Is it really "gun owners against anti's?"

[Jason_W]

I completely agree with you, in the basic principle, but not in how you're applying it. If your neighbor wants UBCs, AWBs, or whatever, you would be in the wrong to go beat him up because of his beliefs. You'd be in the wrong to tie him up and duct-tape his mouth so he can't talk about his beliefs -- or even to stop him from buying ad space in the local paper to publish his views, if that's how he wants to spend his money.

Nobody punished Metcalf. He's not been imprisoned or fined. No one has come to his house and stopped him from talking and writing. No one has made it so he cannot publish his views (in fact, he has continued to, ... laughably).

He's simply no longer desired as either a high-profile representative of gun folks, nor as an entertainer in the employ of a for-profit magazine.

He wasn't entitled to his position. His status and salary were not his by right, but a privilege extended to him because his readers wanted to hear what he had to say. When he stopped offering good things and instead published a bunch of poor ideas and negative, backward, and destructive drivel, the readers contacted his publication and asked them to take away the rotten stuff and put something useful and positive in place of it. Give them a reason to continue to spend their money for that publication, in other words.

He won't ever admit it, but he's not been wronged in any way. He just lost touch with the people he was entertaining, and misrepresented the movement he was a (minor) leading member of. Having failed in his jobs, he was asked to not continue in that job.

The problem I still have with the above is the fact that the editors are the ones who green lit the article. I didn't hear anyone screaming for the dismissal of whatever editor approved the article.

Also, I'm appalled by the reaction from the gun community. It made us all look like closed-minded absolutists who will not tolerate any difference of opinion and will call for the punishment of anyone who deviates from the party line, no matter how slightly.

It doesn't paint a very flattering image of gun owners and like it or not, image is everything.

 

[Midwest]

--...... vote against and work against the destructive candidates, laws, and entities, or b) just stay the heck home on voting day and truly get out of the way. In the end, that's all that's truly going to matter.

If there was a moderate/middle of the road candidate that could win against against rabid anti-gunner's like Schumer and Feinstein then that could be viewed as a plus. Once these rabid anti's are out of office, there is less chance that they could do anymore damage to the second amendment.

The retirement of Carolyn ("The shoulder thing that goes up") McCarthy from NY (another rabid anti-gunner) can be viewed as a plus.

I still believe my idea of starting a pro-gun political organization solely for the election of pro-gun candidates in anti-gun states and areas around the U.S. is a good idea. I have suggested it a few times on THR and won't repeat it here again.

Overall, education is the key to counteract the decades of lies, misconceptions and distortions by the politicians and by the media. I believe our biggest weapon has been the concealed carry movement that has swept across the country. With it we have turned on a new generation of gun owners, especially women gun owners.

I think if anything pisses off the antis more than anything else, it probably is women gun owners who have CCWs. Because now the anti's can't use their "it's for the children" BS as effective as they used to. And that is because more women are 'packing heat' these days protecting themselves and their children.

And today's modern pro-gun movement is not about "sport shooting" and "duck hunting" by 50 year old white guys as some used to portray the movement as. Rather it is about conceal carry self defense by people of both sexes and all age ranges as well as all races and skin color in nearly every state of the U.S. And that really pisses the anti's off.

The days of Handgun Control telling people to 'be good victims' are all but a distant memory. But yet we have much work to do, we need to find a way change NJ and MD gun laws so people there can get carry permits and join the rest of the country. We need to defeat anti-gunners in anti-gun states. Someone who lives in Alaska, Idaho or Arizona could help their fellow gun owners in anti-gun states by making donations to pro-gun candidates in anti-gun states.

We really need to have an all out national drive to raise money by all the gun-owners in this country to have ALL the well known rabid anti-gunners defeated at the polls. That is where in part where the answer lies. If you got just $2 from every gun owner in this country for that purpose, you can make a real difference in the polls.

If Bloomberg and George Soros have a lot of money to promote their anti-gun agenda, well why can't all of us gun owners just band together and raise a lot of money to promote OUR pro-gun agenda?

If we can mobilize all the gun owners in this country to give just $2 each, imagine what kind of impact we would have at the polls? I don't think someone say in Idaho would have any problem in donating $2 to help defeat Feinstein or Schumer at the polls. It can be done.

And just what would we call this initiative? "OPERATION RETIREMENT" has a nice ring to it...

.

 

[Deanimator]

The actual "gray area" people are almost invariably:

• uninformed.
• apathetic.

The vast majority of non-gun owners appear to just not CARE. They don't want to own guns, and for the most part don't care if anyone else does, with the possible exception of convicted felons.

