Lazy, Igonorant, Cowardly: Diagnostic Analysis, or Name Calling?


PDA






SharpsDressedMan
March 30, 2013, 06:39 PM
I have family members that are increasingly difficult to communicate with due to the division created by the philosophical differences of the Conservative/Republican/Right wing (me and one other brother), and the Others (brother and two sisters (Democrat/Liberal/Left). This extends to many other acquaintances who are also apparently liberals. I have tried to understand them, and have made some observations that many of them have in common, which might contribute to their opposing views on gun control. Most of the opposition have no interest in firearms, do not practice any pro-active awareness in self protection (often indicating that is what laws and the police are FOR), and tend towards "blanket" belief in what the left has to say about the issue. This leads me to believe that they lack in social awareness in three ways. One, a naÔve belief in the security of our society in that the police "can handle it". Not individually having been victims of any serious crimes, they see no need in being armed, or being responsible for armed defense; thus, they see no need for anyone ELSE to be armed, either. To them, ANY more guns in the hands of civilians is a danger to the whole of society. History, current news, or a walk any rough area might give them pause, but that leads me to the second problem: ignoring the possibility that citizens are the FIRST responders to violent crime; being the victims, they are the first ones on the scene, and by that, the BEST ones to thwart the offense. To not accept this, after being presented with logical and historical proof is either lazy (shirking a social responsibility placed on them by thousands of years of human behavior, i.e. SELF DEFENSE), or, and I hate to say it, COWARDICE. Do we dare utter that word in this day of social advancement, our peaceful and utopian society notwithstanding?:rolleyes: I am preparing my discussions, debates, and arguments to include the words "ignorant, delusional, lazy, and coward" when countering liberal, anti-gun arguments. The words accurately describe citizens that ignore facts, neglect the social DUTY of self defense and defense of others, erroneously conclude that the police can thwart violent crime, and that new laws will miraculously save everyone (when the old laws failed so miserably for some reason). I have tried to avoid name calling, but perhaps the two by four to the head approach with strong, but accurate, words is now the way to go. Coddling those who continue to ignore such obvious truths just isn't working. Most of the liberals I've encountered do not give the matter deep thought, or try to understand the issues, they just "adopt" the rhetoric. That is no longer acceptable.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lazy, Igonorant, Cowardly: Diagnostic Analysis, or Name Calling?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AlexanderA
March 30, 2013, 07:50 PM
Keep it gun-specific. It doesn't help our cause to broaden it to a general liberal-conservative divide. After all, there are pro-gun liberals (although admittedly they aren't typical). We need all the allies we can get.

Words like "cowards" need to be banished from the lexicon. Calling someone a "coward" is guaranteed to turn him into an enemy. Just because someone chooses not to carry a gun doesn't make him a coward -- in many cases, it's quite the opposite.

Serenity
March 30, 2013, 08:13 PM
Way to be an ambassador! I'm sure when you hit those Liberals with your two by four of wisdom they will be forced to confront their cowardice laziness and then thank you for helping them to self-actualize.

<slow clap>

akv3g4n
March 30, 2013, 08:16 PM
Yeah, keep it to the RKBA argument and not the liberal vs conservative. There are a lot of liberal (socially anyway) firearms enthusiasts out there and name calling doesn't do anything to help our cause. That's coming from a gun totin' vegan...:eek:

SabbathWolf
March 30, 2013, 08:27 PM
Please, break it up into smaller paragraphs, SDM! :D Only my Optometrist is benefiting! ;)


LOL.....

I was thinking the same thing.
I couldn't even finish reading the post.
It was giving me a headache.

What's it about anyways?
:D

Lost Sheep
March 30, 2013, 08:35 PM
Words like "Nanny State", "denial", "sheeple" are bound to rankle. If irritating your debate-opponents is a tactic that you think will win them over (and it just might, given the dynamics of family relationships), go ahead.

On the other hand, there is a 2005 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that says the police are not there to protect you.

A woman reported to the police the whereabouts of her ex-husband (against whom she had a protective order) and her daughters, ages 7, 9 and 10 (who the ex-husband had kidnapped and, eventually, murdered). The police did not act. They were held not liable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Not that Mrs Gonzales would have been justified in taking a (tool of self-defense) and retrieving her children herself, but what would your family have her do if she had been on-scene when Mr. Gonzales was in the act of kidnapping the girls? Or in the act of killing them? Call 911?

