Gun-rights banner at Capitol draws outcry over its language

[Justin]

Cuchulainn is completely correct.

We are in a struggle to win converts to our side. No matter how much truth you see in the message, or how much you agree with the idea, putting up a banner with such a blatantly confrontational message only serves to further the stereotype that gun owners are a bunch of unhinged, fringe-dwelling whackjobs.

Insipidly stupid, poorly-thought out attempts at public antagonism do nothing to help our cause. It's the protesting equivalent of masturbating in public.

 

[cuchulainn]

And things were even better than that in the '30's, 40's, and 50's. A repeal of anything that would violate "shall not be infringed" is what I'm aiming at.

You appear to be setting you goals a good deal lower.

I never said we should stop. Rather, I said "I'm in it for the long haul." I said, "there's still a lot of work to do"

Why are you purposefully ignoring what I wrote?

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

This is a political war, and we have to play their game right now.

If you play by their rules in their court with their ball... don't be surprised if they win the game.

We have a Constitution. We have our history. We know where we are now. We have options. Those options are running out.

I've written letter. I've sent thousands of dollars over the last two decades to the NRA, GOA, SAF, SAS, and JPFO. I've voted Republican or Libertarian in every election since I turned 18. Heck, I even sent money to Angel Shamiya when he ran afoul of Illinois idiotic FOID card and an ex-wife out to get him. So don't you dare tell me I haven't done anything more than sit on my ass and bang my fist on the keyboard.

You think things are moving along just swimmingly? I see us teetering on the edge. One court decision away from having our Rights trashed. One piece of legislative propaganda passed in a mid-night session or buried in a funding bill away from open revolt.

If you think I'm over stating the case, you haven't been paying attention.:banghead:

 

[jcoiii]

I'm very confused (not really). Where is there anything racist? Where was there a threat? I didn't read anything about Cruz's race. Nor did anyone threaten to hang him? How is that any different than saying that George Bush should be shot for his "treasonous" acts in "lying to go to war"?

Worlds of difference between "should be" and "I'm going to"

 

[Tim James]

I didn't read the thread so someone probably already mentioned this: they should have just put up a banner that said "gun control has its roots in racism." That would've given the Black Caucus a start.

 

[07Lway]

The biggest ball in the court is the one on our side, and that is The Constitution.

I wasn't trying to imply that you do not write letters. I was referring to the countless people I have meant who are too lazy to get involved, but still B&M about losing their rights.

I disagree with you about the state we are in. However, we are on the same side fundamentally. I will not waste my time aruging with someone who already strongly believes in 2nd Amendment. There are millions of other people who I could be talking too who do not believe as strongly in it as they should. Those are the people we should focus our efforts on.

I think this banner does nothing to further the 2nd Amendment. Clearly it will only make fence sitter lean the other way. That is a very bad thing. We should present ourselves as civil as we can, so we do not go right into the sterotype that the media loves nothing more then to advance.

 

[cuchulainn]

Worlds of difference between "should be" and "I'm going to"

"Your daughter should be raped."

"I'm going to rape your daughter."

Nope. Smells the same to me.


.

 

[ATW525]

"Your daughter should be raped."

"I'm going to rape your daughter."

Nope. Smells the same to me.

I disagree. The first one is simply offensive. The latter statement is an actual threat. Of course neither is likely to get a positive reaction from most parents.

 

[cuchulainn]

The first one is simply offensive. The latter statement is an actual threat.

Semantics. Both are threats because any sane speaker would understand that both would be received as threats.

 

[General Geoff]

Wrong. The former is NOT a threat, it's only an opinion.

 

[atomd]

"Your daughter should be raped."

"I'm going to rape your daughter."

Nope. Smells the same to me

I disagree. The first is a direct threat of violence. The second is stating that you see cause for violent act to be committed. The first one is obviously illegal (assault). The second one, while being a terrible thing to say, is not.

 

[MikeFL86]

Don't you tell people that we aren't willing to fight and die for our rights. We are and will, when the time comes.

And when is that time? It didn't happen after the NFA of 34', the GCA of 68', the Brady Bill, or the Assault Weapons Ban. Face it, not many people have the guts to put their money with their mouth is. The ones that have are probably already dead. Most of you rattle the cage, but when new restrictions come, you erase the line and set it even further back. This is why we have lost so many of our rights. Say what you mean, and do what you say. Think about what the future generation is going to think of us. I believe that they will look back at us and despise us as cowards for not fighting for freedom.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Careful now Mike. It has already been implied that such "bombastic" language is "counter-productive".

Be sure to consult your Political Cowardice manual for the correct terminology that won't offend those wishing to strip us of the protections for our Rights. After all, we wouldn't want to hurt their "feelings" now would we?

 

[07Lway]

None of those bans have taken away peoples current firearms. They have all had grandfather clauses. If they had to go to peoples homes and confiscate peoples weapons, then it probably would be a much bigger mess.

Originally Posted by MikeFL86:
Think about what the future generation is going to think of us. I believe that they will look back at us and despise us as cowards for not fighting for freedom.

Yeah I really think of how big of pussies my grandfathers generation was for not fighting to the death for their freedom when NFA of 34 happened...

 

[cuchulainn]

If you tell someone, "Your daughter should be raped," he will take it as a threat and act accordingly. Everyone knows how it will be recieved.

If you make a statement that you know will be received as a threat, you are making a threat.

Arguing over the grammar is laughable.

And when Vito Corleone says, "It would be a shame if your little boy died," he's not making a threat either, just stating an opinion.

You guys crack me up.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

There was nothing wrong with the banner...

What is wrong is playing into the anti's hands.

