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.
I think the two positions being espoused here are not really in conflict but are rather each expressing different facets of the situation. The "opinion leaders" ARE our opponents. However, many of their low-information FOLLOWERS could be just as persuadable by us as by the "opinion leaders".
And I do.

They're being LIED to. I show them HOW.
 
Said by Old Dog

While I do not necessary agree with everything RX-79G is saying, Deanimator is doing a very good job of showing that some of what RX-79G says is true.


Yes... yes he is.



Said by Deaniminator

The other side calls them "opinion LEADERS" for a reason.

The con men at the top of BOTH the Holocaust denial and gun control grifts CREATE narratives, which they spoon feed to the gullible.


OK... so now you've identified the problem is the 'opinion leaders' and their 'gullible' followers.



Said by Deanimator

There is NO possible "compromise" with an opponent who has maximalist goals about which he shamelessly lies.

I don't see where anyone has said to actually compromise. If some one has, please quote it.

(BTW, your holocaust, and similar, comments only serve as a red herring argument which undermines your position, and strengthens RX's. (Others see it too) )



Old Lady New Shooter does a great job of exposing the crux.


Said by Old Lady new shooter

The "opinion leaders" ARE our opponents. However, many of their low-information FOLLOWERS could be just as persuadable by us as by the "opinion leaders".



Said by Deanimator

And I do.

They're being LIED to. I show them HOW.


I find that very difficult to believe if you use the same tactic with them as you do here.




To Re-Cap:

The problem is the 'opinion leaders' and their 'gullible' followers, as Deanimator himself identified.

The 'opinion leaders' are in office because of their 'gullible' followers.

As Old Lady New Shooter has astutely noted, the Pro 2A side could be the 'opinion leaders' of those 'gullible' followers. (I think RX was going to get there, eventually)


But Why aren't we the leaders of those 'low-information / gullible' followers???!!!???


(note: the following quote was not said by Deanimator but its applicable)

Maybe I don't want to appear reasonable to people with such flawed logic.


In order to get the 'gullible' people to follow, you have to sound 'reasonable'. The Anti 2A leaders have demonstrated this.... they even call it 'Reasonable Common Sense Gun Control' so that their followers don't have to think for themselves and determine if its reasonable or not. The Anti2A-ers have already told them it is.


That doesn't mean you have to compromise. In means you have to present your side in a way that they can relate to and want to follow.


If someone is not willing to present their Pro2A argument in a way that your targeted audience can related to, or worse, turns them of because of sounding un-reasonable, then they are part of the problem as they have become an unknowing shill that benefits the Anti 2A as opposed to helping the Pro 2A.




Shouting 'Holocaust' hasn't worked. Its almost asinine to keep doing it (keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is the (misquoted) definition of insanity.
 
(BTW, your holocaust, and similar, comments only serve as a red herring argument which undermines your position, and strengthens RX's. (Others see it too) )
I just tell the truth. I'm not going to stop doing that because it makes some people uncomfortable.

I've had a LOT of dealings with both Holocaust deniers and anti-gun cultists. They use the SAME tactics. The latter just have more resources and better PR than the former. They're both malicious liars and exploiters of the ignorant.
 
Chem/bio weapons aren't bearable arms, they are munitions, and cannot (as in "literally cannot") be safely stored in a public setting, unlike smokeless gun powder & firearms. Excellent example of a rare *legitimate* limit on the RKBA where it conflicts with others (so this restriction actually is delineated, just like libel/slander/incitement are to the first amendment).
2A reads "keep AND bear arms" - there is no reason to think that it only covers bearable arms in what you can "keep".

You can't go to prison for libel or slander, because you aren't violating a law when you do so. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from civil consequences of speech.

Same with crooks in jail being disarmed *by a jury of their peers in due process* which is specifically delineated, and why they originally got their guns back once released.
The fact that there is "due process" doesn't explain how due process could possibly remove a civil right. It doesn't remove the rest of a felon's rights or explain how "inalienable rights" are "alienable".

