of that as cowardice.

Jerry

Byron Quick
April 29, 2007, 11:56 PM
Byron: any suggestions for equipment available in this century ?

Can't really help you there, telomerase, as I haven't been paying attention to currently manufactured .22 revolvers. My two S&W .22 revolvers are K-22's made in 1948 and 1951. I did buy both in the past ten years though and didn't break the bank to do so. CZ has some nice .22 rifles. I like the Ciener .22 conversion kit for .45's but I'd like it more if the magazines didn't cost so much. I've got a Browning Buckmark with the bull barrel...it does good for introducing newbies to semi-automatics

Art Eatman
April 30, 2007, 12:15 AM
A show of hands: How many have ever seen an improvement in relations when name-calling occurred?

As long as you're posting at THR, the best thing to stay in keeping with the mission statement of this website is to do absolutely no name-calling at all.

This is NOT Democratic Underground. Why act like them?

The saying, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar," is older, even, than I am. It's just as true, today, as it was in times past.

Part of our deal here is to persuade folks that we are grownups. That we're not a bunch of grubby-minded, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

Save the name-calling nonsense for somewhere else on the Internet.

Art

telomerase
April 30, 2007, 12:17 AM
Save the name-calling nonsense for somewhere else on the Internet.

Is it OK to call Byron something for grabbing up all the K22s?

45Badger
April 30, 2007, 12:38 AM
Why is it necessary that we have a nickname for them at all? Whether you want it to be a perjorative or not, it'll become one.

Ditto.

How about "people", or maybe something crazy like their names?

"Hello Bob" works a heck of a lot better than, "Hello sheeple, slave, lemming, uninformed, liberal dog, demoncrat, yankee, pos, fetus killing, professional victim, welfare loving, misguided, gun grabbing, waste of my liberty and fresh air"

They are all people, just like you and me (and my wife). Sometimes people can have honest disagreements (like me and my wife about guns) and still be good, normal people. Berating them will not usually win the disagreement. Working through the disagreement point by point, year after year ;) , respecting each others opinions and feelings, we have come to a trusting understanding/working disagreement. Your results may vary:cool: .

That warm, smug and fuzzy feeling you may get using big words like "sheeple" is probably a sign to call mommy or the nurse because you Depends runneth over........:neener:

hso
April 30, 2007, 01:04 AM
We like to divide, to define the "other" by some name.

Anti-gun, pro-gun, sheeple, vigilante, hoplophobe, gun nut.

The vast majority of folks don't fall into any of these categories so the "antis" and us gun nuts are in the minority. That makes each group the "other" to the majority of folks.

If we're smart we should realize that we're trying to win the hearts and minds of the majority of citizens in this country and whether they have a gun in the home or they don't they're winnable to either side.

Now the folks that would get rid of guns, our opposites, don't call those folks names. They pretend to respect them and try to further marginalise us by focusing on identifying us as somehow different from the majority of people.

What do we do? We come up with clever and self-congratulatory names to call them as if alienating them is good for our cause.:(

If we want to call names reserve it for those who actively want to take away our rights.

ArfinGreebly
April 30, 2007, 03:49 AM
I imagine there are many who today walk in my yesterday's shoes.

They are waiting for the right moment, the right person, the right situation to submit themselves to knowledge they know they lack.

Kindness, attention, understanding, and an opportunity are all they need.

Very few of them are as willing as I was to expose themselves as ignorant. It's a rare thing to be willing to "make a fool" of oneself.

I find that there are plenty of opportunities to assure people that they are not deficient, though they have been led to believe so for years.

My introduction to this came more than 20 years ago, when I was drafted as an adjunct instructor at the local college. I had women in my class who were very apprehensive about their ability to grasp what was "understood" to be a man's subject.
Julie, look at it this way: you have raised kids? Yes? And you have had to cook for them and sew for them? So you know how to follow a recipe and how to make a dress from a pattern? Julie, anyone who can get from "here's four yards of cloth" to that summer dress, or who can cook a meal from scratch that kids will actually eat, can program a computer -- after all, unlike a kid, a computer will actually do what you tell it.