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Cogent, logical arguments are not always effective.

A closed mind is bad. An open mind is good, but not so open that your brain falls out.

I feel for your situation. Family, unapologetically wrong and not willing to hear. Tough.

I will end with a joke, unfortunately a depressing one:
Know how to turn a liberal into a conservative? A mugging.

OK, a second one. More of an aphorism:
When a man is young, if he is not a liberal, he has no heart.
When a man is older, if he is not a conservative, he has no brain.

Lost Sheep

SharpsDressedMan
March 30, 2013, 08:41 PM
I'll use larger print next time.:D Specifically, to counter an anti-gun argument, you have to know what the opposition's weakness is, and when confronted about civic duty, ignoring the obvious, or possibly hiding their cowardice (possibly the REAL reason for hiding behind the "police argument"), they will probably have few excuses, and be more likely to scrutinize the accusations. I'm no longer interested in making or keeping friends. I AM interested in getting some kind of thought provoking result, rather than leaving the enemy reveling in their arrogance and ignorance.

Lost Sheep
March 30, 2013, 08:43 PM
In response to Johnny Dollar and SabbathWolf's pleas, I took it upon myself to paragraph the O.P.

SharpsDressedMan, please forgive my presumption.

I also have to ask: You mentioned three ways of not recognizing social awareness. I only found two, I think

(edited by Lost Sheep)
Subject Line:
Lazy, Igonorant, Cowardly: Diagnostic Analysis, or Name Calling?

I have family members that are increasingly difficult to communicate with due to the division created by the philosophical differences of the Conservative/Republican/Right wing (me and one other brother), and the Others (brother and two sisters (Democrat/Liberal/Left). This extends to many other acquaintances who are also apparently liberals.

I have tried to understand them, and have made some observations that many of them have in common, which might contribute to their opposing views on gun control. Most of the opposition have no interest in firearms, do not practice any pro-active awareness in self protection (often indicating that is what laws and the police are FOR), and tend towards "blanket" belief in what the left has to say about the issue.

This leads me to believe that they lack in social awareness in three ways.

One, a naÔve belief in the security of our society in that the police "can handle it". Not individually having been victims of any serious crimes, they see no need in being armed, or being responsible for armed defense; thus, they see no need for anyone ELSE to be armed, either. To them, ANY more guns in the hands of civilians is a danger to the whole of society. History, current news, or a walk any rough area might give them pause, but that leads me to

the second problem: ignoring the possibility that citizens are the FIRST responders to violent crime; being the victims, they are the first ones on the scene, and by that, the BEST ones to thwart the offense.

To not accept this, after being presented with logical and historical proof is either lazy (shirking a social responsibility placed on them by thousands of years of human behavior, i.e. SELF DEFENSE), or, and I hate to say it, COWARDICE. Do we dare utter that word in this day of social advancement, our peaceful and utopian society notwithstanding?

I am preparing my discussions, debates, and arguments to include the words "ignorant, delusional, lazy, and coward" when countering liberal, anti-gun arguments. The words accurately describe citizens that ignore facts, neglect the social DUTY of self defense and defense of others, erroneously conclude that the police can thwart violent crime, and that new laws will miraculously save everyone (when the old laws failed so miserably for some reason).

I have tried to avoid name calling, but perhaps the two by four to the head approach with strong, but accurate, words is now the way to go. Coddling those who continue to ignore such obvious truths just isn't working. Most of the liberals I've encountered do not give the matter deep thought, or try to understand the issues, they just "adopt" the rhetoric. That is no longer acceptable.

Does this help?

Lost Sheep

r1derbike
March 30, 2013, 08:52 PM
I have a headache after reading that. Best way to handle it? Your beliefs are yours, and their beliefs are theirs.

Take them shooting. If they'll have no part of it, move on. Problem solved.

creitzel
March 30, 2013, 08:55 PM
I think if you go about this the way you are planning to, you will simply alienate your family and friends that much more, possibly pushing them to a position where they will close their mind completely to the subject. In which case, the dialog will be closed, and you will have killed any future chance of convincing them. I guess it makes more sense to me, to do everything to keep the subject open for debate, so that you can keep attempting to win them over to our side.