Where are you getting these peculiar definitions? The bearable arms one is a hoot. But I do think your justifications for the types of limits you prefer on the Second Amendment are illustrative.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to stop doing that because it makes some people uncomfortable.

.

However, you can tell the truth in ways that make them want to follow the Pro 2A-ers.

That's you're objective, correct?

The Anti 2A-ers have demonstrated this works to gain followers.

They don't want anyone to have guns. That's their belief. They have gained followers by making a palatable argument that sounds reasonable that also chips away to their goal. Then the next chip sounds reasonable as it only closes a loop hole. Etc etc.


Or, are you trying to represent gun owners in a non palatable light while knowing that you're playing into the Anti's strategy?


You don't need to compromise your beliefs in order to gain more followers. Assuming you don't want to be an unknowing shill of the Anti's.... You just need to change the rhetoric to be more palatable.
 
Do I have an answer for this? No, but I'd be thrilled if someone on this board did.
I have some ideas about this, and have mentioned a few in this and other threads. But it is so hard to get past the people shouting down anything that isn't strict party line to actually have a discussion.
 
Said by RX
It doesn't remove the rest of a felon's rights <snip>

Now you're getting into crazy talk.

It certainly does remove some other rights, at lease temporarily.

As to the 'explanation' that's a whole other thread.
 
However, you can tell the truth in ways that make them want to follow the Pro 2A-ers.

That's you're objective, correct?

The Anti 2A-ers have demonstrated this works to gain followers.

They don't want anyone to have guns. That's their belief. They have gained followers by making a palatable argument that sounds reasonable that also chips away to their goal. Then the next chip sounds reasonable as it only closes a loop hole. Etc etc.


Or, are you trying to represent gun owners in a non palatable light while knowing that you're playing into the Anti's strategy?


You don't need to compromise your beliefs in order to gain more followers. Assuming you don't want to be an unknowing shill of the Anti's.... You just need to change the rhetoric to be more palatable.
I tell the truth.

I show others how they're being lied to.

If they prefer lies over truth, there's nothing I can do about that.

The ones being lied to rather than those doing the lying, are usually receptive to knowing they've been lied to.

Some just want to "believe". Not my problem.
 
Said by RX


Now you're getting into crazy talk.

It certainly does remove some other rights, at lease temporarily.

As to the 'explanation' that's a whole other thread.
It removes all sorts of freedoms, but not rights. Religion, due process, etc.

My main point is that there is no mechanism delineated in the Constitution or BoR for the removal of those Rights. Those rights are restricted by regular law, which anyone who takes the absolutist view of 2A simply ignores and keeps talking about "shall not infringe".

I would be fine with one or the other, but simultaneously trying to pretend that the Second Amendment is beyond regulation and is regulated in many ways that our side prefers makes my head explode. And maybe that's the problem trying to reason with people that are firmly and happily living in cognitive dissonance. But, if people became aware of what they are doing, maybe they could relate to the real problem better.

It really makes one wonder if that cognitive dissonance was something encouraged at some point by false supports of gun rights just to hobble us. I would say that it worked, since we largely refuse to relate to any outside viewpoint and remove ourselves from public discourse.
 
I tell the truth.

I show others how they're being lied to.

If they prefer lies over truth, there's nothing I can do about that.

The ones being lied to rather than those doing the lying, are usually receptive to knowing they've been lied to.

Some just want to "believe". Not my problem.

The incredulous and obstinate 'not my problem' attitude is self defeating.

If it's not your problem, then why do you claim to show people how they're being lied to?

Because it IS your problem if you want to keep the 2A alive.

So you can choose to present a more platable case, without compromising your beliefs, in order to gain more followers.

Or, if you don't care about the 2A, or worse, want to help the Anti 2A-ers, you'll continue down the path you are which is playing right into the hands of the Anti 2A opinion leaders and driving away potential followers.
 
The incredulous and obstinate 'not my problem' attitude is self defeating.
If I tell you shooting heroin is bad for you and explain in detail why, and you still choose to shoot heroin, that is indeed YOUR problem.

