2A fence sitters.


PDA






xxjumbojimboxx
August 15, 2013, 01:17 AM
In another thread I mentioned the possibility of 2A fence sitters. That thread was closed because it became immature and pointless(not involving this topic). But I think that this needs to be brought up. It seems that there are people in this community who think the American people don't tend to sit on the fence about this issue. And they seemed to back it up with "The people I know..." and so on and so forth. Well... I'd like to assign a homework project for you guys... Because I know the fence sitters are everywhere. If you get the chance to meet someone new, and they don't really have a stance on gun ownership. DO US ALL A FAVOR. take that person to the range with you and let them shoot your guns. Do so everytime you get the chance. One, So you can get one step closer to having told the truth as you've almost certainly turned a fence sitter into a pro 2A or at least leaning that way. And 2 it simply helps the cause.



THANKS! :) KEEP SHOOTING!

If you enjoyed reading about "2A fence sitters." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
August 15, 2013, 11:49 PM
It seems that there are people in this community who think the American people don't tend to sit on the fence about this issue.

This is going to sound like a loaded statement, but no reasonable person doesn't realize that there are many many people who are sitting on the fence on the RKBA issue that we need to reach. THR's mission is to reach out to those people by providing a website that shows gunowners as respectable trustworthy people instead of the crazed homicidal loons they paint us as being.

xxjumbojimboxx
August 16, 2013, 12:03 AM
That's what someone was trying to say in that thread about ted nugent that got closed. I was almost shocked when I saw it.. that's why I wanted to bring attention to the fact they they do exist, and they are actually the majority.

AKElroy
August 16, 2013, 11:17 AM
That's what someone was trying to say in that thread about ted nugent that got closed. I was almost shocked when I saw it.. that's why I wanted to bring attention to the fact they they do exist, and they are actually the majority.


If it is the thread I participated in, I am glad to have an opportunity to clarify the point I am trying to make. I do believe that there is a large number of folks that simply do not have any opinion on issues surrounding RKBA, and I believe a strong, vocal, principled stance is the only way to reach them. How that thread, if it is the one you are referencing, got off track was with regard to committed anti RKBA activists being a target for our evangelical efforts through mild language, striving diligently not to offend, looking for ways to water down the message to make it more acceptably "mainstream". I could not be more opposed to that notion. First, I think that arguing with the committed left is a very inefficient place for us to spread the word. There are too many other issues that the committed, organized left have in addition to gun control that are simply not likely to be surrendered. To convince a strongly political idealogical leftist to support a pro RKBA candidate, these activist would have to support folks that in all likelihood would also be opposed to social issues they view as sacred.

To seek language that waters down the core of our arguments in order to not offend these folks I think is both counter productive, and in fact, impossible. Some folks find political advantage in expressing offense and finding it wherever they look. These are not the folks I believe we can effectively sway, but rather they are opponents that must be defeated.

The folks that are undecided or apathetic are another story. I believe a strongly spoken defense of RKBA on ideological grounds is the best possible way to convince these undecideds, as well as excite the base of RKBA supporters that for whatever reason are not engaged in the political process. I believe that a watered down message that seeks to not offend the committed left actually PUSHES THESE reachable folks AWAY.

In short, lets stop pretending that we can convert the loony birds on the extreme left with a compromised effort, and stick to our guns with a powerful, ideological message THAT WILL appeal to the broad masses of the uncommitted as well as the politically inactive gun owners among us.

Rand Paul is being extremely well received by a broad swath of young voters. It has been a long time since we have had a strongly principled message so publicly proclaimed, and look at the early success he is enjoying in the very demographic that we MUST capture in order to move forward.

Sam1911
August 16, 2013, 11:25 AM
<Let's leave the subject of the closed thread to rest there. Thanks.>

X-Rap
August 16, 2013, 11:39 AM
Fence sitters are easily swayed one way or the other and usually without much real factual information. There is much bad information out here either misunderstood or outright lies and truth and reason will usually win the day over knee jerk feelings.
So many now days are conditioned to PC feel good reactions that all the facts in the world won't help, I say pass them by if they won't listen to reason and maybe somewhere down the road something will jar their "feelings" enough to put them on the right track.
We need some people who will set their hair on fire just to counter the opposition who has no problem making mountains out of mole hills. Case in point, recent rodeo clowns actions and the reaction of the left.

Outlaw Man
August 23, 2013, 04:46 PM
While I don't always advertise it, I have a standing invitation to anyone who has never shot a gun to take them to a range and supply the gun, some ammo, and some basic safety lessons/training, all expenses paid by me.

For those who have been shooting before and are still fence sitters, I'll gladly carry on reasonable discussions with them. I don't pry or push much, because it tends to work against us.

Officers'Wife
August 23, 2013, 08:54 PM
In another thread I mentioned the possibility of 2A fence sitters. That thread was closed because it became immature and pointless(not involving this topic). But I think that this needs to be brought up. It seems that there are people in this community who think the American people don't tend to sit on the fence about this issue. And they seemed to back it up with "The people I know..." and so on and so forth. Well... I'd like to assign a homework project for you guys... Because I know the fence sitters are everywhere. If you get the chance to meet someone new, and they don't really have a stance on gun ownership. DO US ALL A FAVOR. take that person to the range with you and let them shoot your guns. Do so everytime you get the chance. One, So you can get one step closer to having told the truth as you've almost certainly turned a fence sitter into a pro 2A or at least leaning that way. And 2 it simply helps the cause.



THANKS! :) KEEP SHOOTING!
There are people "sitting on the fence" with all civil rights. Trading privacy for "security", the fourth amendment for "proactive crime control" etc etc etc. I've seen a former gun owner that were perfectly happy with background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals only to discover that a misdemeanor battery in ancient times made him one of the criminals. The 2nd amendment is like virginity, once compromised it is no more. Once the right was infringed under the "due process" clause it became meaningless. All we are left with is to negotiate what we can receive in exchange for what is left.

hso
August 24, 2013, 11:34 AM
Officer's Wife,

My wife and I were discussing the seizures in California and the point of not knowing you were a prohibited person until the seizure. The people only find out there is some vaguly remembered crime that makes them a prohibited person when the state showed up and seized their property without warning and without any opportunity to dispose of their property without total loss.