Why not try getting them to go to the range with you? I've had a good deal of luck converting antis by taking them to the range. A lot of them are simply uneducated about firearms, and frankly afraid of them. If you take the time to educate them, and show them that firearms are just tools, that can be used responsibly, and in fact can be fun, you would probably have a better chance of discussing these issues with them. :)

oneounceload
March 30, 2013, 09:26 PM
Having a gun is not the answer for everyone, trying to force your view will do nothing but make them dig their heels in even further. Not having a gun does not make them unaware, unprepared or anything else - there are a lot of other ways to handle things.

SharpsDressedMan
March 30, 2013, 10:14 PM
Damn, you guys are a tough audience! Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice. Traits that seem to be in common with the enemies of the 2nd Amendment. Use these terms to evaluate and challenge those anti-gun liberals. Hope this simplifies the message for those of you that get headaches easily. :neener:

Texan Scott
March 30, 2013, 10:30 PM
Sharps,

You stated your argument to US quite well, without unnecessary rancor; this might well be precisely the approach and presentation you should use with your family. The argument you needed, you found by explaining. I think you answered your question in post #1.

Lost Sheep
March 30, 2013, 10:30 PM
Damn, you guys are a tough audience! Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice. Traits that seem to be in common with the enemies of the 2nd Amendment. Use these terms to evaluate and challenge those anti-gun liberals. Hope this simplifies the message for those of you that get headaches easily. :neener:
I think there are a lot more than three social failures. Open your mind to the possibilities. Both possibilities of failures and other modes of (successful) thinking.

Denial is not the same as ignorance, though there is a lot of overlap.

Faith is not always a social failure.

Devout pacifism is practiced by some brave, intelligent and hard-working individuals. They have my admiration for adhering to their principles, though not my participation.

Your siblings and friends may or may not have closed minds.

Lost Sheep

Frank Ettin
March 30, 2013, 10:31 PM
Damn, you guys are a tough audience! Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice. Traits that seem to be in common with the enemies of the 2nd Amendment. Use these terms to evaluate and challenge those anti-gun liberals. Hope this simplifies the message for those of you that get headaches easily.Oh, I understand your message. It's simply that calling people names is a lousy way to make your points, and it's also a lousy way to represent gun owners.

Do you understand that message?

Your contemplated approach will no doubt be satisfying to you. It will allow you to give vent to your anger and frustrations. Unfortunately, it will also satisfy those you spew invective on by confirming their negative stereotypes of gun owners.

So by all means, proceed as you plan so that you can reinforce the view that we're a bunch of knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

beatledog7
March 30, 2013, 10:38 PM
Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice.

Those traits are common in enemies of liberty and freedom generally, not just of RKBA.

Frank Ettin
March 30, 2013, 10:46 PM
Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice.

Those traits are common in enemies of liberty and freedom generally, not just of RKBA.I dare say that such traits are not exclusive, on an individual basis, to those with whom we have political or social disagreements. Demonizing out of hand our political and social opponent diminishes us and impairs our effectiveness.

SabbathWolf
March 30, 2013, 11:22 PM
I'm not sure how to even respond here.
Sometimes family members can be even bigger rock heads than strangers are when it comes to some subjects.

Queen_of_Thunder
March 30, 2013, 11:24 PM
Please, break it up into smaller paragraphs, SDM! :D Only my Optometrist is benefiting! ;)
Ahh the paragraph. The only thing there is a greater shortage of than 22lr.

Furncliff
March 30, 2013, 11:36 PM
If self-righteousness was the the last meal available I would gladly starve.

S&Wfan
March 30, 2013, 11:45 PM
My liberal friends think WE are in knuckle-draggers. Frankly, I see no benefit from name calling amongst friends and family. Love conquers all, but a fist up-side-oh-duh-head only gives both people sore knuckles.

I agree with another poster . . . take 'em shooting! More than one person has been converted this way, and it is a lot of fun.

Start with a respectful time of gun SAFETY, for this impresses all non-gun people that we are actually a very safe bunch indeed.

I'd recommend using .22 ammo for most bang for the buck, and have fun, person-to-person!!! We win the opposition via having fun and doing it with respect.

Good luck!

yokel
March 31, 2013, 12:31 PM
It seems unlikely that, for anyone alive today, the world is exactly the way they wish it would be in every detail. Because there is discordance between what is the case and what we wish the case would be, we all engage at some point in time in wishful thinking: the desire that our situation be something other than it really is.

