There's a thread I started in Activism Discussion which I have been asked to share in the General forum for a wider audience. To keep "topics on topic", and rather than re-post the thread in it's entirety, you can click the link here to read in full.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/gun-owners-image.834537/
What I want to do with this thread in General, is convince you of the urgency of taking a few minutes to read that other, more detailed thread.
Recently, anti-gunners have shifted tactics from the political theater to a cultural image objective. In the intervening time between various high-scale public events, someone pretty intelligent on their side drew up a new broad spectrum comprehensive order of battle with brand new methods of engagement we haven't seen previously. They are focusing on the areas gun owners are most vulnerable, which - as with any chain - is our weakest individual link.
I'm talking about you.
One of the new, and most overtly successful tactics in their refined arsenal, has nothing to do with politics; but rather, image. The goal of this information campaign, being ran across all fronts - mass media, social media, main street marches, our country's classrooms, and our churches, among other venues - is to vilify gun owners in the eyes of the undecided, moderate America. To make gun owners yesterday's tobacco company. To portray us as a harmful, dirty element in modern society.
Their goal is to separate friend from friend, family from family, pastor from parishioner, neighbor from neighbor. To make association with a "known gun owner" a bad thing. A social stigma. Taboo. An old, outdated, dirty habit that America needs to kick.
By and large, the way that gun owners conduct themselves in public forums and speech, unknowingly aids them in their cause. This is because we have grown myopic and only see things from our perspective. Most gun owners do not take even one small millisecond to stop and think "how would my words be perceived by someone who has never touched a firearm before?"
We have grown arrogant with repeated victories in the political theater and the courts, and our hubris will be our ultimate downfall if we do not get it in check. To take the whole cake, the hard core anti's only have to do one thing; convince enough of the crowd who isn't on one side or the other, that we are the bad guys.
And we're handing them that on a silver platter, with the arrogance we display in public. The very nature of some of our arguments. The hostility we show towards our opposition. The words which we throw about in public, which, from any other perspective than that of a hard-core 2nd amendment activist or gun owner, seems trite, hostile, or downright venomous.
I witnessed this first hand, shortly after writing that article in the Activism Discussion forum, Sunday evening, when an ex-NRA lobbyist unloaded on a moderate mutual friend; a journalist; on Facebook, This behavior is - of course - exactly the sort of thing the article I wrote, and linked to above, is intended to address.
This exchange was reproduced with permission of my journalist friend, Mark, with the stipulation that I mask out any last names. I also redacted some swear words to meet THR's quality standards.
I'm using only a portion of that *specific* exchange (it gets worse as it went on longer, not better), as an example of what I'm talking about, and to illustrate a few key points. While "Todd" no longer works as an NRA paid lobbyist, as of last October, he still works as a political lobbyist for "our side" for a different organization. He also held his NRA position for a very, very long time, and is uniformly well known to journalists, senators, representatives, gun owners, and various political figures throughout the state I'm in, and is heavily associated with the ISRA and our concealed carry organizations.
Ask yourself now, how those public statements will be received by that journalist's (rather large) friend's list?
How will women perceive this well known gun lobbyist's remarks on "get some vagisil" and "get your panties out of a knot"? (There were even worse things said later, but I can't redact them sufficiently to make THR's quality standards regarding language.)
Ask yourself, have you ever had a discourse like this in public?
Maybe not as overtly hostile, perhaps? But I'd wager more of you than not, have forwarded on "pro-gun propaganda" which only preaches to one side of the choir (ours), and is designed to antagonize, ridicule, or alienate the other side.
Make fun of a senator for talking about a "Ghost Gun which shoots 30 caliber magazine clips?"
Ever stop to think about the non-gun owner reading what you write? Who is now afraid of even talking to a pro-gun person for fear of getting ridiculed if they call something by the wrong name?
How do you think the >30% of America who aren't Christians feel when they see this?
This is part of the larger issue. As I mentioned above, in our hubris, we tend to only preach to the choir without any regard whatsoever in how our images and statements are being perceived by the other side.
How many potential future allies and undecideds are we are alienating along the way?
As a minority can we afford to alienate anyone?
Have you ever de-friended or blocked a liberal? Or said "I'm not going to argue with these folks anymore, you can't convince them of anything"?
If so, you just played right in to the anti's playbook and scored a major victory for them. THEY know they are playing for the undecideds. If we cut ties with folks, if we dis-engage them in polite dialog, or if we turn hostile in dialog, we lose. Period. That means they win over the undecided folks without any subsequent challenge.
I hope I have stirred some of you up enough to take a few moments to read what I wrote in Activism Discussion. I hope, at the very least, I have convinced you of the dangers inherent in "individual public relations."
Whether we like it or not, every last one of us gun owners ultimately is representing every other gun owner. The sum totality of how the public perceives gun owners is what matters. We need to tip the scales so that, on the majority, we are presenting a neighborly image and acting as gentlemen and ladies; not as chest thumping thugs who try to coerce opinion via ridicule and appeals to divine authority.
Driving wedges does not help build commonality, and as a minority, if we continue to act in such a manner, we will ultimately lose.
Here's that link again.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/gun-owners-image.834537/
If you want to discuss *why* image is important, feel free to do it right here in General.