Gun owners who support repressive restrictions generally:

• support other violations of civil liberties, such as "stop and frisk", and have an unquestioning support, nearing adoration, of authority, especially police.
• belong to particular "niches" such as hunters and trap shooters.
• have little knowledge of firearms outside of their "niche".
• want to limit others to their interests and niches.
• often have other agendas, such as a fear of people of different races or ethnicities.
• want to curry favor with what they see as the "mainstream".

Are there anti-gun gun owners? Of course. Look at Diane Feinstein.

I know people in Chicago who both support their repressive gun laws, AND illegally own guns there.

By way of disclosure, I'm a pro-gun, Black, liberal.

 

[Deanimator]

No, he was ostracized by the gun community for voicing an unpopular opinion. Unpopular, not inaccurate...

Unpopular, inaccurate, and misleading.

I imagine that if Oprah Winfrey went on the air to support Jim Crow, she'd lose some of her popularity too.

 

[atomd]

The truth is that any talk of "compromise" and any talk of "shades of gray", being "moderate with this issue" has to do with gun owners losing their rights every single time. We've compromised enough. It's like the death of 1000 cuts with our rights. The anti people don't compromise...the only time they lose ground is when gun owners win after a grueling court battle and retain at least some of their rights. We give and they take. After they're done taking they just want to take a little more. But it's only a little. The little ads up.

Sometimes I think that it's not really about the guns. These gun grabbers know in their hearts that their silly little laws probably won't make a difference...but they know another thing for sure: The people who are going to be mad about it are the people they don't like. They are the people that didn't vote for their candidate. They are the people that need to pay the price. They claim they want tolerance but they are the most intolerant people I've ever met.

 

[Sam1911]

The problem I still have with the above is the fact that the editors are the ones who green lit the article. I didn't hear anyone screaming for the dismissal of whatever editor approved the article.

Well, I won't argue against that point. We don't know exactly what transpired there -- maybe the editor balked but Metcalf had a wild hair and demanded the chance to express himself in a way the editor thought would end badly. Who knows? Some of the negative outcomes of these things have long term repercussions. There are some magazines I've dropped from my subscriptions because of things that happened years ago now, and even though they eventually corrected the problems, in the mean time I found I could live very well without that publication, so never picked them back up. Considering the magazine staff's job is to keep subscription money flowing in, if that editor got his britches warmed up pretty hot over it -- that just makes sense. Fired? Well, that's a business decision by the owners. Bet he doesn't get three chances to pick good content.

Also, I'm appalled by the reaction from the gun community. It made us all look like closed-minded absolutists who will not tolerate any difference of opinion and will call for the punishment of anyone who deviates from the party line, no matter how slightly.

It doesn't paint a very flattering image of gun owners and like it or not, image is everything.

I certainly understand that worry, I really do. And on the one hand I'm not completely in disagreement. There is value in appearing thoughtful and patient and respectful of others.

However, I think the more compelling point does run counter. And that is, sending a message to everyone watching (politicians, news folks, other publishers, and the public at large) that says we are united, we are TOGETHER opposed to these new gun control measures, we will make life uncomfortable for entities that work to hurt our rights, and we are an economic power to be treated respectfully.

On one hand, no one likes being seen as a brute. On the other, making it clear that your side holds the power and will use it if need be, helps us immeasurably. Just look at what happened last year in the wake of Sandy Hook (NOTHING, on the national scene). That would have come out quite differently if the gun owning block was seen as muddled, fractured, undecided, unmotivated, weak, easily dissuaded, etc.

In the end, we DON'T WANT these things (AWBs, UBCs, mag bans, etc.) so it is better in the balance if we darned well look like WE DON'T WANT these things, and we'll get a little nasty about it if we have to.

You can be a gentleman and you can be a doormat. The only way for a gentleman to not be taken as a doormat is that, every once in a while, he's just a touch un-gentlemanly when the need arises.

 

[Jason_W]

However, I think the more compelling point does run counter. And that is, sending a message to everyone watching (politicians, news folks, other publishers, and the public at large) that says we are united, we are TOGETHER opposed to these new gun control measures, we will make life uncomfortable for entities that work to hurt our rights, and we are an economic power to be treated respectfully.

On one hand, no one likes being seen as a brute. On the other, making it clear that your side holds the power and will use it if need be, helps us immeasurably. Just look at what happened last year in the wake of Sandy Hook (NOTHING, on the national scene). That would have come out quite differently if the gun owning block was seen as muddled, fractured, undecided, unmotivated, weak, easily dissuaded, etc.