There is certainly nothing wrong with this, and it can manifest in any number of ways ó for example, in the daydreams which inspire us to make the necessary changes so that our lives will be more as we desire. When it comes to logical arguments, however, wishful thinking can create problems by blinding us to unpleasant truths and getting us to believe as true things which have little or no connection to reality.

One way in which wishful thinking can be seen in arguments is through the process of rationalization ó a perversion of rational arguments in defense of an idea which you should know better than to accept and defend.

When we rationalize things, we are trying to show that it is rational to believe something we wish were true, but which in reality isnít true and isnít actually rational to believe. Rationalizations are common and appealing because they serve as effective means by which we can continue to believe things that make us comfortable while appearing to the whole world ó and in particular to ourselves ó as rational people. In other words, we appear to believe something because it is rational to do so, not because we simply want our beliefs to be true.

For example, there are people who indulge in too much alcohol, excessive drugs, smoking, poor foods, etc. while also claiming that none of it has ill effects on their health. Perhaps there are a few rare individuals out there for whom that may be true, but for the average person exactly the opposite will be the case ó and when such a person offers lame arguments in defense of their claim, they are engaging in rationalizations designed to defend a belief which is based upon wishful thinking and not reality or reason.

Wishful thinking is dangerous because it impairs our ability to properly see and understand reality. There is a reason why our senses generally give us accurate information about the world around us: without accurate information, we couldnít hope to navigate our world with any expectation of safety or success. We need to know what is going on around us if we are going to avoid danger or take advantage of opportunities.

We cannot do so, however, when our beliefs about that world are being founded upon what we wish the world were like rather than what the world really is. Itís even worse when we attempt to convince others to join us in our delusions, as if our beliefs about reality were in any way a means of changing the world into something else. Beliefs can be the cause of actions which in turn can change reality, but beliefs and wishes alone never managed to effect real innovations or transformations.

We can avoid the infection of wishful thinking in our own arguments by trying to stay attuned to what our wishes are, and thus how they might diverge from reality. If we acknowledge that we all are susceptible to wishful thinking, we may have an easier time forestalling it in what we say and write. Should we encounter this in the arguments of another, getting past it might be more difficult. It is rarely easy to get a person to see that their arguments are really rationalizations and that their wishes are not reality.

Such individuals have, almost by definition, convinced themselves that they are offering rational beliefs for empirical facts. Acknowledging that they are not is a twofold defeat: not only must they admit that they are wrong, but they must also admit that they somehow managed to engage in self-deception. But who wants to be guilty of that? This is an additional motive one may have to resist your critiques; the only way around this is to find some means of correcting them without bruising their ego, and by giving them a way to change their mind without having to admit quite so much error.

If they really do want to be as rational as they are trying to portray themselves, then eventually they will be able to look back and accept the presence of rationalization and self-deception without it being so difficult. In the meantime, however, a bit of compassion and understanding on your part will go a long way towards helping them get past their rationalizations and back on track to more defensible beliefs.

CB900F
March 31, 2013, 12:46 PM
Sharp Dressed;

You'll have to do another prep session for yourself if you use this, but it might be more helpful than using the semantically negative words like "coward". Just ask them if they like being the victims of propoganda. Yes, it's a negative connotation, but a lot less confrontational. However, you'll then have to be able to marshal examples of how they've been propogandaized. But, showing them how they've been taken advantage of will quite possibly allow them to open their minds.

Otherwise, arrange for Bubba to mug 'em.

900F

David E
March 31, 2013, 01:13 PM
Words like "cowards" need to be banished. Just because someone chooses not to carry a gun doesn't make him a coward -- in many cases, it's quite the opposite.

This is the silliest thing I've read here on THR

I sure hope the poster wasn't being serious.

gc70
March 31, 2013, 01:22 PM
I recognize the fact that different people have different opinions and prejudging the basis for those opinions does not help in understanding the real reason for another person's opinion or in swaying that person's opinion.

I also have relatives who believe they will not be victims of crime, would be able to reason with a criminal to avoid injury, would be protected by the police, blah, blah, blah. I usually just discuss the downside of the differing opinions being wrong: if I am wrong, my gun gathers dust from not being used; if they are wrong, it may carry the price or injury of death.

