What's the PRIMARY REASON why the Anti-2A Camp so often seems to be more successful at its mission t

What are the THREE PRIMARY REASONS why the Anti-2A Camp seems to be more successful at its mission?

  • Children once learned to respect and understand firearms. Today they are taught to fear and hate th

    Votes: 31 46.3%

  • The Anti-2A Camp has become expert at using the horrors of "mass shootings" to promote their agenda.

    Votes: 27 40.3%

  • The Anti-2A Camp enjoys superior leadership.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Urbanization has caused an increasing number to live in settings where they fear guns. There's simp

    Votes: 24 35.8%

  • Anti-Gun is simply easier to sell than Pro-Gun in today's world.

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • The Pro-2A Camp simply offend too many potential supporters with their constant rants against "liber

    Votes: 7 10.4%

  • Mainstream media aids and abets the Anti-2A Camp's mission.

    Votes: 53 79.1%

  • The Anti-2A Camp is simply better at using the media.

    Votes: 10 14.9%

  • Some who claim to speak for the Pro-2A Camp say some disturbing and sometimes scary things.

    Votes: 5 7.5%

  • The actions of some alleged Pro-2A members (eg. open carry commandos) make the masses welcome more g

    Votes: 4 6.0%
  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.
old lady new shooter said:
Disclosure: I have been away for several days and have NOT read the whole thread, only the first couple of responses.

Someone in the first few responses mentioned the anti's being a lot better funded, I agree with this. Bloomberg by himself probably spends way more per year than the whole NRA.

What may have been mentioned (which isn't stopping me from posting this) is that the anti's are very good at manipulating language. They don't say exactly what they really mean, they say what they think will sell well. So for example they almost never say they want to ban all guns, rather they say they want "common-sense" reforms. This totally fits the leftist perspective that everything is "optics" and/or a "narrative", never mind actual facts, facts don't even exist for them. Unsurprisingly, they also fund "research" that totally misrepresents the data presented.
Click to expand...
That's why it's SO important to throw their own words back in their faces, to show every contradiction, and to expose every lie.

Like the Holocaust denial movement, the anti-gun movement is based on deceit and the assumed ignorance of the target audience. That has to be fought at EVERY turn.
 
RX-79G said:
What makes them better than us at doing this or anything else?
Click to expand...

They play on emotion.

You have to remember the average American has the gray matter of a loaf of bread.....they would rather chase pokeymon then actually learn about what is really going on.
 
fpgt72 said:
They play on emotion.

You have to remember the average American has the gray matter of a loaf of bread.....they would rather chase pokeymon then actually learn about what is really going on.
Click to expand...
Okay. Why don't we?
 
zchry said:
Voting. That is the primary reason why the anti side got so far.
Click to expand...

Possibly but I'm not sure more anti-gun people vote than pro-gun people. I'm more inclined to think, though, the general anti-gun position of the Government, education and media establishments are far more to blame for stuff like the brainwashing of people into a anti-gun position. The cumulative effect is more anti-gun laws get passed than repealed, so it is a net loss for the 2nd Amendment.
 
RX-79G said:
What makes them better than us at doing this or anything else?
Click to expand...

They are focused on their goal and don't care how they achieve it. See the comments of the guy who was caught on the Project Veritas tape saying he doesn't care about the effing ethics people, "We have to win this thing."
 
old lady new shooter said:
They are focused on their goal and don't care how they achieve it. See the comments of the guy who was caught on the Project Veritas tape saying he doesn't care about the effing ethics people, "We have to win this thing."
Click to expand...
Given the number of unethical things and outright lies I see posted in favor of guns, why do you think the anti-gun people are more successful with this tactic? Are we less interested in winning, or just not as smart?
 
RX-79G said:
Given the number of unethical things and outright lies I see posted in favor of guns, why do you think the anti-gun people are more successful with this tactic? Are we less interested in winning, or just not as smart?
Click to expand...

Citation requested
 
RX-79G said:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/guns.asp

Some gun people, like some anti-gun people, manufacture fake news stories. They pop up on gun forums all the time.

Which isn't a slam against ALL gun people, just as all anti-gun people don't manufacture fake news. But why is their selection of liars more effective than ours?
Click to expand...