Those examples help fence sitters open up to a discussion of 2A issues when they can be shown that some small issue in the past (pleaing down to what an attorney tells them is a trivial charge instead of fighting through a costly trial or some minor drug charge or a false accusation from a disgruntled breakup) can make them the equivalent to a violent criminal in the eyes of the state.

1911Tuner
August 24, 2013, 03:22 PM
Fence sitters are more numerous than either side of the fight...and they're probably our greatest threat because they're mostly uninterested...so they don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. In short, as long as they get to keep their big screens and their SUVs and their Sunday Tickets...they couldn't care less whether 2A stays or goes.

Because guns don't interest them, and they're not concerned with anything that doesn't interest them...nor would they bother to take the time and effort to attend a 2A support rally...or probably even to respond to a poll. But, let a town ordnance banning backyard cookouts take effect, and they'd be screaming from the rooftops.

Oh, many of them feel that we have the right to keep and bear hunting rifles and shotguns because hunting is an American tradition, but...you know...nobody needs a 30-shot bullet clip...or a handgun...or a .50 caliber rifle.

And they might even agree that we should be able to keep a pistol around the house for self defense, but only in the home and only if the gun and ammunition are locked up.

But try to engage this type in a meaningful conversation about 2A and watch him start to fidget and glance at his watch every few seconds.

Because he'd rather talk about football or his latest promotion...because those are the things that interest him.

The other threat from the uninterested comes from those who will vote for the anti-2A candidate because he promised them something that they're keenly interested in...like free stuff and same sex marriage and late-term abortion and cell phones. They'll vote for that guy if he even HINTS at supporting any of that stuff.

Those are the ones that we have to worry about...and they don't have time to hear our arguments because...you know...they gotta go catch the game or get to a cookout or happy hour.

And people just don't tend to get fired up over things that don't interest them.

xxjumbojimboxx
August 24, 2013, 03:35 PM
Fence sitters are more numerous than either side of the fight...and they're probably our greatest threat because they're mostly uninterested...so they don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. In short, as long as they get to keep their big screens and their SUVs and their Sunday Tickets...they couldn't care less whether 2A stays or goes.

Because guns don't interest them, and they're not concerned with anything that doesn't interest them...nor would they bother to take the time and effort to attend a 2A support rally...or probably even to respond to a poll. But, let a town ordnance banning backyard cookouts take effect, and they'd be screaming from the rooftops.

Oh, many of them feel that we have the right to keep and bear hunting rifles and shotguns because hunting is an American tradition, but...you know...nobody needs a 30-shot bullet clip...or a handgun...or a .50 caliber rifle.

And they might even agree that we should be able to keep a pistol around the house for self defense, but only in the home and only if the gun and ammunition are locked up.

But try to engage this type in a meaningful conversation about 2A and watch him start to fidget and glance at his watch every few seconds.

Because he'd rather talk about football or his latest promotion...because those are the things that interest him.

The other threat from the uninterested comes from those who will vote for the anti-2A candidate because he promised them something that they're keenly interested in...like free stuff and same sex marriage and late-term abortion and cell phones. They'll vote for that guy if he even HINTS at supporting any of that stuff.

Those are the ones that we have to worry about...and they don't have time to hear our arguments because...you know...they gotta go catch the game or get to a cookout or happy hour.

And people just don't tend to get fired up over things that don't interest them.
That post just made me a little sad. Because it's so true....

X-Rap
August 24, 2013, 04:15 PM
I think the recent revelations about the NSA, IRS and other gov agency info gathering and spying is having a bigger impact on changing peoples attitudes regarding individual freedoms than most anything else. The last decade + have been years in which even the most ambivalent of us can recognize that our gov has grown and is ever trying to curtail individual freedoms.
The Iphone generation is quickly coming to understand that the privacy they once thought they had is nothing but an illusion and with any luck will see that all individual freedoms are worth protecting and fighting for. Getting those who claim to be independents and libertarian in their views especially the young voters will further our cause.

AlexanderA
August 24, 2013, 05:05 PM
1911Tuner wrote:

And people just don't tend to get fired up over things that don't interest them.

That's exactly right. But it's far more of a problem for the antis than for the supporters of the RTKBA. Very few people have a vested interest in banning guns. The gun banners have emotional, but transitory, support. But gun owners have a vested interest in keeping their guns. You're always going to have intensity of commitment favoring the pro-gun side. There are a lot more single-issue voters on the pro-gun side than on the antigun side. Politicians fear single-issue voters above all else.

1911Tuner
August 24, 2013, 05:20 PM
But it's far more of a problem for the antis than for the supporters of the RTKBA. Very few people have a vested interest in banning guns.

Again...the rabid antis aren't the concern. It's the ones who are promised things that they want by the ban-happy politician that are the threat. As long as he supports their pet cause...or claims to...they couldn't give a rotund rodent's rump what he does on the gun question. They far outnumber both sides of the 2A debate. Those are the ones that we can't out vote.

X-Rap
August 24, 2013, 05:27 PM
Tuner you have described the Colorado voter that has caused so much grief with the results of the last election here.
Those who wish to consider themselves socialy with it rarely will pick the 2a over their progresive wants.

AlexanderA
August 25, 2013, 09:21 AM
The process that 1911Tuner describes (non-gun people voting for antigun politicians because of other, mostly economic, concerns) is due to the gun issue becoming identified exclusively with the respective parties (Republicans being seen as pro-gun and Democrats antigun). There used to be, for example, plenty of blue-collar, pro-union, economically progressive voters who were staunchly pro-gun. Polarization and ideological "sorting" has diminished this.

Traditionally, the NRA supported pro-gun politicians regardless of party. (Michigan Democrat and longtime congressman John Dingell was even on the NRA board of directors at one time.) This was the sort of coalition-building that worked. Now, however, the NRA is in danger of becoming a mere arm of the Republican Party. This will not bode well in the long run.

hso
August 25, 2013, 09:44 AM
Agreed, but they've also been criticised for supporting non-GOP politicians by party ideologues (well, mostly anti-Democrat ideologues).

What we need is a focus not on party identification and instead a focus on those people that have driven AR and ammunition sales to an all time high. Many of them had only a passing interest in actually paying for an AR or any firearm and suddenly realized that there were forces at work to deny them the ability to own them. Those folks were not committed to the Antis or the RKBA supporters, but they now have "skin in the game" and they have a much better chance to be reached.