I fear that on a long enough timeline, that strategy is unsustainable. In order for private gun ownership in this nation to continue indefinitely, we need new people to take up shooting and to enjoy shooting so much that it becomes important and integral to their lives. This won't happen if the current crop of gun owners is perceived as being angry, insular, and backward.

 

[orpington]

Anyone remember this? Scroll down to 'Gun Control Controversy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan

A clear example of 'do as I say' not 'do as I do'.

 

[Mike1234567]

Seemingly small inconsequential cuts lead to devastating infections.

 

[Sam1911]

I fear that on a long enough timeline, that strategy is unsustainable.

I don't know that I disagree with that either, in the long term. I don't know if this is really a strategy that is or must be sustained indefinitely. If we can move the ball far enough, perhaps the strategy (to the extent that it is a strategy, and not just a naturally-occurring phenomenon) should change. Where do things start to loosen up? I'm not sure.

Certainly after the passing of our current President and the old school wave of anti-gun legislators (who are passing into the abyss at an encouraging rate these days). Then we'll see if there are new concerted attacks. Maybe the pressure slackens and the states and feds continue to loosen up and shift back to real RKBA (as has been happening pretty consistently for twenty years now). If it does, the stridency of our efforts will ease as a natural effect, I'm sure. The political equivalent of Newton's third law.

Maybe it doesn't loosen until some bigger milestone like the repeal of GCA '68. That's a good one to shoot for. If our current progress continues along current trends, we could live to see it.

In order for private gun ownership in this nation to continue indefinitely, we need new people to take up shooting and to enjoy shooting so much that it becomes important and integral to their lives.

Absolutely! And that's happening in record numbers right now. Apparently, whatever we're doing right now is BETTER than whatever we were doing in decades before. So that's kind of a counter to your point.

Having said that, I don't really long to continue living under massive attack, even though that massive attack has driven much of the growth we've experienced. A very complex set of social equations, to be sure.

Attack ---> fear ---> reaction ---> anger ---> growth ---> diminishing/defeat of the attack(?) ---> fear slackens ---> anger cools ---> growth does what?

This won't happen if the current crop of gun owners is perceived as being angry, insular, and backward.

Well, it IS happening now, and to some degree you're saying you see current gun owners as those things at this moment. So apparently the levels of insularity and anger present now haven't been a detriment to the growth of our sport/passion/beliefs at all.

(I won't speak to "backward" as I've no idea what that refers to?)

Do we have to stay angry and "insular" to build our ranks? I hope not. I'd like to live in times where our rights are very secure -- untouchable. Of course, people rarely become passionately involved with issues where there is no threat, no risk, no drama, no fervor.

Very, very complicated social questions.

 

[tarosean]

Go to any national new orgs story on guns/shooting/ etc and read the comments from your average Jon and Jane Doe. Pretty bad on both sides...

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I don't believe there can be a middle of the road when it comes to gun control. Either you are pro gun freedoms or you are against gun freedoms or you don't give a damn because you are immersed in other issues you think are more critical. Don't give a damn is the same as anti as you do nothing to fight the further erosion of our rights.

A good ol' boy once told me the only things in the middle of the road are a yellow stripe and road kill.


.

 

[Deanimator]

It made us all look like closed-minded absolutists who will not tolerate any difference of opinion and will call for the punishment of anyone who deviates from the party line, no matter how slightly.

He wasn't beaten, stoned, shot or necklaced. He was FIRED for expressing a point of view blatantly contrary to the beliefs AND interests of the readership. What do you think would happen to a writer at "Ebony" if he wrote a column lauding Nathan Bedford Forrest and extolling the virtues of de jure racial segregation?

"Close-minded absolutist"? Guilty as charged... and with regard to slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust and adults having sex with children too.

 

[Deanimator]

This won't happen if the current crop of gun owners is perceived as being angry, insular, and backward.

"Perceived as" or "PORTRAYED as"? I can't help how malicious, dishonest fanatics talk about me. All I can do is show them up for the liars they are, and do so every chance I get.

I'll tell you what's NOT a "winning strategy", that's engaging in an unending series of "compromises" in which the other side NEVER gives up anything, ESPECIALLY its ultimate goal of converting a constitutional right into a privilege awarded on the basis of political affiliation, social status, wealth, and historically, race, ethnicity and religion.

Sorry, I'm not Czech nor am I giving up the "Sudetenland".

Come and get if, if you think you can.

 

[Jason_W]

Absolutely! And that's happening in record numbers right now. Apparently, whatever we're doing right now is BETTER than whatever we were doing in decades before.

The statistics I found run counter to that assertion.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

In 1973 nearly 50% of the population was a gun owner. In 2011 38% of the population was a gun owner. Further, a majority of gun owners are white males from the south between the ages of 30 and 64.

