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

Could there be a backlash?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by monotonous_iterancy, Jun 12, 2014.

  1. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    There seems to have been a lot of high-profile shootings in the news lately. I know that there's another thread in this vein, but I'm not saying we should "do" anything.

    As I'm seeing another incident in the news, followed by another, and then another, I'm steadily growing concerned about what the "average person" is thinking.

    We at THR are a minority. We tend to be much more firm on our 2nd Amendment than most. We're more informed, and we tend to have a better perspective. Most people don't. Perhaps gun owners in general are a minority. I know that we easily avoided a major defeat recently, we've been steadily gaining ground overall. But we need to make sure we don't develop an echo chamber.

    I'd like to start a discussion on the following things. I think it's important, even if just for our future reference.

    1. What is the chance that a backlash could develop beneath our feet? That a "silent majority" could give us a setback when we least expect it?

    If it's possible, I'm not thinking that it would be led by anti-gun activists, it could be simply from most people tiring of hearing about (seemingly) regular tragedies.

    2. How do we recognize this when it starts? How do we counter it in it's early stages?
  2. wally

    wally Well-Known Member

    I think if people are actually paying attention to anything in the news beyond celebrity gossip, any backlash will be against all the lies being told by the current administration and their willfully blind media lapdogs -- "gun violence" statistics included.
  3. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    That illustrates part of what I'm saying. You and I are part of a minority. You know those statistics are false because you're passionate about gun rights and you care enough to spend your free time delving into the details of these things.

    Most people don't. They don't take time to learn the intricacies, to research the false methodologies used. They see CNN say "74 school shootings" and they take it at face value.
  4. george burns

    george burns Well-Known Member

    I started typing a similar thought before, and decided to stop. But you may be right, I more than anything else can see the President, "being a lame duck", putting some kind of mandate in place just to say he did something.
    Even if it is illegal and unconstitutional, he is the type of person who doesn't forget that we stopped him on the gun laws he tried to push through with the Assault rifle ban, so it wouldn't be far fetched IMO, to see him push through some kind of moratorium on certain types of weapons.
    Let's hope that doesn't happen, but nothing surprises me any more.:neener:
    He might try some kind of marshal law or emergency law that he pulled out of his rear end just because he is able to, "if he's able to". I am sure he is or has looked into it.
  5. readyeddy

    readyeddy Well-Known Member

    No backlash, don't worry about it. Most Americans don't even watch the evening news or read the newspaper anymore. I mean, most Americans don't even realize that the $400 billion natural gas deal between Russia and China is without the petrodollar and even less know what the petrodollar is all about.
  6. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    We have opportunists actively working against us and we need to accept and look for it. Every incident has important background information that we need to understand and to be prepared to counter the dumbed down "the gun is responsible" media rant.

    Shotgun used in Washington? Didn't Joe Biden say that's all you need?

    Kid off his meds wants to die having taken others with him? Where's the therapists, doctors, psychiatrists that should have reported he was a threat? Where were the parents that should have intervened?

    When do we start pointing out that the news media aggrandizing these people provide goals for notoriety and infamy?
  7. herkyguy

    herkyguy Well-Known Member

    There will eventually be another panic. It's like anything else these days. What will set it off, I don't know, but since about 2008 or so, my buying practices have changed. I'm a much more savvy shopper nowadays. I don't buy at inflated prices, I know where to find good deals, and I try to speak honestly and frankly about responsible gun ownership with others who may or may not share my views.....
  8. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Well-Known Member

    There is potential blow back against the 2A from any high profile crime involving a firearm. On the national level we dodged a bullet (;)) after some of the more lurid incidents in the last few years, but that only does so much to help people in Colorado or the New England states that jerked their knees after Sandy Hook. But if you're not always keeping an eye out for local/state/national repercussions from sensationalized crimes, you're likely to be caught by surprise at some point.
  9. bmnloader

    bmnloader Well-Known Member

    It's definitely a possibility and I too think obummer will try if he can, to do something. How to stop it? All I think we can do is to keep pushing our thoughts EASILY on the anti's. I also believe that the media plays the biggest role in all of it. I know I tend to watch or read the things that a person like us(pro gun) people would and the anti's watch and read what they are used to so it's tough to change the mind of someone that is continually brainwashed(not the correct term I know) by the media. We just have to keep gently pushing our agenda. Not the way the OC people are doing it. That's not helping anything on our end. We need to take kids with us to the range, regardless of who's kids they are and get them acquainted with guns. There, I'm done with my rant.
  10. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    Actually, President H.W Bush (republican), banned the importation by executive order of certain firearms after a shooting in the late 80s. It's happened before.

    In the 90s, President Clinton banned (by executive order) all importation of Chinese firearms.

    The president can't ban weapons outright, but he can stop the import of foreign made guns.

    As for martial law, that is not going to happen. I don't know all the details, but there are cultural and structural problems to implementing that, not the least of which is the clear triviality of declaring a "state of emergency" over gun violence.

