1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2A fence sitters.

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by xxjumbojimboxx, Aug 15, 2013.

  1. xxjumbojimboxx

    xxjumbojimboxx Well-Known Member

    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.

  2. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  3. xxjumbojimboxx

    xxjumbojimboxx Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. AKElroy

    AKElroy Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2013
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    <Let's leave the subject of the closed thread to rest there. Thanks.>
  6. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2013
  9. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  10. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    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.
  11. xxjumbojimboxx

    xxjumbojimboxx Well-Known Member

    That post just made me a little sad. Because it's so true....
  12. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    1911Tuner wrote:

    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.
  14. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    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.
  15. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  18. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Win the soccer mom and you win the war.
  20. another pake

    another pake Well-Known Member


    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.

Share This Page