Now, shooting is not sewing, but anyone who can run a sewing machine can learn it, and anyone brave enough to change diapers or deal with a squirming kid in a store, can handle a little noise from a gun. Heck, there's more lethal hardware in most kitchens than this thing you're holding.

Someone quips to you that having a gun makes you more prone to violence.
Really? Let's test that theory. You're a pretty rational person; you come shooting with me and handle a gun for an afternoon and we'll see what you think after a little laboratory work.

Yes, there are the 2% anti-social bigots crowd, and no amount of calm and reasoned discussion will move them.

The best thing you can do around them is ensure there's no pool of ignorant minds where their arguments can get traction.
Yeah, I know Fred says guns are evil. I thought I'd do you the courtesy of believing you can make up your own mind. I'll help you get the first-hand experience you need to make an informed decision.

They are our customers, our students, our future partners.

I can hear you whining now: What -- I have to teach ALL these people??

Yeah, well, who else is there?

Suck it up, fella, and let's get started.

jeepmor
April 30, 2007, 04:27 AM
Part of our deal here is to persuade folks that we are grownups. That we're not a bunch of grubby-minded, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

But as a snowboarder, that statement is a true term of endearment Art. ;)

good point though, getting the uninformed out shooting a 22 and hitting that can for the first time is a lot of fun and where we should all start our conversion campaign of the anti-gun mindset.

El Tejon
April 30, 2007, 09:06 AM
How about this name? Let's call them potential allies and gun owners.:)

The greatest victory is to make your enemy your friend. Sun Zi.

30 cal slob
April 30, 2007, 09:13 AM
take sheep to the range.

watch sheepish grin on sheep's face form after the first few rounds of .22 LR go downrange.

i've taken 100+ urban sheep to the range on my dime. they all had a good, safe time.

don't know how many i ended up converting to the pro-RKBA cause, but at least they can say they had a positive hands-on experience.

Baba Louie
April 30, 2007, 09:31 AM
I suppose it is human nature to categorize and name things in order to place them somewhere in our built-in information storage and retrieval systems... but it does take up valuable time and data storage space better suited for other important tasks.

An enemy is an enemy and will fight against you. Passion.

A pacifist does not want to fight and will not. Impassion.

The innocent might have some preconceived notions but if they truly have an open mind, can be taught. Potential passion.

All are potential targets of my energy. The only time I find it necessary to deal with any of them is when they stand in my way, figuratively speaking. I'm not here to save the world or sell my passion if they're not interested in buying. I will, however, fight to defend what I deem important.

YMMV

mmissile
April 30, 2007, 10:17 AM
There is absolutely no reason to be nice to an "adult stage" liberal. They want to hear nothing of which you have to say, and will use any knowledge you pass on to them as ammo, in some mis-quoted speach later. They take any civil behavior on our parts as a sign of weakness, and will use that as well as a weapon. They are the enemy, and nothing more. The permissiveness in this country is due to letting them have their way. I do not engage liberals in vocal battles about firearms, and use the rational thoughts of a "conservative/thinking" mind to seek other venues to battle them. You can try to influence young kids to see the difference of the views, but once they get into the public school systems........it's a tuff row to hoe. When verbally attacked by the enemy, I usually roll my eyes, and ask what channel they saw that on?....then disengage. Only when you can make a total ass out of them, in front of a large group of fellow sheeple, should you engage.:D

sansone
April 30, 2007, 10:34 AM
I like to use the term sheeple for the anti's. first time I heard it was from a farmer referring to "city folk" ..

MJZZZ
April 30, 2007, 10:38 AM
I've had several debates with antigunners, some of them heated. I have used sheeple, gun grabber, ect. After debating the subject with my daughter who is not as much anti gun as she is unaware of how mean people can be. I use the words gullable and unaware now, because it takes the discussion into a new direction. My wife doesn't like the thought of sitting next to someone in a restaurant that has a gun, but it's OK for me to carry mine. All I can tell her is, if she only knew how many people are carrying illegal guns. She is in unaware status. Mike

grampster
April 30, 2007, 11:25 AM
We live in a vast, beautiful country that we can freely roam at will. We can hunt, fish, hike, ride etc as well as participate in many activities that represent the incredibly diverse backgrounds that we bring to the table we call America. We can own property, build businesses and families. We are Americans. We come in many shapes, sizes, colors, having religion or no religion, educated or not, happy, sad, burly or skinny.