There are more than enough ignorant but rational people on whom I can concentrate my efforts. I'm simply not going to waste my time trying to convince fools that they are indeed fools.

If you just know nothing about European history, I can educate you on the Holocaust. If you simply have an irrational belief not impeachable by fact, that the Holocaust never happened, I'm never going to convince you and I'm not going to waste my time trying. Of course that doesn't stop me from humiliating you for your willful ignorance and holding you up as a negative example.
 
...secondary reason, too many male deer hunters as image of supporters. We need the soccer moms.
That's slowly happening as more and more women come to the realization that the police have neither a legal duty to protect them and their families as individuals, nor indeed the physical ability.
 
If I tell you shooting heroin is bad for you and explain in detail why, and you still choose to shoot heroin, that is indeed YOUR problem.

Seriously bad analogy but to accurately complete the thought process....

If the the opinion leaders are furthering the pro heroine cult to the point that it negatively affects your life, then it is also YOUR problem.

By incredulously stating otherwise and jumping to the holocaust doesn't change that because the heroine addicts, and pro heroine opinion leaders havent heard anything from you that is palatable.


The end result is they still win in part because you are with unwilling, or incapable, of presenting a case to further your claimed cause and solve YOUR problem.


The manner in which you present your side will only be heard by people that agree with you. You are preaching to the choir.

If you truly want to change things by explaining to people how they're being lied to, you must pesent something they can process.

Again, they Anti's have proven this for decades.

For you to not acknowledge this brings question to your abilities and/or true motives.
 
Seriously bad analogy but to accurately complete the thought process....

If the the opinion leaders are furthering the pro heroine cult to the point that it negatively affects your life, then it is also YOUR problem.
Short of abducting them and FORCING them into a Maoist "struggle session", I can't MAKE somebody see reason. If I COULD then EVERY Holocaust denier I've every talked to would have said, "I don't know what I was thinking! OF COURSE the Holocaust was real!"

Some people are just stupid or malicious. They shoot heroin, have unprotected sex with dozens of strangers, deny the Holocaust or support invidiously racist gun controls... or some combination thereof. There are FAR too many ignorant but rational people to talk to for me to waste my time on imbeciles.

And one more time, merely because the parallels between the anti-gun cult and the Holocaust deniers make you uncomfortable doesn't make them untrue. I have not the slightest intention of stopping pointing them out.
 
said by Deanimator
Short of abducting them and FORCING them into a Maoist "struggle session", I can't MAKE somebody see reason.

Of course not. No one ever said otherwise.....nor did anyone say that you had to compromise your position in order to more effectly convey yourself, as you alluded.

Again, the Anti 2A-ers haven't compromised their position and gained legions of followers.

Their tactic has proven more effective than your (and too many others) holocaust type rhetoric.

There is zero logic in continuing to choose the less effective method.




said by Deanimator

And one more time, merely because the parallels between the anti-gun cult and the Holocaust deniers make you uncomfortable <snip>

To be clear, it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable.


doesn't make them untrue.

It also doesnt make them an effective in gaining followers.



I have not the slightest intention of stopping pointing them out.


Then apparently you choose to continue with a strategy that is proven to be a net loss in terms of gaining more followers.
 
Again, the Anti 2A-ers haven't compromised their position and gained legions of followers.
They have in fact OBFUSCATED their position at every opportunity.

Like Hillary Clinton, they have mutually exclusive private and public positions.

If you're suggesting that pro-gun people be deceitful like the anti-gun cult, I'll pass.
 
They have in fact OBFUSCATED their position at every opportunity.

Like Hillary Clinton, they have mutually exclusive private and public positions.

If you're suggesting that pro-gun people be deceitful like the anti-gun cult, I'll pass.


That they have, makes no difference.

I have stated SEVERAL times that you don't have to compromise on your position and also that you CAN still be truthful in doing so while making your pitch more palatable.

Did you not read and understand that? Or, are you intentionally trying to obfuscate this discussion by throwing up more red herrings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top