In this sense they're like the people with a growing interest in defending pits because they've seen the cable shows defending pits and they've developed an interest or actually rescued one. They have skin in the game, or are at least interested, and are more open to persuasion. They might be a minority, but they can add to our numbers and each pocket with a shared interest further benefits our cause as we find common ground to engage them as allies. Even if all of us added together are still in the minority by being active we make for a louder voice than the indifferent.

X-Rap
August 25, 2013, 11:29 AM
With the mention of John Dingle I have to ask just who left who? I'll add a few more name off the top of my head, John McCain, Harry Reid. There are many more who have turned from the support of gun owners and taken a much more fruitful path toward social, and economic progressive stances.
I personally don't care what came first or who is to blame and these non gun topics are forbidden so the whole discussion will only be 1/2 debated. The fact remains that today there are two parties and each one pretty much identifies with on side or the other and politicians opposing the party line are allowed that luxury until their vote is needed. This however seems a bit one sided as well and that stacks against the 2a IMO.

Queen_of_Thunder
August 25, 2013, 12:57 PM
Win the soccer mom and you win the war.

another pake
August 25, 2013, 01:10 PM
There are a lot of good things to think about here, but with all sincerity, I see this as a time of great opportunity to not only protect and advance the cause of second amendment rights, but also to bring attention to the larger group of equally important Constitutionally protected rights that are being nibbled away.

Let's be honest. Most of us are fence sitters about some things. And most of us are fervent supporters of others. But in my view more and more people are at least becoming aware of the infringements that are occurring. Lot's of people nowadays are talking about their concerns over the government's methods for collecting information, conducting clandestine operations on foreign soil, the use of government/OUR monies/ to bail out some business sectors and so forth. All of those people are our potential allies, regardless of their party affiliations.

I am certain that more people are becoming involved because I can see the results. A quick Google search asking, "how many CC permits in XX state" will yield pleasantly surprising results. The dramatic uptick in the last year is very encouraging.

I believe we need to continue to talk about these things with ALL of our allies, whether they be members of the public or are publicly elected representatives who currently embrace 2nd amendment issues or not. And I think that we need to speak up and continue to encourage others to do so about every area of infringement, 2nd right or any right. Our hot button issue or not. They're all ours to lose.

Deer_Freak
August 25, 2013, 03:43 PM
For me personally, I have a hard time bringing the RKBA discussion to someone who lives in a suburb and doesn't hunt. They think help will be there in just a second if they dial 911. They don't want to feel guilty because they haven't taken the time to learn to defend their family. By denying the need for a gun they let themselves off the hook.

beatledog7
August 25, 2013, 04:17 PM
Every issue has fence sitters, and RKBA is no exception. I know people who sit the fence on just about every notably controversial issue; they try not to offend anyone by simply not taking a position--on anything! A person who steers clear of offending anyone as a guiding principle of life is not going to take any position on RKBA, let alone support it.

Getting a devout sitter to come down off the fence to stand on either side is always tough. In my experience, it takes an "event" involving that person directly to hold any sway.

Officers'Wife
August 25, 2013, 06:27 PM
Every issue has fence sitters, and RKBA is no exception. I know people who sit the fence on just about every notably controversial issue; they try not to offend anyone by simply not taking a position--on anything! A person who steers clear of offending anyone as a guiding principle of life is not going to take any position on RKBA, let alone support it.

Getting a devout sitter to come down off the fence to stand on either side is always tough. In my experience, it takes an "event" involving that person directly to hold any sway.
My uncle used to tell me of a bird called a mugwhump that would sit on a fence with it's mug on one side and it's whump on the other. The species is extinct now because it was always getting caught in the crossfire.

The fence sitters just need to be shown that the problem of the moment can and will effect them in a negative manner. You see, my uncle also used to tell me that even the most gentle dog will tear your arm off if abused beyond a certain point. You just need to convince them someone else is planning to go to that point.

Walkalong
September 3, 2013, 11:07 AM
Win the soccer mom and you win the war.There is a lot of truth to this, and follows what 1911 tuner has posted. We have to reach the fence sitters. And as hso so aptly pointed out, we need to do it without following a party line. We must reach people on both sides of the spectrum. We have allies on both sides in congress and we have voters on both sides that are neutral on 2A items.

As posted, they are not really interested in the 2A like we are and can be swayed to vote on anti 2A measure or vote for an anti politician simply because they are promising something they are interested in.

We must find ways to influence the fence sitters in being concerned about 2A issues enough that they at least notice them and take them into consideration when voting on issues or for candidates.

The neutral voters so outnumber us it isn't funny, and both sides need them desperately. Right now many anti gun politicians are swaying them with promises of goodies or half truths on 2A issues. If we can educate more people about 2A issues we have a better chance of them baulking when these politicians feed them a line of BS.

How exactly to do this is a main reason for the activism forum, and where we can come up with not only solid ideas, but a sound plan to carry it out.

We face a tough battle, and when we alienate one side or the other we make it even tougher. Go after antis, no matter which side of the isle they are on.

X-Rap
September 4, 2013, 02:28 PM
If the fence sitters can understand individual rights as spelled out in the founding documents then they can and should be looked to with respect. If their idea of an individual right is that of the modern contrived right to choose, right to living wage, right to cell phone or internet, health care, college education, food, shelter the list goes on and on they can never have a place around our fire because they will be prone to bolt and run when the chips are down and another carrot is dangled in their faces. Those people's votes are for sale and if it takes the purchase of it to give us peace then I hope we never have it.

Pizzapinochle
September 4, 2013, 09:28 PM
jhco50, your second post makes a lot more sense. The balance of power between executive/legislative/judicial branches is constantly changing and shifting, and it goes through cycles. The most egregious abuse of executive power (in my opinion) was during the 1940s. There have been ups and downs since the founding.

I just reacted to you throwing out "dictatorship."