Old Fuff
March 31, 2013, 01:30 PM
First of all, getting into an argument with someone who (for whatever reasons) has strong anti-gun views and opinions is usually a waste of time.

Therefore I avoid any confrontation unless they attack my position first, especially in a group conversation where others are present that might be more open minded. Then I try to use logic and facts to oppose emotion.

I have found that occasionally a dedicated, anti-gun individual will come looking for me with a different attitude after something traumatic happens in their lives. Otherwise they are best ignored. After all, ignorance is bliss.

Arp32
March 31, 2013, 01:33 PM
As a pro-2A "liberal", it gets old hearing some die-hard conservatives explain most of my own political views to me as if i were too stupid to operate a spoon unattended. I hear it sometimes at work, a lot on talk radio, and unfortunately occasionally here on this site.

I love living in a country where someone can feel justified in telling me exactly how stupid my politics are, but I'm not sure how helpful or persuasive it is. It certainly doesn't make me stop and reflect on why some random blowhard is absolutely right while I've been horribly wrong this whole time. If only someone had told me I hated mom, apple pie and America, maybe I would have realized it and switched sides years ago!!!

(Sarcasm over...)

It just appears to me that sometimes the goal is to let everyone else know how much we think our own views are right, as opposed to trying to convince others to open their mind a bit. Preaching to the choir isn't a long term solution to protecting RTKBA. I have a strong suspicion that the demographic of today's average pro-2A voter is misaligned with growth trends for new voters in general. That's bad math for the odds of my great-great-grandchildren being able to own a semi-automatic rifle.

As some point, I think we need to grow the pie and introduce new shooters to our culture.

How do we do that? My humble suggestion would be to relate to folks on a personal level, show them respect even when they disagree with you, and leave the politics out of it.

I'llleave it at that, mainly because I know how many of you hate having a libtard tell you what to do;)

CB900F
March 31, 2013, 02:24 PM
SDM;

You'll have to do another debate point prep if you try this, but it may very well be worth it. The point has been made that words like coward are confrontational, and it's hard to bring someone to your point of view when you've just insulted them. Therefore, try asking them how they like having been the victims of propaganda. But you'll have to be prepared to show them how that's so. Not like there aren't literally thousands of examples around though.

By putting the question that way, that they've been victimized, you're putting the semantic content with you rather than against you. Which may go a long way towards opening their minds to at least thinking about your point of view. Show them a few concrete examples where what's been said by, say a major media source, is not at all what the facts of the matter are, and you might just gain a convert.

Personally, I'd start with the differences between what Feinstien says an assault weapon is and what the military has defined it as. You could lose San Francisco in the gap between those two views.

900F

Lantern
March 31, 2013, 02:24 PM
I live under the "your rights end where my nose begins" way of thinking. And generally that puts me more times than not in the republican camp, but it doesn't make me one nor does it make me a dem or lib.

I try to live in a way that doesn't directly effect the lives of other people in a way they wouldn't approve of. And in general the laws work that way. If you bother other people your rights are taken away. Crash into somebody.....right to a car taken away. Use a gun in ways that infringe on others' way of life...right to a gun taken away. Take away somebody's right to live.....life taken away.

Soooo.... when people are using votes to take away my right to choose to have a firearm I start thinking its time they have that vote taken away. Use your vote to ban the right to firearms for yourself. Not to take away to the choice from law abiding citizens you've never met or even know at all.


Yes, I fully understand it's a simple...maybe overly simple way of thinking.

eye5600
March 31, 2013, 03:22 PM
I've thought about some of these issues in terms of utility functions. The term arises out of philosophy and economics. It just means that each person assigns a value to things. The value is not a money number, necessarily, but more like a degree of importance.

So most people on THR assign a high value to the right to own guns, the right to use guns is self-defense. People on the other side assign a negligible value to these things. If they had the opportunity to obtain a gun for free, they wouldn't take it. It's worthless to them.

All that is pretty obvious, but take it one more step. When the gun control advocates ask you to give up your guns, they don't think they are asking for much, because they think they are asking you to give up something of no value. When you object, they really don't understand why you are being so stubborn about something so useless (as they see it).

