A reason why we are losing

[Nom de Forum]

And the answer is, "Yes, people were killed, and people tried to reduce the level of death by restricting the weapons used in the killings. For example, In 1139, Pope Innocent III and the second Lateran council outlawed the crossbow as a weapon causing unacceptable devastation."

That is just the tip of an iceberg we don't want to hit! Do not use historical references to defend the bearing of arms unless you are very carefully selective because it opens the door to valid historical documentation countering your argument. Through out much of history, arms control has been the policy of a small ruling class to control the majority. Even in our the recent past during our American right to keep and bear arms era some of our most cherished legends have a very anti-gun reality. Very strict Gun control is what many "Wild West" towns practiced. We have enough constitutional support, case law, and statistical support, that we can avoid relying on questionable and possibly detrimental historical references. We especially have to avoid using references to anything that is more romantic myth than historical fact.

 

[JRH6856]

That is just the tip of an iceberg we don't want to hit! Do not use historical references to defend the bearing of arms unless you are very carefully selective because it opens the door to valid historical documentation countering your argument. Through out much of history, arms control has been the policy of a small ruling class to control the majority. Even in our the recent past during our American right to keep and bear arms era some of our most cherished legends have a very anti-gun reality. Very strict Gun control is what many "Wild West" towns practiced. We have enough constitutional support, case law, and statistical support, that we can avoid relying on questionable and possibly detrimental historical references. We especially have to avoid using references to anything that is more romantic myth than historical fact.

Exactly right. In spite of what we like to think, the actual history of 2A rights and gun control in this country is really not very favorable to our side. The original intent of the 2A is still the subject of objective debate, the 14th Amendment incorporations were pretty much gutted by the Slaughter-House cases. Heller was the first really favorable event for firearms rights and it was narrowly decided and has narrow application. Heller unlocked the door, and McDonald turned the knob, but the door is not yet open.

 

[Captain33036]

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

You state, do not use historical references, but then go on to give very good historical references reinforcing the argument for maintaining the second amendment.

I think you just made my argument for me. :O)

At any rate, whomever wishes to make whatever argument they wish, certainly can. I debate anti's on a regular basis and have been successful. My comments are a few pointers. Simple questions neuter their arguments easily. And if they continue to believe in illogical conclusions, the debate is quickly ended, as being simply pointless. Not a big deal.

A reasonable person has no good answers to those simple questions. A zealot is not worth asking the questions of.

Thanks
ps - I should add the first thing you would learn in debating is that the most basic strategy is simply to not accept the other sides position.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I posted a list a while back of things I saw as recent wins in our column. I do not automatically disagree that there may be utility in giving a little to get a little, as a general principle, but as I look at that list I posted, I don't see really anything that we had to give up to get real positive changes.

Sam, i agree with your evaluation for the most part. Those were wins, but none of them are federal legislation that EXPANDED gun rights, they are all still defensive/reactionary.

What did we compromise to make the 1994 AWB sunset?

Purely defensive, the win here was getting the sunset provision in the original bill. Obviously the original bill was a net negative, but getting that provision in was a win.

What did we compromise to get the national parks carry ban killed off?

Defensive

What did we compromise to get the 2nd Amendment declared a personal (not collective) right?

Judicial ruling, so not a legislative win (which is valid, but a different topic)

What did we compromise to get concealed carry rights established in (almost) all 50 states?

State by state basis, so not really sure.

Definitely these were all wins. I am wondering about nationwide improvements, but obviously that is not all that matters.

 

[Sam1911]

Eeeehhhh...Pizza? By that logic, repealing GCA'68 or NFA'34 would be purely defensive, too.

What counts as an OFFENSIVE win then? Forcing the government to GIVE people guns?

 

[40-82]

The liberal news media is not winning. Their high water mark came in 1968 when they reported the Tet offensive, a great American military victory because our enemy was foolish enough to come out and fight, as a victory for the Viet Cong. The news media turned a devastating military defeat to our enemies into a political victory for them. Nobody doubted the truth of the news medias reports because we had no alternate sources. That is no longer true today. In 1968 when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the strongest control laws our national government had ever seen, they did so with virtually no opposition. The NRA at the time was a tiny organization that supported competitive shooting and managed a gun magazine. Look at us today.