Things dictators don't do:

Voluntarily step down from power, as every US president has done (with slight debate regarding FDR)
Ask a legislative body for permission to assign ppl i their own gov't (Dept. of Labor Head and EPA were held up for months)
Put up with any sort of interference from any sort of legislative body at all (like, congress, for example)
Put up with any sort of interference from a judicial branch (like the SCOTUS)


Point is... Ys, you can make the argument that the balance of power has shifted too far toward the executive branch. But the current systme is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far away from anything resembling a dictatorship that throwing the term out there is like saying "the end of the world is coming!!" because the sun will explode in a billion years (ok... That was a little hyperbole on my part.... But you get the point).

princessmantik
September 4, 2013, 09:40 PM
I speak very openly about how important legal gun ownership is here in NYC. It causes quite a bit of opposition from some of my acquaintances. I couldn't care less. My parents live in South Ga with quite a bit of land around them. Intruders could easily harm or kill people that live in these areas , if they were not armed. My father, grandfather, and all my relatives owned firearms. I felt safe knowing this as a child . I'm tired of people who are insulated in high rise buildings, and gated communities trying to tell everyone how they should live. People that live in New York ,and other big cities need to hear the truth. I feel that it is important to speak the truth, even if that means I am not as well liked by some people. I really believe in self defense through the 2nd ammendment.

hso
September 4, 2013, 11:54 PM
Lets stay on focus here and not get off on other political topics since they'll just be removed.

Pizzapinochle
September 5, 2013, 08:08 AM
HSO,

Sorry, i should have connected that to the original topic, it was in my head, not on the screen.

If you want to influence/talk to ppl on the fence, don't use hyperbolic language like "The US is becoming a dictatorship!" Because we are not and every knows it. If you look at the NRA facebook page it is full of people spewing that Obama is a criminal tyrant overlord with a hidden UN-Islamic army that is going to invade the US and make Obama dictator.

THAT is why pro-gun folks end up with a bad rap as conspiracy theorist loons. Soccer moms, as someone mentioned earlier, are not going to respond to that kind of over blown, shock value rhetoric that is more doomsday fantasy than fact.

You CAN talk about the executive branch gaining too much power and the need for our locally elected representatives to maintain influence in the gov't. But, once the word "dictator" or other dramatic hyperbole comes out, a lot of people will tune you out.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 08:09 AM
We must find ways to influence the fence sitters in being concerned about 2A issues enough that they at least notice them and take them into consideration when voting on issues or for candidates.

The neutral voters so outnumber us it isn't funny, and both sides need them desperately. Right now many anti gun politicians are swaying them with promises of goodies or half truths on 2A issues. If we can educate more people about 2A issues we have a better chance of them baulking when these politicians feed them a line of BS.

How exactly to do this is a main reason for the activism forum, and where we can come up with not only solid ideas, but a sound plan to carry it out.

We face a tough battle, and when we alienate one side or the other we make it even tougher. Go after antis, no matter which side of the isle they are on.

One problem is, after many years of surfing and posting on "gun" boards, seeing the behaviors, suspicions and downright hostility of a few of the so called pro-gun people I've come to the conclusion that firearm ownership should be controlled by a test of mental stability. Persons that leap on a premise and sprawl to conclusion then vehemently demand that conclusion be respected on the anti side is far less threatening to the safety of my children than those on the pro side that also imply they will "protect" themselves on the basis of those rushed conclusions with deadly violence.

Keep in mind that I believe in a strict 18th century interpretation of the Constitution yet having observed the personalities have reached that conclusion. How would the mother who has had the 'government knows best' kool-aid react? The pro-gun advocates are their own worst enemy.

TRX
September 5, 2013, 08:23 AM
Coming up with a "test of mental stability" would be quite a trick.

If I'm testing, everyone who disagrees with me is unstable...

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 01:13 PM
Coming up with a "test of mental stability" would be quite a trick.

If I'm testing, everyone who disagrees with me is unstable...
While I agree in principle, the attitudes found on four different gun boards have convinced me free access without a lot more oversight than at present is less than desirable.

X-Rap
September 5, 2013, 01:24 PM
I've come to the conclusion that firearm ownership should be controlled by a test of mental stability.
Keep in mind that I believe in a strict 18th century interpretation of the Constitution yet having observed the personalities have reached that conclusion.
While I agree in principle, the attitudes found on four different gun boards have convinced me free access without a lot more oversight than at present is less than desirable.

Fence sitter

Sam1911
September 5, 2013, 01:24 PM
While I agree in principle, the attitudes found on four different gun boards have convinced me free access without a lot more oversight than at present is less than desirable.

Everyone's entitled by the very freedoms recognized in the founding of our nation to:

1) Hold whatever beliefs and opinions they desire.
2) Express those opinions and beliefs publicly.
3) Own and bear arms.

Whatever dangers you, or any of us, may feel are represented by these rights, the very wise and incredibly well learned men who developed our Constitution knew that those dangers pale in importance compared to the necessity of free citizens having those rights.

It is important to think about what that really means, in all of its fullness, and to keep that understanding in the forefront of our minds when we consider dictating, dreaming about, or proposing public policies.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 02:02 PM
Fence sitter
Realist, there are those that could mount a heavy machine gun in the bed of their pick up and I wouldn't give them a second look. There are others I get nervous when they pick of a butter knife. The latter should be culled.

Sam1911
September 5, 2013, 02:04 PM
The latter should be culled.OMG. Did you mean to say that? :uhoh:

Trunk Monkey
September 5, 2013, 02:06 PM
Realist, there are those that could mount a heavy machine gun in the bed of their pick up and I wouldn't give them a second look. There are others I get nervous when they pick of a butter knife. The latter should be culled.

I am the only one on this forum Pro-Fessional enuff.... BOOM.

You're either pro rights or you're pro control

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 02:09 PM
I stayed on the farm too long.


According to Rousseau the only office of government is to maintain a peaceful society. Those who's first and preferred method of dealing with problems is violence cannot be allowed tools of violence if that society is to be maintained. Keep in mind that Rousseau's "Social Contract" was one of the bases of philosophy used to design the Constitution.