Double Naught Spy
March 31, 2013, 03:28 PM
To not accept this, after being presented with logical and historical proof is either lazy (shirking a social responsibility placed on them by thousands of years of human behavior, i.e. SELF DEFENSE), or, and I hate to say it, COWARDICE. Do we dare utter that word in this day of social advancement, our peaceful and utopian society notwithstanding? I am preparing my discussions, debates, and arguments to include the words "ignorant, delusional, lazy, and coward" when countering liberal, anti-gun arguments. The words accurately describe citizens that ignore facts, neglect the social DUTY of self defense and defense of others, erroneously conclude that the police can thwart violent crime, and that new laws will miraculously save everyone (when the old laws failed so miserably for some reason). I have tried to avoid name calling, but perhaps the two by four to the head approach with strong, but accurate, words is now the way to go. Coddling those who continue to ignore such obvious truths just isn't working. Most of the liberals I've encountered do not give the matter deep thought, or try to understand the issues, they just "adopt" the rhetoric. That is no longer acceptable.

First of all, to claim the moral high ground of trying to avoid name calling and then blatantly start name calling is pretty disingenuous. The "facts" that you claim are quite subject to interpretation even if they are accurate, assuming that you are not actually confusing "facts" with "data" and "interpretation."

Based on your claims, I am not sure if you understand the meanings of lazy and coward. One thing fairly clear cut about many of the anti-gun groups, especially the Brady campaign is that they are anything but lazy. As for calling them cowards, you have no basis for it.

It is interesting that you seem to be demanding that your opposition suffer the wrath of your words for their acceptance of what you feel is wrong, but you would apparently be quite content if they adopted your rhetoric, which would make them just as guilty of the sins you are claiming they have committed for the views they currently support.

Pretty much by the time you resort to personal attacks and name calling, you have already lost the fight for the salient issue at hand and you are now fighting for ego.

SharpsDressedMan
March 31, 2013, 06:01 PM
Frank, I might be out of line, but your light handed approach hasn't gotten the pro-gun movement in San Fancisco or CA too far. Perhaps standing on the truth and calling the anti's what they are will get them to back off, or, less likely, take a good hard look at what they are really made of. As far as devout passivism, I'm afraid many subscribers are also cowards. Those cowards have found a cute concept to hide behind. I have no problem with cowards, ignorant people, or lazy people until they start puffing themselves up as something else, and start tramping of the rights of people who DO understand the ways of the world, are NOT lazy, and who WOULD stand up armed against armed aggression. They do not have to follow our lead, just keep out of the way.

oldbear
March 31, 2013, 06:18 PM
SharpsDressedMan, why bother to even try and change the minds of folks who have all ready made up their mind, it makes no sense to even try. Now the group we want to concentrate on is the huge mid ground, the folks who have little if any interest in guns and additional gun control. Do your best to show these people that we are a sane and well reasoned adults who happen to enjoy a unique hobby.

Everyone, please remember that the "silent majority" are the ones who's help we need to win this war.

leadcounsel
March 31, 2013, 06:32 PM
These situations fall into a few categories and people are driven by either emotion or reason.

1. Intelligent/thoughtful/reasoning people that simply have not thought about this issue, and who can be swayed through patient, reason and logic and experience. Gradual facts, reason, and taking this group shooting will one day sway them. I have swayed lots of these people over to the pro-gun side.

2. Intelligent/reasoning people who have made up their mind to be anti-gun. Can never sway this group and it's a waste of time to try. They have their views based in their own brand of logic, and nothing will sway them.

3. Stupid people who are ruled by emotion who are anti-gun. Again, this group won't change unless something changes their emotion. For instance, THEY are afraid and decide they need a gun. I have someone close to me that is this way. Anti-gun as long as I've known her; now suddenly due to the economic and other uncertainties in the last few years, she wants a gun.

You then either have to decide whether to continue to invest time in the lost relationships, or cut ties. Being attacked at every meeting is no fun. You can agree to not talk about these topics, but they always seem to come up.

Twmaster
March 31, 2013, 06:57 PM
Sharps, while I applaud your efforts to sway these people, I also think the way you are going about it is a waste of time.

It's kinda like putting lipstick on a pig. It won't make the pig any purdier and it's guaranteed to piss off the pig.

beatledog7
March 31, 2013, 07:11 PM
I posted: Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice.
Those traits are common in enemies of liberty and freedom generally, not just of RKBA.