As it stands now the chances a gun measure has to pass in a given state hinges on whether the state's population is primarily urban or rural. The anti-gun people look at that dichotomy with confidence between the long term trends of the American population favors urban population growth over rural population growth, but more of the urban population as time goes on are coming around to the point of view that just because they will never go duck hunting and can't imagine ever wanting to go that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a desire to give up their right to have the means to defend themselves.

We're winning.

 

[Spats McGee]

We're losing?!?

Well, crud. Nobody told me THAT.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

You state, do not use historical references, but then go on to give very good historical references reinforcing the argument for maintaining the second amendment.

I think you just made my argument for me. :O)

At any rate, whomever wishes to make whatever argument they wish, certainly can. I debate anti's on a regular basis and have been successful. My comments are a few pointers. Simple questions neuter their arguments easily. And if they continue to believe in illogical conclusions, the debate is quickly ended, as being simply pointless. Not a big deal.

A reasonable person has no good answers to those simple questions. A zealot is not worth asking the questions of.

Thanks

O.K., I think I understand what you mean. You think I supplied a good historical reference to support the 2A with the comment about ruling classes controlling the majority. Ya, that works for the converted, but the heathens hear that and interpret it as through out most of history Arms Control has been the norm and think so why should it not be now. Most of the Anti-gun people are more concerned with receiving protection from the Ruling Class than protection from the Ruling Class.

BTW, the whole Pope banning crossbow edict was not a concern about carnage. It was concern that low born, easily trained men where killing high born, expensively trained, nobles and that might give the low born the idea they were just as good as a noble. The Pope had no problem at all with using crossbows on heathens, as was amply demonstrated during the Crusades against Islamic control of the Levant.

 

[JRH6856]

I'm not sure if this is intended for me or not, but it is entirely possible that I helped your argument since I'm not sure what your argument is.

I don't try to win debates with antis because as you point out, it is pointless try to counter emotion with logic and it is hard to claim any kind of victory when the opponent is playing an entirely different game by a different set of rules.

 

[Captain33036]

Nom

I hear you and think we agree.

Arguing head to head, point by point, such as using historical references, draws you into their argument. They can come up with references, you can come up with references (my favorite is ...say that movie, it was called Shindlers List). And few are prepared to win this way.

I think you see my point with the crossbow [and you are right in your point]. Throughout history, there have been plenty of terrible weapons thought awful by the ruling class (as the elites think guns are now). But...of course...no one points out...ALL those weapons are still with us, you can buy them at any Kmart or Walmart.

What I am trying to say is simply this: If you want to engage an anti in debate and are looking for tactics and strategies, here is a scheme that works:

a. We do not have to defend our position, it is in the Constitution. If an anti wants to debate me, they need to defend their position.

b. The first rule of debating is to not accept the other sides argument. They can start out with, "guns are bad," "guns kill people" etc. Does not matter. Don't accept any of it.

c. Ask questions that force them to defend their position. I listed three simple questions that end most debates. Their arguments are never more than one or two layers deep...and they run out of rational explanations after just one or two questions.

Just one way of doing it.


If I am reading correctly, the last few pages of this thread have demonstrated that if you can caught up in numbers, moral equivalency, legalities, constitutional rights....you quickly get caught in a quagmire...of their making... from which there is little escape.

My best to all

J

ps - and yes all the above depends on your having a discussion with a reasonable, if not rational person. If they are not, you will know this within two sentences and you can then save yourself the time.

 

[iMagUdspEllr]

Whoa. Apparently I took too long of a break from this thread.


@JohnKSa:
No, one man's argument is not another man's debate. They are two different words with two different definitions for a reason. You also seem to think a debate is when two people half-heartedly state their opinions and then leave it at that.

Please correct me if that isn't what you think a debate is.

A debate can be just as spirited as an argument. Both sides can aggressively defend their position. Truly, in a formal debate, (which I'm not even remotely suggesting holding anyone to) there will be a pro and a con side. The pro will be for defending a position and the con will be trying to show that is a bad idea. You would basically have to have a debate for every idea. This would take forever. What I do propose is that we try to debate instead of argue. Whether you have a regular or a formal debate the point is to focus on the ideas and whether they are a bad idea or not. In an argument people will try every underhanded trick in the book (those tricks almost always are a logical fallacy) to appear to win (even when they haven't actually touched the subject matter at hand).

In other words, people spend a lot of time not making any progress in either direction. It wastes my time. It pisses me off. Nobody learns anything. People lose interest in the thread who might have effectively contributed to the actual discussion. And so on and so on.