Some of us have hobbies. Some not. Some of us are more aware than others. Some of us are intense and others are not. Here on THR we are a community of folks who have an especial fondness for freedom and we like to play with things that go boom. Some hunt, some shoot trap and skeet. Some like high power, some, mouse guns. Some reload and like some like ancient weapons. Some revel in it all. We are a disparate group, yet we are somehow united. Some are for us and some are 'agin us. We already have a name:

We are Americans. Why don't we just leave it at that and when the opportunity comes, cause someone else to share in our passions, no matter what it is, invite them in as a fellow American.

BrianB
April 30, 2007, 11:29 AM
Wise man said, "When I try to make everybody happy, I'm sad. When I stop trying to make everybody happy, I'm happy."

Biker
April 30, 2007, 11:30 AM
Well said, Grampster.

Biker

bogie
April 30, 2007, 11:47 AM
Every time one of us calls names or "gets aggressive" with someone who is a fence sitter, we get them off the fence. And onto the other side.

Many of the folks who many THR members call "antis" are merely folks who know enough to be dangerous - they've learned form TV, the newspapers, etc., and their knowledge set says that "guns are bad to have around." It's so much EASIER for folks to get mad, and call names at them, etc., than it is for the same folks to educate.

I may be paranoid, but I also suspect that some of loudest internet cheerleaders of the "name calling" variety may have never touched a gun in their lives. Remember, not everyone who says that he/she is on your side actually is...

default
April 30, 2007, 11:59 AM
There is absolutely no reason to be nice to an "adult stage" liberal.

Well, other than basic human decency and politeness.

The permissiveness in this country is due to letting them have their way.

There are many less permissive countries in the world - Iran and China spring to mind. Too bad they have no RKBA, even if they have done an admirable job in enforcing ideological purity on their citizens.

I have taken several "adult stage" liberal friends shooting, and calmly discussed RKBA with them. They're still liberals, but are far less positively disposed to gun control than they were before. Would it have been better if I had just rudely insulted them and disengaged?

WayneConrad
April 30, 2007, 01:06 PM
I'm here today because I read the words of men who did not belittle me for my (then) beliefs. They just presented credible evidence and arguments that made me question my beliefs.

Had I come here first, it may have been different. I was not, and am not moved or impressed by threads that belittle others. I am turned away by them.

It's fun, when talking to your buddies, to talk like that. To talk big, to call someone or some groups names. But this site isn't for talking to your buddies, is it? It's for talking to those you'd like to be your buddies, but aren't yet. And they won't ever be your buddies if you start out by belittling them.

logical
April 30, 2007, 01:24 PM
I'm offended ....baaaaaa

http://www.freefoto.com//images/01/16/01_16_53_web.jpg?&k=Sheep

Riz58
April 30, 2007, 02:15 PM
Springmom suggested a while back we adopt a phrase from a gun-toting momma whose pistol somehow became "exposed". She said, "Oh, the Muggles mustn't see!"

I laughed, but the Harry Potter reference is apt. These folks are not stupid, just either uninformed or naive for the most part. So we gun owners, especially CCW holders, move about among the Muggles as the wizards and witches do, not scaring the uninitiated, but always carrying our wands for the time they be needed.

Anyway, I have started using the term "Muggles". (Muggles are not to be confused with those Dark Forces who do understand the issue and seek to destroy the Protectors (sheepdogs) and Guardians (police and others).)

cmidkiff
April 30, 2007, 04:09 PM
When I want to say something about a particular group of people, I have to use a name that puts that defines that group. If sheep fits, fine by me. If you don't like the term, that's fine by me as well.

Eliminating certain words from use because they _might_ be offensive is one accurate description of 'Politically Correct', and that's not something I'm working towards being.