    Obama is left-of-center, certainly, and he is no friend of freedom. However, he is not an evil Marxist wannabe dictator.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2014
  11. Schwing

    Schwing Well-Known Member

    The majority of those who support the anti-gun agenda typically do so for what they feel are valid reasons. My experience has been that they are the very young, the educated elite (College professors and those who live off of government grants) and the ultra liberal. What I mean by ultra liberal are those who truly envision a utopian society of equality, safety and literal hugging and singing in the streets. Another group, the group that is the most tragic, are the victims and families of victims of gun violence who truly want the deaths and injuries of their loved ones to mean something. Of course, there are those I hesitate to mention... Those who basically don't have the intelligence to tie their own shoes.

    At the forefront, you have a very small group of very wealthy and powerful individuals who are guiding the aforementioned groups and manipulating them to their will. The very young are easily swayed. The educated elite make their fortunes studying and proclaiming the nonsense, and the ultra liberals honestly believe that a 100% peaceful and utopian society are possible and that guns are the only thing in their way. Those who grieve are exploited the most in my opinion. They are trotted out on stage in their mourning to, essentially, play on the emotions of the crowd. If you will notice, they are quickly discarded when their grief plays its course or, heaven forbid, have a change of heart.

    Unfortunately, those who lead this movement are extremely intelligent and calculating. They have done a magnificent job of casting us "Gun Nuts", as a bunch of toothless white supremacist hicks who hate the government. They have trained their followers that we all fit in the same mold and they have a list of talking points that are drilled into them so intensely that even proving to them on paper that they are wrong just doesn't cut it.

    The solution, in my opinion, is extremely difficult because it requires us to force them to see us OUTSIDE of that mold. This means always taking the high road (no pun intended). It means being willing to have discourse and never lose our cool regardless of the insults or blatant misinformation. It requires taking our time to help educate those who may be on the fence and stand up for the right without being confrontational or stooping to the level of stating false facts or misinformation like the opposition.

    The most difficult thing it requires is the willingness and ability to actually SEE the other side of the argument and understand WHY they feel the way that they do. Please don't mistake this with agreeing with them! People arrive at their beliefs through many ways and, without truly trying to understand why they believe the way that they do, they will see our side as simply argumentative etc.
  12. Agsalaska

    Agsalaska Well-Known Member

    As long as we speak and believe in absolutes and make decisions based on that there will always be the risks you speak of.
  13. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Well-Known Member

    Actually, I think that Wally's post under my OP illustrates the "echo chamber" I'm talking about.

    We can easily fall into a logic that goes like this,

    "Well, if people paid any attention at all, they'd know that the statistics on gun fatalities involving children involve those up to age 25 and include gang-fights."

    Things that are common knowledge to us, aren't to most people. We spend our free time reading about this stuff, getting into wonky detail.
  14. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Well-Known Member

    The price of personal and political freedoms is frequently paid in lives. The lives are not infrequently those of people who weren't offered a choice. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about guns or cars or alcohol or many other things. That's the price. The average member of this board would, if pressed hard enough, probably finally admit the price for guns is worth it.
    Now all you have to do is convince those who don't to agree with you.
  15. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    I worry that gun owners may become victims of our own success, particularly because of the wave of "shall issue" carry legislation. The pendulum swings one way, and then the other. The fact that more people are carrying guns, raises the profile of guns. If you couple this with the seemingly daily reports of shooting incidents, the result could be a growing revulsion against all guns by the general population. We can't afford to lose the battle for their "hearts and minds."
  16. ohbythebay

    ohbythebay Well-Known Member

    I have been trying to point this out

    For some time now..

    what do we have to counter of equal weight ?

    Look at these poor innocent children killed
    Look at these poor slain law enforcement officers
    Add more hype

    Gun supporters
    We haven't shot anyone today
    We fought for gun rights

    Which one do you think is going to sway opinion ?

    This is why in the activist thread (I wont cross post the link) I wrote a letter to our elected officials that people can copy, paste and send to their own representative. I even posted links that tell you who they are and how to contact them. I have even received some non-canned responses.

    But if you don't do it, email those people today, en masse, then don't wring your hands and post about it because if we do not push hard, public opinion will sway them. It is absolute truth that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    Be the squeaky wheel.
  17. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    Those of us who study political theory (and who perhaps have not been personally touched by gun tragedy) would agree with you. However, the members of this board are not representative of the people we need to convince. The people we need to convince are the thousands who pack stadiums after shooting incidents, shouting cries of "Not one more!"

    If we couch the choice in terms of safety versus freedom, most people in this country today would choose safety over freedom. Perhaps that's a shame, but that's the way it is. This is not the revolutionary 18th century.

    And the argument that guns in civilian hands are a bulwark against tyranny doesn't resonate at all with the vast majority of voters. They figure that as long as they have the right to vote, nobody can tyrannize them. Who can blame them? They haven't lived through a Holocaust or a Nazi occupation the way my parents did.
  18. vamo

    vamo Well-Known Member

    No not with this senate or house. Be sure to vote in November to see that it is true with our next senate and house.
  19. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Well-Known Member

    As long as the populace has guns, there will inevitably be some amount of misuse of guns with people injured or killed as a result. Now, how do we sell this fact as something with which everybody should be okay?
  20. barnbwt

    barnbwt Well-Known Member

    All changes cause a backlash, and we've been winning a lot lately. It's the nature of the beast, history, because change never occurs gradually, but in fits and starts. Our system is specifically designed to damp this effect, which is why it's hard for us to win, or overreach.

    We're still operating between constitutional guardrails, so don't sweat the progress we might make.


Share This Page