Trunk Monkey
September 5, 2013, 02:12 PM
I agree that there are people that I would be gravely concerned about if I saw them with a gun (the guy from my thread for instance) but as soon as you start setting the bar it’s a short step to the bar being set so high no one gets to have a gun.
I’m OK with removing by due process of law the rights of those who have demonstrated a criminal misuse of firearms but that’s punishing a specific behavior not an entire class (people I don’t think are qualified)

HoosierQ
September 5, 2013, 04:39 PM
It is so true that so many of these fence sitters (middle of the roaders with regard to RKBA) will vote for a candidate because of other planks in their platform. However I think we can assume that many of the folks in this category would vote for the right side of the aisle type of candidate.

What seems to me to be wonky today is how gun control became a right or left issue! There have been anti-gun people for the entire 20th century. Some of them live today. But it seems to me that in the early and middle of the 20th century these anti-gun sentiments would have been entirely independent of party affiliation...because let's face it, one really needs to be affiliated with one of the two parties to get elected. Somehow RKBA has gotten alligned with all the other "right wing" issues. Anti-RKBA alligned with the left. Now of course that's not 100% even today.

In my last election, all my candidate except one were dead-even on RKBA. My governors were both NRA=A. My Senators were both NRA=A. My Presidents, despite the endorsements, were both NRA=F. But this is Indiana.

It seems to me that somehow, we need to find a way to win over some real for sure hard core lefties to RKBA. So not the middle roaders at all. Some of these lefties (surely) are just going along on RKBA with their fellows. Now remember, I said lefties, NOT anti-gunners. The hard core anti gunners are out of reach. But the lefty type folks the really care about this or that or the other thing...but not the gun thing. Some of these folks are about freedom of this or that. Well a gun is a good way to preserve freedom. Some of these folks are against totalitarian police states (yes them too)...a gun is a good remedy for that. Some of these lefties are against violence against this or that group...well effective self defense is just that...and you really need a gun for that! Presumably not all of these lefties are adherents to Ghandi...and would protect themselves and their families against whatever threats they perceive.

It seems to me that while we do need to get all the less-than-enthused-about-guns people to vote for the default position (the 2nd), we really need to get some otherwise leftie folks to divorce RKBA from the other lefty issues.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 05:29 PM
It is so true that so many of these fence sitters (middle of the roaders with regard to RKBA) will vote for a candidate because of other planks in their platform. However I think we can assume that many of the folks in this category would vote for the right side of the aisle type of candidate.

What seems to me to be wonky today is how gun control became a right or left issue! There have been anti-gun people for the entire 20th century. Some of them live today. But it seems to me that in the early and middle of the 20th century these anti-gun sentiments would have been entirely independent of party affiliation...because let's face it, one really needs to be affiliated with one of the two parties to get elected. Somehow RKBA has gotten alligned with all the other "right wing" issues. Anti-RKBA alligned with the left. Now of course that's not 100% even today.

In my last election, all my candidate except one were dead-even on RKBA. My governors were both NRA=A. My Senators were both NRA=A. My Presidents, despite the endorsements, were both NRA=F. But this is Indiana.

It seems to me that somehow, we need to find a way to win over some real for sure hard core lefties to RKBA. So not the middle roaders at all. Some of these lefties (surely) are just going along on RKBA with their fellows. Now remember, I said lefties, NOT anti-gunners. The hard core anti gunners are out of reach. But the lefty type folks the really care about this or that or the other thing...but not the gun thing. Some of these folks are about freedom of this or that. Well a gun is a good way to preserve freedom. Some of these folks are against totalitarian police states (yes them too)...a gun is a good remedy for that. Some of these lefties are against violence against this or that group...well effective self defense is just that...and you really need a gun for that! Presumably not all of these lefties are adherents to Ghandi...and would protect themselves and their families against whatever threats they perceive.

It seems to me that while we do need to get all the less-than-enthused-about-guns people to vote for the default position (the 2nd), we really need to get some otherwise leftie folks to divorce RKBA from the other lefty issues.
Hi Hoosier,

It wasn't gun control that gained Donnelly a Senate seat. Which has been the Republican's Achilles's heel since ancient times. Politics aside, everytime there is an 'event' the pro side goes into defense mode that quickly turns aggressive the moment the first cry for more control comes up. After the last school shooting there was some of the most idiotic statements made on a New England board by the pro side that I've ever had the misfortune to read. The anti - gun side has general plans for after a shooting, I sometimes wonder if they are rehearsed. The pro side just responds with the same old arguments that make that planning all the more easier. If not for Gottlieb and the SAF I honestly believe we would have had another 'assault weapons' ban.

Bottom line, one side is proposing an answer to a very real problem. Not a good answer but an answer. All the other side is offering demands of rights that are quickly turned around as perpetuating the problem.

Trunk Monkey
September 5, 2013, 05:50 PM
Bottom line, one side is proposing an answer to a very real problem. Not a good answer but an answer. All the other side is offering demands of rights that are quickly turned around as perpetuating the problem.

Angela Giron couldn't have said it any better

X-Rap
September 5, 2013, 06:05 PM
So here we have the fence sitter problem. A person who actually considers themselves pro 2a but yet proposes or at least accommodates the notion of strict controls on a personal freedom that is granted by our creator.
I personally fear some people with the right to vote as much as a crazed gunman.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 06:18 PM
Let me see, on one gun board we have a guy that when told his private messages aren't appreciated he immediately gets hostile with a "are you threatening me?" PM despite knowing such messages are not wanted.

On a second board we have a guy that in response to a quiet pass by a homosexual advises to 'shoot the pervert."

On a third board, in response to an fifteen or sixteen year old (not Travon) being shot for 'dissing' the shooter claims it's a shame both weren't killed to spare the expense of a trial.

Last, because of these and other examples a reader is convinced that perhaps not all alleged adults are responsible enough to have firearms it is implied she is somehow defective in her thinking.

It's ok, I have strong shoulders, I'll accept the blame for my response to these people's irresponsibility. I will also think of these people when measures that will keep these people from harming others are put in front of the legits.

All posturing aside, petty slams beget greater slams. I was once ask by a moderator on a board why more women didn't post. I don't recall my answer at the time but a large part of it when a concern is raised that is outside the "consensus of opinion" it's met with at best condescension and at the norm outright hostility. An internet friend of mine, a self avowed liberal shooting enthusiast, told me it wasn't just women and that men get far worse treatment. Like it or not, a verbal kick in the fanny is not going to forward your cause.