You don't need to argue to defend your position. Debating is defending your position and making your assertion. It gives your idea the chance to hold water on its own merit rather than how good you are at discrediting your opponent.

No, my point is that pro-gunners are losing because we are too stupid to make a legitimate point that can stand on its own merits. And, we are "okay" with that because for some reason you are a "man" if you are good at browbeating.

If someone is offended because I said "we"... then apply it to just me then.

I tried to explain this in a way that wasn't offensive with my initial post. But, nothing other than blunt seems to work.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I'm not sure if this is intended for me or not, but it is entirely possible that I helped your argument since I'm not sure what your argument is.

I don't try to win debates with antis because as you point out, it is pointless try to counter emotion with logic and it is hard to claim any kind of victory when the opponent is playing an entirely different game by a different set of rules.

Well, you did help my argument serendipitously. References of distant and recent history of people using firearms to defeat their oppressors is not very effective against the Antis. They think you are a nut job for believing you think you may need to and can fight back against tyrants driving M1 Abrams by using your M1 Garand. Stick to the constitution, law, statistics, and good PR work. Much of good PR work is making your target audience comfortable believing you are much like them and only slightly different in a non-threatening way to their sense of normality.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Eeeehhhh...Pizza? By that logic, repealing GCA'68 or NFA'34 would be purely defensive, too.

What counts as an OFFENSIVE win then? Forcing the government to GIVE people guns?

I suppose i should have clarified offensive and defensive, since that terminology doesn't really have a standard meaning in this context.

Defensive: preventing bad legislation from passing
Offensive: passing new legislation that expands gun rights (it is legislation to repeal an old law, so that fits here)

It is much harder to get the support/votes to pass new legislation than to block new legislation, so that is what i was looking at.

 

[barnbwt]

"Chuck was speaking at the equivalent of a Brady convention or town hall because the whole World saw it on their media of choice. We don't need to use these methods of showing "solidarity" with our own kind."

Bunk. How many rallies, donation campaigns, flyers, marches, bumper stickers, and stirring speeches consist of calm, measured, pure logic? You end up sounding like Al Gore and alienating people before they even pay attention. I enjoy NPR because I like to think about the news, and it is non-emotional unlike blow-hard shows (even if the topics are equally vacuous ), but I won't pretend they convince anyone of anything (heck, they have to do a week's long guilt-trip four times a year just to keep the lights on ). Rather, they are actually rather true to their 'stated' cause in that they are quiet enough for listeners to form their own thoughts about what they choose to report.

Obviously all that 'emotive' stuff is fluff in the long run (which is why the Brady campaign is so up and down depending on the weather), but you need it to get people on board and keep them allied when they aren't thinking --and there are certainly times when they are not thinking. Heck, after Newtown lots of people were saying 'to heck with the NRA, they won't say anything about the shooting' even though the organization is precisely what ended up saving their bacon. For grouping of like-minded people brainstorming and pondering the fundamentals of our beliefs, like here, hard logic is essential because it reinforces and organizes those beliefs we "feel" are self-evident.

If there is, and I sincerely hope there is, a think tank out there focused on crafting gun-friendly well-written legislation, they would undoubtedly be focused on the very logical and philosophical debate you yearn for. But that isn't politics; politics is doing what you can, and you rarely get that by acting magnanimously versus strategically. I also think such a think-tank organization would be our only hope of ever getting meaningful and well-crafted pro-gun legislation.

Anybody know if the NRA has such a thing? I've never heard of it, or of any such proposals...just schmoozing with law makers to keep them from voting for additional baloney laws.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"all the above depends on your having a discussion with a reasonable, if not rational person."

Wow, there's a niche . I honestly think the only way such a beast can exist is by way of pure ignorance, which is itself becoming something of an endangered species in our media driven world. Someone who is apathetic will likely never be an asset to us, someone misinformed sufficiently before we reach them is also a likely lost cause. If we find someone who really and truly is capable of thinking about the issues and weighing both sides, it is because they haven't bothered or had the opportunity to even think about it up to that point. If the former, they are so apathetic as to be useless, if the latter, it can only be because they have not been exposed to this topic. I find it increasingly difficult to believe an intelligent person exists in this country who has not been exposed to this topic.

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

I suppose i should have clarified offensive and defensive, since that terminology doesn't really have a standard meaning in this context.