I understand what those who wish to win the propaganda battle are saying, but the plain reality is, playing the game of "lets be nice" is what got us here in the first place.

It was people who were afraid to tell the government where to go that got us the 1934 NFA. At least at that time though they KNEW the NFA would violate the 2nd Amendment if not phrased as a tax law.

It was people who were afraid of hurting peoples feelings which got us the 1968 GCA.

The 1994 AWB would have never come about had we had the balls to stand up and call it the crap that it was - but no, we had to play the PC game and not use firm language so as not to seem confrontational.

Get real. Being nice makes us look like nothing more than pushovers. I dont know about you, but i WANT my politicians good and terrified of the people they serve - not secure and comfortably insulated from those they rule.

 

[MikeFL86]

Careful now Mike. It has already been implied that such "bombastic" language is "counter-productive".

Be sure to consult your Political Cowardice manual for the correct terminology that won't offend those wishing to strip us of the protections for our Rights. After all, we wouldn't want to hurt their "feelings" now would we?

I'm sure I'll be flamed for "not taking the high road" (AKA disagreeing with the pro gun-control opinions around here).

Not exactly related to the topic, but relevant for current events and the latest posts in this topic:

It would've been better had the NRA just sat down and done nothing afte. There was no possible way that the Dems would've pushed for any new gun control and won. This has been pretty much admitted by everyone who has any political sense. But then the NRA decides to go and try to compromise with Carolyn McCarthy when it doesn't have to?! What the hell?

Of course, this won't stop the true believers from going down with the ship, and unfortunately trying to drag the rest of us with them.

 

[Joe Demko]

This would be President Bush, the current, and his ban on foreign firearm imports without a certain number of US parts in them. I was going to buy a Norinco 1991 from Marsters in Canada, and couldn't because of the import ban.

I believe it was Bush Sr. that put in place the import ban over a decade ago. Please correct me with a cite if I am wrong.

Most recently, several people have gone to jail for AK receiver with the full auto hole drilled. Previously, as long as no full auto fire control parts were installed, it didn't need to be registered. Further, some types of AR lower are now being reclassified as a "machine gun" if it was manufactured in such a way as to allow the installation of a "lightning link" or a RDIAS. Even if no such M16 fire control parts or DIAS is installed.

You can link me to a description of these arrests and reclassifications?

Lawsuits. Currently, there are still dozens of lawsuits against perfectly legal firearms for a variety of reasons.

You can show me one of these that has been settled and is now legal precendent?

The McCarthy ban (1022) and the new NICs legislation are serious threats. The NICs bill particularly because it expands the database used to track us all.

I believe I asked for laws that had been passed. Not bills and other hypotheticals.

 

[JohnBT]

"If you think I'm over stating the case, you haven't been paying attention."

Here we go again. You think everybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid, blind or what?

I have been paying attention and so have many of the folks you so cavalierly dismiss.



John

 

[Desertdog]

I didn't read the thread so someone probably already mentioned this: they should have just put up a banner that said "gun control has its roots in racism." That would've given the Black Caucus a start.

This should be one of our banners at all rallies:
"Gun control has its roots in racism."

 

[General Geoff]

If you tell someone, "Your daughter should be raped," he will take it as a threat and act accordingly. Everyone knows how it will be recieved.

So if I said "your POS car should be taken to the junk yard," you'd take that as a threat?

Conversely, "I'm going to take your POS car to the junkyard," IS a threat.

I'm an educated, successful young man and I perceive the two to be completely different. I see no reason why anyone else would (or should) take the former statement as a threat.

 

[07Lway]

Originally Posted By MikeFL86:
I'm sure I'll be flamed for "not taking the high road" (AKA disagreeing with the pro gun-control opinions around here).

Yeah, clearly we are all just Brady's Puppets.


Edit: Not only do most gun laws have roots in racism, so do a lot of laws (80% of Drug laws).

 

[Dan from MI]

Here's reality, and it sucks. It sucks less than it did, but still sucks.
1. About 20% of the population are like most of us here. The 2nd Amendment is the most important issue.
2. About 10% hate our guts and use it as a litmus test. Another 10% lean their way.
3. Another 20% lean our way, but it isn't the main issue, although considered.
4. The other 40% doesn't give a damn most of the time and fluctuates greatly.

We need part of that 40%, as well as the 20% that leans our way. We need a pluality of the popualation on our side.

What positive aspects happened from that "hung from the Tree of liberty" banner? Zip. Zilch Zero. You may like the message privately. We may have that opinion of some of our powerbrokers. I'm not going to hold up a banner and threaten them with "the ultimate price." The only way that tactic works if a. The big talker actually DOES it. B. There is enough popular support for a revolution to succeed. and C. The history books are written by the winners. Until then, it's best that the mouth stays shut. Big mouth bluster rarely works.

What that banner does do is get our arse kicked with that 40% who equates us with Tim McVeigh. We have the ballot box, and as long as we have that, we need to use that.

What I do threated bad reps with is their jobs, by throwing their butt out of office. That threat works and has been backed up with action.

I'll do what I have to do when the time comes. Right now, we're making small progess and what I have to do now is kick Carl Lenin out of office and make sure we have a good president nominated in the 08 primaries through the ballot box.

 

[cuchulainn]

Being nice makes us look like nothing more than pushovers.

See, here's where you revolutionary-wannabees need to learn some logic. Please look up False Dichotomy.

No one said anything about being nice, and certainly nothing about being pushovers.

We're saying refrain from inflammatory violent rhetoric that does nothing but make it easy for the grabbers to paint us as whackjobs.

 

[cuchulainn]

So if I said "your POS car should be taken to the junk yard," you'd take that as a threat?

The difference is the implied violence, and you know it