And Frank responded: I dare say that such traits are not exclusive, on an individual basis, to those with whom we have political or social disagreements. Demonizing out of hand our political and social opponent diminishes us and impairs our effectiveness.

I did not demonize any social or political opponent of gun owners. I made a point about "enemies of liberty and freedom generally," a point I stand by.

Yes, these traits are also fairly common among those who claim to love freedom and liberty. But in my experience, a person who wants to kill 2A is a almost always person who wants more and more of our lives to be controlled by government rather by our own choices.

76shuvlinoff
March 31, 2013, 07:57 PM
A couple months ago my siblings with spouses in tow met to settle my fathers estate, "estate" here meaning the few meager possessions if a life long blue collar child of the depression.

After the official drudgery was out of the way we had a few drinks and the topic turned to politics and gun control. One of my sis-in-laws is a vocal Liberal and fueled by wine she made a few statements I swear were to incite a reaction, the whole family knows I admire, own, and use firearms plus detest the current administration.

The table went silent and several were looking at me expecting me to launch.. and I was very near to doing just that. Instead I took a sip of my whiskey leaned forward and in a low voice said, "We'll just agree to disagree on that." then I smiled at her. It took all the fight out of the equation and even brought some laughter.

Both my parents are gone now, this is my family. I am not going to generate damage there even if I didn't initiate it.

.

heeler
March 31, 2013, 08:00 PM
SDM,
I agree with a lot of things you stated in your original post on this subject.
I would also like to say from my point of view most liberals I have known are generally well educated and for the most part have seen little to no violence directed against them and except on the news,which happens to all those other people out there.
Most I have spoken to never even had a fight growing up as a male which was quite common for those going through their teens in the 50's,60's,and 70's.
Most do not own guns,hunt,or even know the basics in self defense or self preservation except on how to call 911.

I find it most difficult to even try reasoning with these people because I have grown up from the school of hard knocks and just cannot see their foggy way of Shangra La thinking.
They have never walked in my shoes and I wont even wear their shoes.

Averageman
March 31, 2013, 08:08 PM
I would avoid them Kharma has a way of making all things right.
Eventually they will se the light, but it may take a very harmful experiance for them to learn that how they live and think is wrong.
I have learned to walk away from arguing with a fool, let them be foolish and arguing with them only brings you down to their level.
Sometimes it hurts to cut the ties with family, but if they see the light, they can always appolgise and come back.

Vern Humphrey
March 31, 2013, 08:10 PM
Most of the opposition have no interest in firearms, do not practice any pro-active awareness in self protection (often indicating that is what laws and the police are FOR),
Perhaps you can explain the logical fallacy of supporting violations of the highest law of the land -- the Constitution -- and expecting the law to protect you.

labhound
March 31, 2013, 08:29 PM
SharpsDressedMan with your relatives and other anti-gun types, you're batteling the "crap always happens to someone else, not me" attitude and the nanny state philosophy that "someone else will take care of me". Until something does happen to them and no one arrives soon enough to save their butt, you're wasting your time trying to change their minds.

Frank Ettin
April 1, 2013, 12:49 AM
....Perhaps standing on the truth and calling the anti's what they are will get them to back off, or, less likely, take a good hard look at what they are really made of....Do you have a scintilla of evidence to support that conjecture? You're welcome to your opinions, but you've never given me any reason to pay attention to your opinions.

SharpsDressedMan
April 1, 2013, 02:01 PM
Frank, you should know your anti-gun co-inhabitants of San Francisco. If you haven't broken them down as to what makes them that way, give me some of their names and addresses and I'll speak to them, and try to figure out which of the three, or what combination of, ignorant, lazy, or cowardly they are. I have another theory about people I'll share with you. Whenever people are jerks, confuse me, or try to intimidate me, etc, I look at them and try to imagine what they would have been like at around 7-8 years old on the playground. Did they share? Did they boast? Did they act tough? Were they quiet, or anti-social? Did they get off on "show and tell"? People really aren't that much more sophisticated than what they were as kids. Meanwhile, Frank, sorry that you live in one of the most restrictive states in the Union. I think the stress of that is making you a bit touchy. I would not be as condescending if MY state had sunk into hopeless socialism.

Walkalong
April 1, 2013, 02:22 PM
I cannot see where this is relevant or on topic for GGD.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lazy, Igonorant, Cowardly: Diagnostic Analysis, or Name Calling?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!