Walkalong
September 5, 2013, 06:46 PM
One problem is,What? You don't agree we need the fence sitter votes? You don't agree we need to go after anti gun politicians on both sides of the isle? You don't agree we alienate liberals if we equate liberal to anti gun, or Democrat to anti gun, instead of understanding and appreciating all the liberals and Democrats on the prop gun side?

What part of my post had anything to do with...
after many years of surfing and posting on "gun" boards, seeing the behaviors, suspicions and downright hostility of a few of the so called pro-gun people I've come to the conclusion that firearm ownership should be controlled by a test of mental stability. Persons that leap on a premise and sprawl to conclusion then vehemently demand that conclusion be respected on the anti side is far less threatening to the safety of my children than those on the pro side that also imply they will "protect" themselves on the basis of those rushed conclusions with deadly violence.

X-Rap
September 5, 2013, 06:53 PM
It always gets down to the simple questions of what is reasonable and who gets to decide.
I know of no instance in which this has turned out well and good people are granted more freedom than they had before any regulation or laws were passed.
That is the inherent flaw of the fence sitter, they believe that there is a regulatory answer to the problem of sick individuals that somehow trumps the individuals freedom. The two are like oil and water and do not mix.
Either we believe and understand that freedom has inherent dangers and live with that or we submit ourselves to the do gooders that have given us all the laws and regulation that always seem to fall just one step short of keeping us safe.
We all know of the thousands upon thousands of gun laws that have been enacted in the name of saving just one life and how far that has put us away from the freedoms Americans once enjoyed.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 07:00 PM
What? You don't agree we need the fence sitter votes? You don't agree we need to go after anti gun politicians on both sides of the isle? You don't agree we alienate liberals if we equate liberal to anti gun, or Democrat to anti gun, instead of understanding and appreciating all the liberals and Democrats on the prop gun side?

What part of my post had anything to do with...
What part is that even though the "fence sitters" are needed, nothing is done to attract them and much to alienate them. I posted that to illustrate that instead of addressing the concerns of the fence sitters on the subject, people seem intent on going out of there way to demonstrate they are in favor of the actions causing the concerns.

People have issues that concern them, some concerns are important some minor some neutral. In the case of RKBA coming off like a mild version of the mall ninja gazette is going to push people off neutral but not the direction you want. Concern about gaining support of the fence sitters? Consider answers to their concerns.

Walkalong
September 5, 2013, 09:11 PM
nothing is done to attract them and much to alienate them. If I read you correctly, you agree we need fence sitters but accuse the pro gun side of treating them poorly instead of being smart trying to win them over.

So, yes we do, but we suck at it?

OK, I certainly understand that some "pro gun" people absolutely drive fence sitters away, but I do not think we are to complain about those people, but to determine a plan to educate the folks like that, as well as the average gun owner and better attract fence sitters.

What's the plan?

Part A. Stop being stupid in how we (Some) talk to and approach fence sitters.

Part B. Care to take a stab at it?

hso
September 5, 2013, 09:14 PM
Officer's Wife,

Perhaps the better approach than conceding to emotional propaganda that people have swallowed is to respectfully debunk the lies they've been told with real studies and statistics instead. Many people are frightened into believing there's a problem that studies and data show the opposite, declining violent/gun crime in the face of increasing firearms ownership and shall issue carry.

There will always be posturing bombasts on interenet forums that color people's impression of the group just as the loud beligerant at gatherings have always colored people's impression of those groups. The problem with internet forums is the bombast's words linger on long after the echo of the loudmouth in the groups words have rung to silence.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 10:02 PM
1.) everyone has different priorities and differing ways of looking at any one situation. Explain your POV, don't condescend with something like 'you don't know because you haven't been there.'

2.) Don't treat those with differing opinions as the enemy. We all come to our own conclusions with the evidence and experiences we have gained.

3.) Probably most important are two little snippets that Sister Beatrice made me write in longhand over and over again. "As you reap, also shall you sow. " and "If you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all."

Item last.) Don't get your point across by stabbing someone with it, especially on the internet where the nuances of body language and tone cannot be transmitted. I've survived the old Yahoo boards so I'm used to statements that come off as hostile that aren't meant that way. Many newcomers, don't know the "culture" of the board and may come away with not only negative impression of the board but of the side of the question in general.

As I have said before, I've seen enough posturing on the boards I lurk and post to believe some gun control to be a positive thing. You never know how someone is going to take things posted. I would give examples from people I've chatted with but that would be counter productive.

Officers'Wife
September 5, 2013, 10:28 PM
In my experience, once people react on an emotional level it is very very hard to get them to reason and logic. And generally facts to the contrary often reinforce the emotional response. Consider this example, you have a terminally ill patient on life support begging you to let them die. But the wife/husband/sibling/child simply repeats "I can't stand to lose him/her." You can argue quality of life until the cows come home but it will only make the relative realize they have a life or death decision and their fear of death intensifies.

With firearms, especially a mother, we imagine it was our child at Beslan, Sandy Hook or Columbine. It was our child that looked down the barrel of that weapon and felt the pain of their precious body being insulted by bullets. It's instinctual, you are not going to defuse that by pointing out that the odds against your child being in that situation are astronomical because in your mind and in your heart you have 'seen' it happen. Being told it wasn't the gun after being called a 'stupid cow' is going to set it in stone.

What needs to be done is to appeal on that emotional level, my God, when that shooter came in our kid's teachers had no way to protect them because our laws ... filled in the blank... What if he (the maniac) had had gasoline bombs too, our teachers would have been helpless to stop them. etc.

Emotion appeals to emotion. The trick is to be able to turn the emotions around.

hso
September 7, 2013, 12:58 AM
Very true, but we can't police every site and every poster any more than the activist anti can blot out the most absurd and destructive poster to their cause.

We still need to reach out to the middle field and acknowledge that the poseurs and postureres will always be present in the crowd.

mljdeckard
September 7, 2013, 01:09 AM
The other night I went to a going away party for a lifelong friend who made a surprising career move. We have been friends, but in the last several years she has been so liberal she leans to the left when she walks down the street. We have had some very heated arguments over facebook, and eventually we had to call a truce and avoid some subjects. But I wanted to see her off, and she was holding a raffle. She asked me if I could donate anything to the raffle, and I said I would give a free concealed carry class for two. So I showed up, expecting to see some very granola people, I only knew a few of them. The hosts won that prize, and they told me they already have their permits, but they have friends who would like the classes, and I started a few conversations with others who are also interested.