If I'm talking about a particular person, I'll use that person's name. If I think that person is an idiot, I'll say so. If I think someone's a lunatic, I'll say that. If the person is trying to deny me my 2A rights, I might use the word 'anti'.

Taking 'the High Road' is a good thing... attempting to 'correct' politically incorrect speech is something else entirely.

Plink
May 4, 2007, 03:21 AM
Get a .22 revolver and a .22 rifle, extra eyes and ears, a few bricks of ammo, some reactive targets and locate a convenient range. Start inviting them to the range and see how many you can begin to call 'new shooters.'


Works for me. When I go plinking, I'm often joined by a number of friends. Only one of which was a gun owner before I met them. The rest were invited out to shoot with us, taught safety and marksmanship, enjoyed the sport and went on to buy their own guns.

gdvan01
May 4, 2007, 04:17 AM
That we're not a bunch of grubby-minded, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.You forgot 'slack-jawed'.

Plink
May 4, 2007, 06:10 AM
If and when the nation needs men, many who do not carry would be at the forefront, while some who do carry and are always shouting about their rights would flee to Canada, and claim it was not a lack of courage, but just an illegal war. I continue to think of that as cowardice.


While I agree about those who don't carry being as brave as those who do, I have to voice a short opinion about those who don't always answer the call to arms.

During WWII, an enemy attacked MY COUNTRY! I would have been first in line to fight. During the Vietnam war, I would have probably fled to Canada also. It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with refusing to conform to a corrupt government trying to further it's agenda.

I believe that ALL of our military men and women are heroes, regardless where they served, and I respect and admire them all. But I do not believe that all of those who refuse to serve in a conflict that doesn't involve us, are cowards.

Dr. Dickie
May 4, 2007, 07:56 AM
I believe that ALL of our military men and women are heroes, regardless where they served, and I respect and admire them all. But I do not believe that all of those who refuse to serve in a conflict that doesn't involve us, are cowards.

While I understand your feelings, you are wrong.
You (as in the you are part of the populace) elected those people to represent you. You cannot simply "choose" to not accept their decision on whether or not it is necessary to be in a conflict. You have the right to put them out if you do not like their decisions, but you do not have the right to simply pick and choose which decisions you are going to obey or disobey.
Like it or not, they are privy to a lot more information than you are, and YOU put them there to make those decisions based on the information avaiable.
You do not have the right to decide which laws you choose to obey and disobey, you do have the right to change the laws you do not like. If each individual gets to pick and choose what they want to obey or disobey, then there are no law only anarchy.

JaxNovice
May 4, 2007, 08:06 AM
I have a entirely different theory. My feelings are not to automatically demonize someone because they have different opinions. Just because someone has a different religion, political affiliation or views on the 2nd Amd, does not mean I will dismiss them as stupid. There are plenty of really smart and good people in this world who have completely different views than myself.

I am not so narrow minded that I only respect those who share my interests or principles.

Glockfan.45
May 4, 2007, 08:10 AM
"The Unenlightened" is certainly better than "bliss ninnies," "sheep,' "sheeple," "Eloi," and the like. I'd also do away with pejoratives aimed at liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Libertarians, atheists, Muslims, homosexuals, pacifists, and the rest.. But it's not completely up to me, so...


While I can agree with most all of your opinion there really is no room for socialists. Anybody who believes socialism is the answer is beyond hope. Democrats sure, Liberals perhaps, Socialists no way. The core values of socialism, can in no way fit into a pro-gun mindset. Its funny that you list Libertarians though since they (me :D) are probably the most pro-gun group out there.

FCFC
May 4, 2007, 10:07 AM
That's why a think a person who doesn't have a gun should be called "a person who doesn't have a gun," and people who don't want anyone to have a gun should be called "people who don't want anyone to have a gun."

Inventing new labels loaded with negative connotations isn't telling it like it is.
Depends on the purpose of the rhetoric. If one just wants to badger some individual or group, then use of the labels, including silly and negative ones, is a good approach.