If you want to discuss, contribute, and elaborate on things which can improve our image, do it in the other thread, please.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and the other article, and I hope it encourages everyone to reflect even just a little on how things are perceived, and how important it is to maintain a positive image for our continued battle for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
You represent the rest of us. We represent you.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/gun-owners-image.834537/
What I want to do with this thread in General, is convince you of the urgency of taking a few minutes to read that other, more detailed thread.
Recently, anti-gunners have shifted tactics from the political theater to a cultural image objective. In the intervening time between various high-scale public events, someone pretty intelligent on their side drew up a new broad spectrum comprehensive order of battle with brand new methods of engagement we haven't seen previously. They are focusing on the areas gun owners are most vulnerable, which - as with any chain - is our weakest individual link.
I'm talking about you.
One of the new, and most overtly successful tactics in their refined arsenal, has nothing to do with politics; but rather, image. The goal of this information campaign, being ran across all fronts - mass media, social media, main street marches, our country's classrooms, and our churches, among other venues - is to vilify gun owners in the eyes of the undecided, moderate America. To make gun owners yesterday's tobacco company. To portray us as a harmful, dirty element in modern society.
Their goal is to separate friend from friend, family from family, pastor from parishioner, neighbor from neighbor. To make association with a "known gun owner" a bad thing. A social stigma. Taboo. An old, outdated, dirty habit that America needs to kick.
By and large, the way that gun owners conduct themselves in public forums and speech, unknowingly aids them in their cause. This is because we have grown myopic and only see things from our perspective. Most gun owners do not take even one small millisecond to stop and think "how would my words be perceived by someone who has never touched a firearm before?"
We have grown arrogant with repeated victories in the political theater and the courts, and our hubris will be our ultimate downfall if we do not get it in check. To take the whole cake, the hard core anti's only have to do one thing; convince enough of the crowd who isn't on one side or the other, that we are the bad guys.
And we're handing them that on a silver platter, with the arrogance we display in public. The very nature of some of our arguments. The hostility we show towards our opposition. The words which we throw about in public, which, from any other perspective than that of a hard-core 2nd amendment activist or gun owner, seems trite, hostile, or downright venomous.
I witnessed this first hand, shortly after writing that article in the Activism Discussion forum, Sunday evening, when an ex-NRA lobbyist unloaded on a moderate mutual friend; a journalist; on Facebook, This behavior is - of course - exactly the sort of thing the article I wrote, and linked to above, is intended to address.
This exchange was reproduced with permission of my journalist friend, Mark, with the stipulation that I mask out any last names. I also redacted some swear words to meet THR's quality standards.
I'm using only a portion of that *specific* exchange (it gets worse as it went on longer, not better), as an example of what I'm talking about, and to illustrate a few key points. While "Todd" no longer works as an NRA paid lobbyist, as of last October, he still works as a political lobbyist for "our side" for a different organization. He also held his NRA position for a very, very long time, and is uniformly well known to journalists, senators, representatives, gun owners, and various political figures throughout the state I'm in, and is heavily associated with the ISRA and our concealed carry organizations.
Ask yourself now, how those public statements will be received by that journalist's (rather large) friend's list?
How will women perceive this well known gun lobbyist's remarks on "get some vagisil" and "get your panties out of a knot"? (There were even worse things said later, but I can't redact them sufficiently to make THR's quality standards regarding language.)
Ask yourself, have you ever had a discourse like this in public?
Maybe not as overtly hostile, perhaps? But I'd wager more of you than not, have forwarded on "pro-gun propaganda" which only preaches to one side of the choir (ours), and is designed to antagonize, ridicule, or alienate the other side.
Make fun of a senator for talking about a "Ghost Gun which shoots 30 caliber magazine clips?"
Ever stop to think about the non-gun owner reading what you write? Who is now afraid of even talking to a pro-gun person for fear of getting ridiculed if they call something by the wrong name?
How do you think the >30% of America who aren't Christians feel when they see this?
This is part of the larger issue. As I mentioned above, in our hubris, we tend to only preach to the choir without any regard whatsoever in how our images and statements are being perceived by the other side.
How many potential future allies and undecideds are we are alienating along the way?
As a minority can we afford to alienate anyone?
Have you ever de-friended or blocked a liberal? Or said "I'm not going to argue with these folks anymore, you can't convince them of anything"?
If so, you just played right in to the anti's playbook and scored a major victory for them. THEY know they are playing for the undecideds. If we cut ties with folks, if we dis-engage them in polite dialog, or if we turn hostile in dialog, we lose. Period. That means they win over the undecided folks without any subsequent challenge.
I hope I have stirred some of you up enough to take a few moments to read what I wrote in Activism Discussion. I hope, at the very least, I have convinced you of the dangers inherent in "individual public relations."
Whether we like it or not, every last one of us gun owners ultimately is representing every other gun owner. The sum totality of how the public perceives gun owners is what matters. We need to tip the scales so that, on the majority, we are presenting a neighborly image and acting as gentlemen and ladies; not as chest thumping thugs who try to coerce opinion via ridicule and appeals to divine authority.
Driving wedges does not help build commonality, and as a minority, if we continue to act in such a manner, we will ultimately lose.
Here's that link again.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/gun-owners-image.834537/
If you want to discuss *why* image is important, feel free to do it right here in General.
If you want to discuss, contribute, and elaborate on things which can improve our image, do it in the other thread, please.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and the other article, and I hope it encourages everyone to reflect even just a little on how things are perceived, and how important it is to maintain a positive image for our continued battle for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
You represent the rest of us. We represent you.