I was not referring to news stories, rather to their constant recourse to "optics" and "narratives" instead of facts. "Common-sense gun regulations" sounds so much more innocuous and appealing than "gun confiscation". Etc.
 
old lady new shooter said:
I was not referring to news stories, rather to their constant recourse to "optics" and "narratives" instead of facts. "Common-sense gun regulations" sounds so much more innocuous and appealing than "gun confiscation". Etc.
Click to expand...
"Firearms for freedom" also sounds better "cold dead hands".

Some people want gun regulations that aren't "gun confiscation". Universal background checks is definitely gun control, but doesn't ban anything, and there are people who don't want more than that. It is one of our "narratives" that any sort of gun control is a hidden prelude to bans and confiscation.
 
RX-79G said:
"Firearms for freedom" also sounds better "cold dead hands".

Some people want gun regulations that aren't "gun confiscation". Universal background checks is definitely gun control, but doesn't ban anything, and there are people who don't want more than that. It is one of our "narratives" that any sort of gun control is a hidden prelude to bans and confiscation.
Click to expand...
 
RX-79G said:
Some people want gun regulations that aren't "gun confiscation". Universal background checks is definitely gun control, but doesn't ban anything, and there are people who don't want more than that.
Click to expand...
Sham "universal background checks" (ie REGISTRATION) are a FACILITATION of confiscation, and serve NO other purpose.

RX-79G said:
It is one of our "narratives" that any sort of gun control is a hidden prelude to bans and confiscation.
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of other "narratives":

"Storing oily rags and flammable liquids next to an open flame can cause house fires."

"Sharing needles can spread HIV and other blood borne pathogens."

Sham "universal background checks" are UTTERLY meaningless without REGISTRATION, and their proponents KNOW this. REGISTRATION, has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future confiscation.

REGISTRATION is ALWAYS a part of the equation, either before the fact, or to "fix" the INEVITABLE failure of sham "universal background checks".

There is no reason to concede the camel's nose unless one wishes to concede the rest of the camel.
 
How are they meaningless without registration? Are you saying a large number of gun owners don't care who they are selling to and would choose to sell to felons?
 
RX-79G said:
"Firearms for freedom" also sounds better "cold dead hands".

Some people want gun regulations that aren't "gun confiscation". Universal background checks is definitely gun control, but doesn't ban anything, and there are people who don't want more than that. It is one of our "narratives" that any sort of gun control is a hidden prelude to bans and confiscation.
Click to expand...

One of the problems is; UBC would have zero affect on the criminal possession or use of guns, because only the law abiding would adhere to the rules.
Picture this;
A ne'er do well says, "Hey I gotta get a gun! Give me one from your stash!"
The illicit dealer replies, "sorry homie, you're a felon. I can't sell you one."

It ain't gonna happen.

And so, since it would accomplish nothing and the problem would remain, next in line would be to enact registration... In order to ensure that gun transfers would be tracked, according to the law.

The rest is history, repeated in rhyme.
 
Ironicaintit said:
One of the problems is; UBC would have zero affect on the criminal possession or use of guns, because only the law abiding would adhere to the rules.
Click to expand...
Logically, this isn't true. Right now a felon can buy a gun from anyone simply by lying about their legal standing. With UBC the seller can't be lied to.

Unless you're suggesting that most people selling guns are just as ready to break the law as felon's buying guns, UBCs limit the number of places a felon can get a gun from.


(For clarity, I am not advocating for UBCs. But you can't argue against something if you don't understand what you're arguing about.)
 
RX-79G said:
Logically, this isn't true. Right now a felon can buy a gun from anyone simply by lying about their legal standing. With UBC the seller can't be lied to.

Unless you're suggesting that most people selling guns are just as ready to break the law as felon's buying guns, UBCs limit the number of places a felon can get a gun from.


(For clarity, I am not advocating for UBCs. But you can't argue against something if you don't understand what you're arguing about.)
Click to expand...


Unless there is gun registration, Universal Background Checks (UBC) are generally unenforceable. If I had to guess, I'd say the anti-gun types will try and pass UBC first, whine about how its unenforceable and then demand there be gun registration so the law can be enforced.
 
ATN082268 said:
Unless there is gun registration, Universal Background Checks (UBC) are generally unenforceable. If I had to guess, I'd say the anti-gun types will try and pass UBC first, whine about how its unenforceable and then demand there be gun registration so the law can be enforced.
Click to expand...
They are unenforceable in some ways, but that isn't the same as saying they wouldn't have an effect, since the vast majority of private sales come from law abiding people.

However, they are enforceable in that a gun tracked back to a seller who went around the system would be charged. Even if the seller bought the gun in a previous private sale, the first owner may identify them.
 