Defensive: preventing bad legislation from passing
Offensive: passing new legislation that expands gun rights (it is legislation to repeal an old law, so that fits here)

If we are going to use clearly defined terms... Rights exist, with or without legislation. Legislation can only restrict rights, it can't create them or expand them, it can impose or remove previously imposed restrictions. Keep that in mind when defining legislation as good or bad, offensive or defensive.

 

[barnbwt]

"What I am trying to say is simply this: If you want to engage an anti in debate and are looking for tactics and strategies, here is a scheme that works:

a. We do not have to defend our position, it is in the Constitution. If an anti wants to debate me, they need to defend their position.

b. The first rule of debating is to not accept the other sides argument. They can start out with, "guns are bad," "guns kill people" etc. Does not matter. Don't accept any of it.

c. Ask questions that force them to defend their position. I listed three simple questions that end most debates. Their arguments are never more than one or two layers deep...and they run out of rational explanations after just one or two questions.

Just one way of doing it."

I follow you on points A and C, point B is very non-diplomatic if taken literally (a better tactic is refusing to let the opponent get away with such broad and imprecise claims in the first place --"what does 'guns kill people' have to do with anything? we're talking mag-limits" for instance). Refusing to accept the scant but real logic of the other side is a recipe for a shouting match. Likewise, both debating parties must respect the other sides' as a good-faith argument. Otherwise you're loudly and impolitely arguing about what color the sky is. Good faith arguments can be hard to come by when they are rooted in visceral emotions (fear/grief). Our side has plenty of those, too (black helicopters and the Holocaust, respectively)

Point A is the most critical to not only forming a coherent argument, but in forming a cohesive view of the world and firming exactly where you stand on this and all other issues. Be it the Constitution, Bible, Vedas, or Mao's little red book, you need a firm foundation to support whatever you seek to argue. To debate ad hoc is to invite logical fallacies and contradictions all over; this is precisely why ill-prepared debaters on both sides of the issue quickly become frustrated and angered as their opponent pokes through the holes of their claims. A good foundation for your world view actually makes for a very emotional argument; a passionate argument. An argument you can readily support on your feet without contradicting yourself on; an argument which makes itself.

TCB

 

[JohnKSa]

No, one man's argument is not another man's debate. They are two different words with two different definitions for a reason.

Yes, one man's argument is another man's debate. What one person might consider (note that 'consider' is a word which implies a personal interpretation taking place) to be a structured debate amounts to a free-for-all argument to someone schooled in the formal rules of debate.

They are two different words with different meanings, but the entire point of my comment was that people don't always see eye-to-eye. Is that not a common theme running through this entire thread? Because people don't always see eye to eye, it is common for them to also shade the meanings of, or have differing opinions about the interpretion of various words.

It's really not a concept that should require an in-depth explanation. Or any explanation at all, for that matter.

You also seem to think a debate is when two people half-heartedly state their opinions and then leave it at that.

I can tell you that in this case, what it "seems" to you that I think is not what I really think. Consider yourself corrected.

It wastes my time.

It only wastes your time if you can't disengage--if you are one of those people who must have the last word at any cost--as someone recently put it.

No, my point is that pro-gunners are losing because we are too stupid to make a legitimate point that can stand on its own merits.

If you really think that pro-gunners haven't made any legitimate points that can stand on their own merits, I really don't know what you tell you. I can see why you're frustrated if that's actually what you believe.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"Chuck was speaking at the equivalent of a Brady convention or town hall because the whole World saw it on their media of choice. We don't need to use these methods of showing "solidarity" with our own kind."

Bunk. How many rallies, donation campaigns, flyers, marches, bumper stickers, and stirring speeches consist of calm, measured, pure logic? You end up sounding like Al Gore and alienating people before they even pay attention.

O.K. if that is the way you want to play the debate game; I call your Bunk and raise you. 3U// $H1+! Calling “Bunk” is not the way you win friends and influence people who have demonstrated they are on your side, let alone people who are not or are uncertain. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated I don’t deserve being labeled by you as “sounding like Antis” in one thread and now making suggestions “sounding like Al Gore” in this one. Perhaps you have a friend or foe identification problem. If you will look at my THR signature line you will notice I am not just a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, I am an Endowment Life Member of the National Rifle Association. If you don’t think it is possible to make an inspiring speech to the faithful that is carefully crafted to limit your opponent’s ability to use it against you, you have very little understanding how the sophisticated political game is played. That is thinking strategically and doing what works rather than “what you can”. Doing “what you can” thinking in politics leads to impulsive acts that can boomerang back doing you more harm than your opponent. To summarize: 1. Don’t insult your friends thinking that is going to force them into line. 2. Don’t make melodramatic gestures that are interpreted by your opponents and the undecided as at the very least silly, inappropriately aggressive, possibly hostile, and can do more damage to you than your opponent.

