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

Blame shifting: Our opponents tactics

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by nicki, Feb 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nicki

    nicki Member

    Nov 19, 2007
    Fresno ca
    A co worker of mine used this term when talking about her troubled teen.

    The teen used the term "blame shifting".

    It hit me that our opponents are in fact using this on us.

    Let's put this in perspective

    An area has problems with gangs and drugs. Gangs and Drugs are a result of failed government policies, but there are groups that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or even expanding it.

    What they do is find a scapegoat, ie, guns.

    They then get on their soapbox with the MSM and blame the easy availbility of semi automatic assault weapons that fire 1200rpm that have no sporting purpose.

    There attacks are emotional and they go for people's hearts. They pick victims, often children so that they can have the nice tear jerk effect.

    We respond with logic and intellectual arguments. Since emotion is what actually moves people, our arguments for our rights falls on deaf ears.

    Does anything get done to deal with the real problems, of course not.

    Those who created the problems shfit blame from them to us.

    The fact is most gun owners are in suburban and rural areas, these gangs operate in urban areas, so what we have here are two different worlds.

    Most gun owners are white males, most victims of gun violence are non white.
    Here we have a racial divide.

    Many people in urban areas don't own guns and all they see is bad news with guns everyday. They are willing to sacrifice a right they never exercise for the public safety.

    What we need to do is recognize this pattern and develop a counter offensive to this.

    Wecan't do this by ourselves, we are going to have to align with others and many of those who we may have to align with may be anti gun.

    If our attitude is that we have differences on guns, but we will work together on things we agree on to reduce violence, it is a win win situation for both of us.

    The drug war is responsible directly and indirectly for anywhere between 30 to 50 percent of crime in our country.

    Gang members are someone's kids. Many of them are beyond hope, but some are not. It does not matter if we are successful, what matters is we gave the appearance of caring.

    Bill Clinton was a master of it, over the years I watched him smooze every week about what he wanted to do. It didin't matter that alot of what he said was never done, what mattered was the perception that he had a heart and that he felt people's pain.

    We will never get national leftist organizations to work with us because they thrive on the culture of victimization. Eliminate the culture and their existence is in jeopardy.

    It will be the local churches, the local citizen activists, the people who have to live in these urban war zones and who want a better life for their kids that will get involved.

    It is the grandma who has lost many children to gun violence that will become our ally once she realizes that she has been used.

    The issue has never really been guns, it has been control.

    Right now our country is in for some very hard economic times because our money is in jeopardy.

    WE can fix our economic problems, but it would require changes that many interests would be against since they put their self interest above the survival of the country.

    AS a result, the **** will hit the fan, and those who created the mess are going to look for someone to blame.

    Every minority group is at risk depending on who is in power.

    Our gun rights will be in jeopardy even if we get the best ruling from SCOTUS on the Heller case.

    New Orleans had a RKBA, yet when Katrina hit, that didn't stop gun confiscation.

  2. Dustinthewind

    Dustinthewind Member

    Mar 25, 2007
    Land of Oz

    While your intentions are good I feel they are a bit naive. The liberals use "buzz" words to excite their base and to incite us. They legislate action and think that they are saving the world and the environment where we, the gun culture, take action that is meaningful.
    Look at the environmentalist with their buzz words, green , recycling, who bemoan hunting. Then look at the duck hunter that spends his own money to build ponds and other habitat for wildlife. Who is contributing the most to the environment?
    They rely on the government for their sustenance and for their protection and they rely on us to pay for it. They ask us to give with one hand, while they steal from the other and they expect us to comply with no complaint.
    We on the other hand rely on ourselves for our protection. We rely on the sweat of our brow and the strength of our backs for our sustenance.
    Where, I ask you, can there be common ground? Maybe we can rally around it's for the children's sake, but no, this can't work. We raise our children with morals, principles and scruples. Their children are raised by a village of immoral people.
  3. charon

    charon Member

    Jul 13, 2007
    Good post. As you point out though fixing the real problems requires an ability for politicians, etc. to set aside the fear of political backlash and operate in the best interest of the people and not yourself, necessarily :)

    Take Chicago, for example. Please. Anyway, Daley has built a political structure that is sturdier than a house of cards, but still vulnerable. More like the Jenga game. It is also one of the most segregated and sub-divided cities in the US, which is good for a divide and conquer approach to power. He manages that with his machine-elected aldermen serving his needs, and providing modest handouts/pork/patronage to each neighborhood as required. Most of his effort is on the Downtown and North side showpiece communities but he gives all the other communities just enough to keep them inactively content.

    Were he to try and address the very human social ills with a hand up instead of a handout approach, his little Jenga tower could collapse in a heartbeat. Now I believe he is also a real emotion-driven anti as well, but he clearly knows how to appear to do something (useless gun control) without bringing any personal or community responsibility into the mix.

    Daley has a willing media, so getting other messages out is difficult. He controls the aldermen, so there is little room for independent leadership against the current anti-gun push. Other community leaders either in the neighborhoods or outside, like Jesse Jackson, are not likely to push any line that would potentially hold their supporters responsible for any ills -- not a way to grow power.

    While Chicago is perhaps an extreme example in some areas, I'm sure the basic issues are the same in all big, urban cities and the hindrance to truly "sensible" (based on fact and common sense) gun policy is universal in these environments.

    Are these insurmountable hurdles? In the right national environment, perhaps not. There is already a shift at the federal level away for making guns an issue because it has more political liability than benefit nationally. But at the local/state level (areas with big blue cities) It's hard to see any change not driven by the SCOTUS with both strict scrutiny and incorporation. Until then, it's a fight to hold ground.

    In the meantime, one proactive area to approach that might get some attention and open a mind or two is linking gun control to racism. The historical roots are clear, and the famous photo of Malcom X holding the M1 Carbine with the "high capacity clip <tm>" because he didn't trust the Chicago Police Department with his safety is a powerful image.

    As an aside, where the War on Drugs is concerned, I am of the camp that agrees with you that it drives most crime and by extension most gun regulation. I also think it fails as policy when examined using critical thought, though I know many would disagree. However, from a practical standpoint turning that around is a monumental challenge, and one far greater than reforming the IRS and tax policy, for example.

    1. The prison industrial complex is a multi-billion dollar industry. It needs the WOD to grow profits. So, a lot of dollars will flow from lobbyists to resist change.

    2. There are huge bureaucracies that need the WOD and will fight any change. DEA, BATFE, Customs, Border Patrol... any agency that touches the issue. The Federal Government itself, Executive and Congress appreciate the added ability to meddle in our lives as well, I'm sure. This extends down to the local criminal justice system (legal and law enforcement) that has extra staffing, money, equipment, power and control.

    3. It is a platform/hot button issue for some percent of politicians and voters, meaning it is not an easy fight at the grass roots level.

    We live in a great country. But it's a long way from one that is governed by cool, clear impartial reason.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page