I don't have to get them to become libertarians. I just have to get them to believe that guns aren't evil.

hso
September 7, 2013, 02:18 PM
I don't have to get them to become libertarians. I just have to get them to believe that guns aren't evil.


Yes!

xwingband
September 7, 2013, 02:35 PM
That's one side for sure... many are scared and guns are evil. Guns are mechanical and make loud noises. They are a scary thing to many.

The other I feel is related to the flight of fight reflex. The "Moms" which we've largely lost, stick to flight. As stated before they picture their child being in one of these school shootings and react emotionally in regards to the legislation. To them the idea of protecting their child in the face of an attacker is not it. They want to run and having a gun does no good.

To that education is probably best. Get them to shoot and understand being proficient enough to stop an attack is possible and they might change. They are also very hard to get out shooting though...

Officers'Wife
September 7, 2013, 03:17 PM
That's one side for sure... many are scared and guns are evil. Guns are mechanical and make loud noises. They are a scary thing to many.

The other I feel is related to the flight of fight reflex. The "Moms" which we've largely lost, stick to flight. As stated before they picture their child being in one of these school shootings and react emotionally in regards to the legislation. To them the idea of protecting their child in the face of an attacker is not it. They want to run and having a gun does no good.

To that education is probably best. Get them to shoot and understand being proficient enough to stop an attack is possible and they might change. They are also very hard to get out shooting though...
There are some Moms out that that have been helpless as they were pushed down on a pile of stinking garbage and had unspeakable violence committed on them. If presented to those Moms as tools for safety and security you are going to go a long way forward. Present it by bragging of the fights you have been in and you will go a long way backward. I've managed to soften my Illinois democrat anti-gun in laws on the idea of guns as tools simply with molasses cured venison hams on the dinner table. Enough so my mother in law not only 'allows' a black powder rifle in her house but visits with me while Dave and Dad in law are out on the deer stands. Last season she even asked if sis in law could make her a leather clutch purse like mine out of one of the hides.

As an aside, I remember when Dave talked Dad in law into some range time with his Browning. Dad in law fired one magazine, put the weapon on the bench and commented it wasn't as easy as it looked on TV.

Trying to simplify the tactics to a few words is pointless if not impossible. I guess it comes down to the old cattle country saying- wearing a big belt buckle don't make you a rodeo star, a pair of spurs don't make you a cowboy and being 21 don't make you a man. Somehow you need to include the phrase having a pistol in your hand don't make you a murderer.

hso
September 7, 2013, 05:05 PM
I teach women to shoot and I've never had one not bring another after they've learned how to protect themselves and their families with a firearm.

The idea that we've somehow "lost" moms is absurd. If you don't reach out to anyone and approach them in terms they respect then you're not going to have much luck getting them to change their minds.

Walkalong
September 7, 2013, 10:47 PM
I have taken four new to guns women to the range in the last couple of years. I keep it serious, simple, and safe. No BS stories, just cold hard facts about the responsibly of owning and using a gun. I explain the practice needed and the mind set needed to use a gun effectively, with no rosie stories where the good person can't lose.

We can and must reach people, and to think otherwise is sure defeat.

Tommygunn
September 7, 2013, 11:54 PM
I have heard from various sources that more women than ever are getting into shooting. Yes, there are the liberal women (and others) who are scared of guns and think they should be banned but they are not representative of ALL women.

Hey, my own mother was outshooting a Alabama county sheriff in the early 1950s -- before I was born -- and the painful thing about THAT was she used the sheriff's own revolver to do it!!:evil:

Trunk Monkey
September 8, 2013, 01:35 AM
Redacted

Unfortunately the tools do you no good with out the will to use them and training to use them

Trunk Monkey
September 8, 2013, 01:40 AM
Hey, my own mother was outshooting a Alabama county sheriff in the early 1950s -- before I was born -- and the painful thing about THAT was she used the sheriff's own revolver to do it!!

My mom was on her Sr. High rifle team

hso
September 8, 2013, 02:05 AM
Unfortunately the tools do you no good with out the will to use them and training to use them

Considering that far more people use a firearm to stop a crime without every having to shoot the person threatening them this point is debatable, BUT for this discussion, the point that we need to reach out to the people who can help protect all our rights, it isn't even relevant that they ever own a gun or fire one or receive any training in the use of a gun. What is relevant is that they don't buy into the lies and propaganda and that they think that any one of us should have the right to own and use them and not to have that right denied to them or us.

Tommygunn
September 10, 2013, 08:16 PM
My mom was on her Sr. High rifle team

Good on her! ;)
I suppose I ought to have mentioned my mother taught riflery courses in summer camp during her college years so she got plenty of experience with shooting. She hadn't handled revolvers before outshooting that sheriff but she knew what a "sight picture" was!
Hey, our mothers and grammas were living waaaaaay before we were.

I suppose someone's gonna pipe in now and say their greatgreatgreat gramma was Annie Oakley!:D

jaytex1969
September 13, 2013, 12:43 AM
It seems to me that somehow, we need to find a way to win over some real for sure hard core lefties to RKBA.

My beliefs are all over the political map.

For instance, I strongly support RKBA matters, but I also see the need to prevent "unfettered free market interests" from destroying our drinking water and air quality.

I'm not trying to get political or off topic, but this board (and most gun boards) are quite often offensive and unfriendly towards people who are pro-gun, but not in lockstep with the whole partisan agenda.

THR does a much better job than most. Thank you.

YaDaddy
September 15, 2013, 10:17 PM
I used to be a fence sitter and then saw a couple of things coming from the Bush administration that made me realize why the founders did what they did. Decided I would buy every gun and all the ammo I could possibly afford, then positively expose every person that would let me to the joys and importance of firearms ownership.

I am nothing less than a 2A evangelist, now.

Those fence sitters are the most fertile ground for increasing 2A support.

goon
September 15, 2013, 11:27 PM
If it is the thread I participated in, I am glad to have an opportunity to clarify the point I am trying to make. I do believe that there is a large number of folks that simply do not have any opinion on issues surrounding RKBA, and I believe a strong, vocal, principled stance is the only way to reach them.