I enjoy NPR because I like to think about the news, and it is non-emotional unlike blow-hard shows (even if the topics are equally vacuous ), but I won't pretend they convince anyone of anything (heck, they have to do a week's long guilt-trip four times a year just to keep the lights on ). Rather, they are actually rather true to their 'stated' cause in that they are quiet enough for listeners to form their own thoughts about what they choose to report.

I also enjoy NPR and am a supporting member of my local station. I agree with your analysis, but many people on The Right think NPR is a rabid mouth piece of The Left. It is amazing how different perspectives can be of the same thing. I actually bounce around through out the day and week to many sources of news in an attempt to get a wide perspective before making conclusions.

Obviously all that 'emotive' stuff is fluff in the long run (which is why the Brady campaign is so up and down depending on the weather), but you need it to get people on board and keep them allied when they aren't thinking --and there are certainly times when they are not thinking. Heck, after Newtown lots of people were saying 'to heck with the NRA, they won't say anything about the shooting' even though the organization is precisely what ended up saving their bacon. For grouping of like-minded people brainstorming and pondering the fundamentals of our beliefs, like here, hard logic is essential because it reinforces and organizes those beliefs we "feel" are self-evident.

If there is, and I sincerely hope there is, a think tank out there focused on crafting gun-friendly well-written legislation, they would undoubtedly be focused on the very logical and philosophical debate you yearn for. But that isn't politics; politics is doing what you can, and you rarely get that by acting magnanimously versus strategically. I also think such a think-tank organization would be our only hope of ever getting meaningful and well-crafted pro-gun legislation.

Anybody know if the NRA has such a thing? I've never heard of it, or of any such proposals...just schmoozing with law makers to keep them from voting for additional baloney laws.

TCB

Unfortunately the NRA has many faults and deficiencies, but they are still our best defensive organization. Perhaps if we elected less flintlock waving directors and more politically sophisticated directors the money we send them would be even more effective. Perhaps that money would be used to do what is most effective instead of just what can easily and impulsively be done. If I were a suspicious man I might think easy and impulsive melodramatic acts by the NRA are more about perpetuating the making of money instead of helping to craft realistic legislation that protects the right to keep and bear arms.

barnbwt don’t alienate your comrades in arms helping you fight the good fight.

 

[JRH6856]

If I were a suspicious man I might think easy and impulsive melodramatic acts by the NRA are more about perpetuating the making of money instead of helping to craft realistic legislation that protects the right to keep and bear arms.

That melodramatic stuff is what we see because it has to be seen to be melodramatic. It does raise money from those motivated by melodrama. And it isn't just the NRA. It is almost a universal truth.

But there are a lot of people that are turned off by such antics and I don't see the NRA doing a lot to appeal to them. A legislative/judicial strategy think tank would be a good move, and it doesn't need spectacular visuals to have an appeal. Just tangible results without the hype would do nicely.

And we don't need aged rock stars replacing the flintlock wavers.

 

[ugaarguy]

But there are a lot of people that are turned off by such antics and I don't see the NRA doing a lot to appeal to them. A legislative/judicial strategy think tank would be a good move, and it doesn't need spectacular visuals to have an appeal. Just tangible results without the hype would do nicely.

Here are three organizations with results and so little hype that you haven't heard of them: The CATO Institute (Responsible for Heller v. DC) NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (Largely responsible for funding McDonald v. Chicago) and the NRA Institute For Legislative Action (one of the most effective gun rights legislation lobbying organizations). Most gun folks don't even know that the NRA CRDF and the NRA ILA are separately funded entities: When you donate to the CRDF or the ILA all of your money stays in that sub entity and doesn't go to "big" NRA.

Also of note, Knife Rights, the incredibly successful group that's gotten tons of pro knife legislation passed in their very short existence, is modeled after the NRA ILA.