Last edited:
RX-79G said:
Logically, this isn't true. Right now a felon can buy a gun from anyone simply by lying about their legal standing. With UBC the seller can't be lied to.

Unless you're suggesting that most people selling guns are just as ready to break the law as felon's buying guns, UBCs limit the number of places a felon can get a gun from.


(For clarity, I am not advocating for UBCs. But you can't argue against something if you don't understand what you're arguing about.)
Click to expand...


This is true.

However, in a practice, it hasn't panned out to of benefit for the states that have it. Just recently, two cops were killed in Palm Springs CA. Its reported that the BG had a stolen AR with the serial numbers removed and mags over 10 rounds (Note: CA had been grandfathering 11+ mags to those that owned them prior to 2001(?) but has now banned them out right starting 01-01-17). He was already a felon.


IMO, the argument that UBC's will be used for confiscation is falling on deaf ears for being a tin foil hat argument as none of the states that have had UBC's for decades have not confiscated guns from law abiding people. Many of those states have also had registration for decades, as well.


It should be argued that UBC's don't work as evidenced by the multiple states that have it and Canada abolishing their long gun registry for being expensive and ineffective
 
I agree. The cost to effectiveness ratio is why it is a poor law. And that's the best argument against it.
 
RX-79G said:
How are they meaningless without registration? Are you saying a large number of gun owners don't care who they are selling to and would choose to sell to felons?
Click to expand...
As you already know, they are utterly unenforceable without REGISTRATION.

They will do NOTHING to prevent crime, nor are they intended to. They're DESIGNED to fail, creating a "need" for REGISTRATION.

They are a stalking horse for REGISTRATION and nothing more.

NO part of the camel should be allowed in the tent.
 
RX-79G said:
They are unenforceable in some ways, but that isn't the same as saying they wouldn't have an effect, since the vast majority of private sales come from law abiding people.
Click to expand...
They're utterly unenforceable in any meaningful way. No prohibited person will care, nor will they likely be prosecuted. Even if somebody THINKS about doing so, the charge will be plea-bargained away.

They're MEANT to fail, so that REGISTRATION can be brought in to "fix" them.

It's nothing but a scam.
 
Deanimator said:
As you already know, they are utterly unenforceable without REGISTRATION.

They will do NOTHING to prevent crime, nor are they intended to. They're DESIGNED to fail, creating a "need" for REGISTRATION.
Click to expand...
I see you didn't read my previous post.

Of course they are enforceable, because the ATF will be able to track the ownership of some guns back to the person that illegally sold them.

And they will do SOMETHING to prevent crime, because it prevents the vast majority of private gun sales to go to felons or other prohibited people. Regardless of the overall effectiveness, you can't say that is NOTHING - especially if you don't want to sound like a fool to the person you're arguing with.


And that's what this is all about - being effective in talking about gun control, rather than just sounding like a kook.
 
2nd ammendment people may be winning to some extent in Red states, but being in NY I certainly know what it feels like to be "losing" in a Blue state. The only reason they got the SAFE Act passed in NY was because of the Sandy Hook shooting. I think mass shootings has a lot to do with it.
 
RX-79G said:
I see you didn't read my previous post.

Of course they are enforceable, because the ATF will be able to track the ownership of some guns back to the person that illegally sold them.

And they will do SOMETHING to prevent crime, because it prevents the vast majority of private gun sales to go to felons or other prohibited people. Regardless of the overall effectiveness, you can't say that is NOTHING - especially if you don't want to sound like a fool to the person you're arguing with.

And that's what this is all about - being effective in talking about gun control, rather than just sounding like a kook.
Click to expand...

A recent study (I think interviews with Chicago prisoners?) showed the overwhelming percentage got their guns from other criminals or by theft.

The left has a very long-term perspective. Just like they pushed Obamacare through knowing it would fail and therefore give them a setup for single-payer, they are pushing "common sense gun regulations" to get to registration to get to confiscation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
  • Poll
Primary reason for owning a gun.
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
4K
Redneck with a 40
R
O
  • Locked
Democratic control of House and impending anti 2A legislation
Replies
1
Views
345
Robert
Robert
WestKentucky
  • Locked
why is 22lr so stinkin popular?
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
Inclusivity in gun culture will be the only thing that saves the 2A
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
hso
hso
P
  • Locked
College Students/Gunowners and 2A Visibility
Replies
12
Views
911
TRLaye
T
Back
Top