My experience is that strong, principled, gentle, nuanced stances are better.
If you yell and howl, you look like an extremist.
If you're calm and offer intelligent discussion, you might just get them to try a 10/22 out. And once that happens, the 10/22 will convert them for you.

xxjumbojimboxx
September 16, 2013, 02:17 AM
Booya!

Dean1818
November 10, 2013, 08:19 AM
In another thread I mentioned the possibility of 2A fence sitters. That thread was closed because it became immature and pointless(not involving this topic). But I think that this needs to be brought up. It seems that there are people in this community who think the American people don't tend to sit on the fence about this issue. And they seemed to back it up with "The people I know..." and so on and so forth. Well... I'd like to assign a homework project for you guys... Because I know the fence sitters are everywhere. If you get the chance to meet someone new, and they don't really have a stance on gun ownership. DO US ALL A FAVOR. take that person to the range with you and let them shoot your guns. Do so everytime you get the chance. One, So you can get one step closer to having told the truth as you've almost certainly turned a fence sitter into a pro 2A or at least leaning that way. And 2 it simply helps the cause.



THANKS! :) KEEP SHOOTING!
Great point

I try to get non shooters and fence sitters to the range as much as possible

jerkface11
November 10, 2013, 10:50 AM
But it's far more of a problem for the antis than for the supporters of the RTKBA. Very few people have a vested interest in banning guns.

The problem being fence sitters vote for anti gun politicians because they like their stance on some other issue.

hso
November 10, 2013, 10:56 AM
Jerkface,

That's not a problem per se. Since very few people cast their vote based on just one issue it is an opportunity for us to make sure that we have pro 2A candidates that have political positions that are compatible with those voters.

Sol
November 10, 2013, 12:53 PM
Well to solve the problem, you first have to identify the problem.

What is the demograph of the fencesitter?

Here is my observations from a sampling of people in my area who would qualify:
18-30 years old.
College graduate or attending
Proffesional career or pending
Urban or suburbanite
No kids
Not married
Rent a home or apt.
NON VOTER.

So the problem with fence sitters is that they don't vote, because whether one chooses to be an anti or a pro they already made a decision and are no longer fence sitters. Only voting can really enforce ones positions.

So the real underlying issue is trying either to convert antis or create a new pro....,and get them to vote.

Truth be told is that you can be the most loud mouthed blathering anti gun schmoe in the room but without a vote you're a mute, the only danger is that you may be persuasive enough to turn someone that votes into an anti.

Officers'Wife
November 10, 2013, 01:19 PM
Well to solve the problem, you first have to identify the problem.

What is the demograph of the fencesitter?

Here is my observations from a sampling of people in my area who would qualify:
18-30 years old.
College graduate or attending
Proffesional career or pending
Urban or suburbanite
No kids
Not married
Rent a home or apt.
NON VOTER.

So the problem with fence sitters is that they don't vote, because whether one chooses to be an anti or a pro they already made a decision and are no longer fence sitters. Only voting can really enforce ones positions.

So the real underlying issue is trying either to convert antis or create a new pro....,and get them to vote.

Truth be told is that you can be the most loud mouthed blathering anti gun schmoe in the room but without a vote you're a mute, the only danger is that you may be persuasive enough to turn someone that votes into an anti.
OK, you have a point...

Problem is, many in the age group you mention have taken the attitude why bother to vote. One side is going to tax you out of all you have and the other side is only going to let you use anything you have in very narrowly defined ways.

The Democrats are going to control you economically, the Republicans through laws. Either way you are being controlled and more and more it seems like the vote doesn't matter because the elected don't pay any attention to the will of the people.

Sol
November 10, 2013, 01:51 PM
^Somewhere in an alternate reality there is a strong 3rd party libertarian group that actually stands a chance of being elected.

Officers'Wife
November 10, 2013, 01:57 PM
*sigh*

Sorry, but Cinderella burned Prince Charming's breakfast and he left her for the waitress at the local restaurant. Even Plato admitted that the problem with ideal planes was they just plain didn't exist. :(

Queen_of_Thunder
November 10, 2013, 07:24 PM
Very true, but we can't police every site and every poster any more than the activist anti can blot out the most absurd and destructive poster to their cause.

We still need to reach out to the middle field and acknowledge that the poseurs and postureres will always be present in the crowd.


Taking HSO's post a step further.


You do that one person at a time because there is no quick fix.



So for all of you folks out there you better start getting your non firearm owning friends involved. You too need to be involved in the political process, vote which should be a no brainer but its not,getting others into the hobby or supporting others who are doing it. Get off your backside and get involved or your use of firearms will be severely restricted or you will lose them.

Queen_of_Thunder
November 10, 2013, 07:28 PM
OK, you have a point...

Problem is, many in the age group you mention have taken the attitude why bother to vote. One side is going to tax you out of all you have and the other side is only going to let you use anything you have in very narrowly defined ways.

The Democrats are going to control you economically, the Republicans through laws. Either way you are being controlled and more and more it seems like the vote doesn't matter because the elected don't pay any attention to the will of the people.




And it will stay that way until people get off their backsides and get involved. You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

btg3
November 11, 2013, 01:36 PM
And it will stay that way until people get off their backsides and get involved.

Perhaps we have already done so. The source is debatable, but consider the following:

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Oh! You meant other people???



You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.
^^^ If you do buy a ticket, you can win the lottery! It's just wildly unlikely. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/dismal-odds-winning-lottery-infographic

SleazyRider
November 11, 2013, 06:06 PM
New York traditionally has the lowest percentage of voter turnout. Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, for example, won over 62% of the vote ... but only 24% of the voters turned out IIRC.

This is why we're in the state (condition) we're in.

zorro45
November 23, 2013, 11:24 PM
One election day I was feeling lazy about voting but I went anyway. While I was in line someone wheeled in a young emaciated guy in a wheelchair covered with a blanket, no older than 25. The crowd parted to let them to the head of the line. He didn't look good, and I'm sure it was his last time to vote. From then on I figured if that guy could make time to vote then so could I, and I think about him every time I go to the polls. Also I think about the 75% of the world's population who don't get to vote like we do.

If you enjoyed reading about "2A fence sitters." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!