The organizations are out there, but since they spend their money on getting results rather than hyping themselves you have to look a little harder to find them.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Yes, one man's argument is another man's debate. What one person might consider (note that 'consider' is a word which implies a personal interpretation taking place) to be a structured debate amounts to a free-for-all argument to someone schooled in the formal rules of debate.

Ha ha.... Definitely this is true. As someone well acquainted with formal debate, i can say with great certainty that nothing that happens here on THR or any other online forum I have seen bears any resemblance to a formal debate.

I suppose online/message board "debates" are closer to Presidential/political "debates," where the primary goal is not to be accurate and correct with strong logical supports, but to appear appealing to one group of people or another.

 

[HexHead]

It's a lot easier to just tell the antis that they're stupid and walk away. You're not going to change their minds.

 

[Sam1911]

It's a lot easier to just tell the antis that they're stupid and walk away. You're not going to change their minds.

As I said before:

What an oddly defeatist attitude. Many of us know "liberal" and even once-anti-gun people who've been swayed by reason and experience to come around to the pro-gun viewpoint.

YOU may not be capable of reaching other people with your persuasive skills (as Harry Calahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations..."), but don't claim that others cannot.

 

[Tirod]

The real problem is that many won't make the effort to expand their abilities. They just give in to their rising levels of frustration and shake the dust off their feet.

There is a time and place to do that, but it's not that time or place across the board on many of the issues. What we are seeing is exactly that on both sides. An attitude is copped that the "others" are brain dead ignorant and can't see Truth if it hit them between the eyes.

In reality, men always strive against each other, it's just one huge monkey dance to see who's the top dog. We argue internally about if we are even winning or losing in this thread, we argue whether we should even bother talking to "them," we argue whether a company should move out or stay in their home town. If we can't even agree on it or whether the M16 eats where it poops, how then will we be able to convince others they aren't right about wanting all firearms confiscated and destroyed?

You have to exercise the skill to improve it. There's really no way to add a good scope and zero in more precisely, it's not a hardware oriented kind of thing. It's a SOCIAL skill, which is why so many shooters get easily frustrated. They don't have those skills, don't like those that do, and don't want to have much to do with them - even fellow 2A fans.

That's normal for any group of men focused on the technology, not the interaction. Racers are the same - it's about the car. Show car builders are different, it's about the impact on the public and eliciting their reaction, it's about the social aspect. The basic fact they can't drive it on the street isn't anything they worry about, where the racer focuses solely on the performance aspect. Shooters do the same - some focus on the performance, some on the aesthetics. A Service Rifle match has a consistently different view of firearms vs a group bidding for engraved Belgain Browning shotguns.

If you or I won't make the effort to communicate with others in a polite, restrained, and informative way, then we either shut up and leave it to others who can, or contribute to being the Fred Phelps of the gun owner's association. And like it or not, consistently pointed out as being the average, the normal kind of gun user, which is how the antigunners like to slant the game. Pick the worst examples, focus on them, talk about them as if that's what we are ALL like.

It's an easy thing to do - antigunners make noises like, "a gun rally is no different than Westboro Baptist members demonstrating." And tossing rotten tomatoes never seemed to deter them. They were convinced they were right. In that specific situation, there is guidance as written, and it is NOT to keep tossing rotten tomatoes, or shunning them. Their may be that time, but who are any of us to give up so quickly when we see others who've done more for us?

But, if your Mom or Dad broke it up, that example may not exist for you. Keep looking, it's there nonetheless. A coach, teacher, someone who put up with us long after we deserved any attention. And if we really get honest, we can think of plenty of times we pushed things even further to make them prove they wouldn't walk away.

We have to do the same, we are the example of exactly why. We need to be long suffering, patient, and continue to work to get an understanding across. When it comes down to the basic issues, what we really disagree with antigunners on is the method - not the goal. We both want a quiet peaceful life with no stress. We just understand we need to do it protecting ourselves from the wolves, they don't see we ARE protecting them from the wolves. When they finally have to do it on their own, they gain more understanding.

We don't need to look like the wolves to do it, but we need to understand that they don't like anything that does and lump us all together. I know it's the sheep dog cliche, but it goes to the point - they hate guns because they feel as if any gunbearer is a threat. They can't or won't separate the two, they can't or won't (ironically) parse the nuance. For some, it's just attempting to gain more power, and an enemy is simply a tool to play against others who won't comply, to draw them in.

We aren't losing, we still have guns. Laws or not, many of us will continue to have them, regardless of what popular opinion and playing to the electorate bring about.