If some effective communication, learning or persuasion is the objective, then staying away from the cute terms and slams would be in order.

Most of the time, by far, in the gun/anti-gun contestations, both sides seem to favor the former.

Damien45
May 4, 2007, 10:35 AM
I have not read this entire thread, but about half. I just got off work (12hrs) and am rather tired so I hope this is pretty clear. If not, I appologize.

The way I see it:

When it comes to firearms there are 3 classifications for Americans:

1) Those who want to preserve and restore our firearm Rights.
2) Those who want to restrict and ban our firearm Rights.
3) Those who do not have an active opinion on the matter.

Each classification has their own types. Class 1 has those who choose not to own, those who choose to own and those who choose to own and carry. Class 2 has those who want a "safer nation" and those who want to have a "firearms free nation". Class 3 is the majority. They are the folks who either do not understand, care enough or know anything about firearms.

These are the people that I choose to refer to as "friends I have yet to meet". While some may vote for candidates that seek to strip us of our gun rights, I think it is not their (the voters) main issue. I feel that they vote on issues more important to them. Since they are unaware of the truth about firearms, they do not pay attention to that issue as much. If we can educate them enough to at least bring them to the "those who choose not to own" type of Class 1, maybe they would vote for a candidate that supports their other issues, as well as ours.

This fight is a tough one. The money pouring into the opposition is staggering. They have more organizations than we do. Ours have been tagged and labled by the media that supports the opposition. Unfortunately it is those in Class 3 that get their firearms education from that same media. It is then augmented by Hollywood and TV. All we have to educate them with is ourselves, the internet and word of mouth. We can not afford to alienate the majority with derrogatory names.


One of the comments posted earlier commented on the "Why do you need a gun? Only criminals have guns". My usual reply to that is this:
"My gun doesn't make me a criminal. It's my choices that prevent it."

FCFC
May 4, 2007, 10:59 AM
One of the comments posted earlier commented on the "Why do you need a gun? Only criminals have guns".
This is a logical fallacy. Here is the form:

Criminals have guns
Damien45 has a gun
Therefore, Damien45 is a criminal

It's criminal that people use such easily refuted constructions. They are very easy to spot.

Damien45
May 4, 2007, 11:05 AM
This is a logical fallacy. Here is the form:

Criminals have guns
Damien45 has a gun
Therefore, Damien45 is a criminal

It's criminal that people use such easily refuted constructions. They are very easy to spot.

Absolutely agree.

ZeSpectre
May 4, 2007, 11:21 AM
FWIW, I despise the gun owners who use terms like "sheep," "sheeple," "hoplophobes," "liberal," "communist," etc. I think it demonstrates thoughtlessness, ignorance, and hostility.

I don't know about others, but I do use Hoplophobe... however I only use it when I've determined that someone REALLY is phobic (and I've met a few). For example, I met someone at a friend's birthday party who couldn't (not wouldn't, actually couldn't) go into the dining room because the birthday cake was shaped like a hunting rifle. She also refused to handle the knife used to cut the cake and somebody else had to hand her a slice to eat. It was a little disturbing.

In my own mind I tend to "categorize" the opposing camp people into

The Aggressors - Those with an active agenda of disarmament. Usually to forward some private purpose of their own.
The Managed - Those who have been socially trained to be against guns, even though they usually don't actually know WHY.
The Hoplophobes - Those who have an actual psychological illness in line with any other phobic reaction.

My own approach to each group is...
Aggressors - I treat them as the enemy. I will do as much as I possibly can to hinder them, bring their plans to a halt, or cause them a reversal.
Managed - I treat them as uneducated. I will do as much as I can to teach them facts and neutralize propaganda while realizing that I must respect their right to make up their own minds on the topic.
Hoplophobes - I walk away. I don't have the disposition or psychological training to deal with an actual clinical phobia.

pax
May 4, 2007, 11:37 AM
Guys,

If the goal is to advance responsible firearms ownership (and it is), we're not going to get too far calling people names.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Thread closed, since pretty much everything that should be said has been said. (And some things that should not have.)

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Name calling and gun folks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!