It's possible that any recent spikes in ownership are from the same demographic that already traditionally owns guns.

It would be in our best interest to do everything we can to appeal to other demographics.

 

[Mike1234567]

The problem with having absolutistic opinions is this close our minds. Do I often verge on absolutism... yes. I'm close to that on several subjects, such as the 2A, but I refuse to completely close my mind to others' opinions and ideals. When we're perceived as completely closed-minded and disrespect others' beliefs and ideologies then we perpetuate the closed-mindedness of the very people we're trying to influence to our way of thinking. It's a vicious circle of "getting nowhere with anything" and therefor lacks any merit on either side of the debate. It's the "butting-of-heads" rather than the "meeting-of-minds". It's worthless argumentative rhetoric. Think about our current elected Federal officials and tell me what the heck they're accomplishing. Children argue and fight. Adults debate and compromise... when agreements can be met. Yes, I'm guilty of childish behavior too... we all can be.

 

[Jason_W]

"Perceived as" or "PORTRAYED as"?

The two are linked. Portrayal can lead to perception, so what are we doing to counter those portrayals and change those perceptions.

This is all about PR and marketing and honestly, pro-gun PR and marketing is horrible. It only works on the middle aged white male demographic. The problem with that is middle aged white males eventually turn into old white males and then formerly alive white males.

Being angry about absolutely everything all the time will not widen our appeal.

 

[Sam1911]

In 1973 nearly 50% of the population was a gun owner. In 2011 38% of the population was a gun owner.

Oh, sure. But the reasons for that are a long ways beyond the character of the gun-rights movement, or perceptions of gun owners as political bullies. Increasing urbanization, decreasing hunter numbers, etc. A lot of that is far beyond the ability of any force to change -- short of a continental or even global calamity of a type and scope beyond our ability to really comprehend at this point.

Further, a majority of gun owners are white males from the south between the ages of 30 and 64.

It's possible that any recent spikes in ownership are from the same demographic that already traditionally owns guns.

It is possible, but doesn't seem decidedly so. FFLs from Maine to Washington, all through the west, all over the east coast, and pretty much every where else, have been selling all they can get their hands on. Urban, rural, suburbia -- doesn't seem to matter at all.

Of course folks predisposed to own guns will be buying guns. But a lot of other folks are, too. The new shooter classes are full. The competition sports have seen massive growth. It isn't just (and maybe not even predominately) old white guys in the south buying up more deer rifles.

One major factor is that the numbers of hunters which have fallen seem to be being overtaken by the numbers of defensive-minded concealed carry permit-holders which have skyrocketed. Those are only barely overlapping demographics.

It would be in our best interest to do everything we can to appeal to other demographics.

Absolutely!

I think the only disagreement here seems to be the question of whether political cohesion and assertiveness is off-putting to potential new gun owners. I'm not seeing it.

 

[Sam1911]

Being angry about absolutely everything all the time will not widen our appeal.

Ok, I certainly agree with that.

But aside from the political arena, where I contend we must fight like demons, who's "angry about absolutely everything?" I, and just about every gun owner I know, are really happy, pleasant people who routinely interact with the rest of society in positive, upbeat, fun and interesting ways. No body I deal with in daily life, or even that I take to the range and/or shoot with, is going to hear a negative word from me. I'm there to have a great time, and to help them have a great time, too! It's all good!

I don't think that most undecided folks are looking at the battles on Capitol Hill and saying, "oooh, I'd buy a gun, but those guys are so angry about absolutely everything! I'd better not."

 

[Jason_W]

I think the only disagreement here seems to be the question of whether political cohesion and assertiveness is off-putting to potential new gun owners.

Admittedly, the statistics I found were only as recent as 2011. There could have been a major spike across all demographics in the last 2 years.

I don't think it's so much a matter of political cohesion and assertiveness. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the prevalent rage and vitriol that isn't helping. Also, conspiracy theories hurt us immensely. And maybe it's only a small fraction of gun owners who spout rage filled rants about conspiracy theories, but a sad fact about humanity is that every group is judged not by its best members, but by its worst.

 

[goon]

Well, it IS happening now, and to some degree you're saying you see current gun owners as those things at this moment. So apparently the levels of insularity and anger present now haven't been a detriment to the growth of our sport/passion/beliefs at all.

It could be that we're winning ground because some of us actively try to bridle our anger and be open to new people. Guns are inextricably linked to politics and we tend to get pretty passionate about our beliefs. And we can still be passionate and angry about attacks on the RKBA. We can be like that among ourselves and we can be like that in letters when we tell our reps to shape up or look for another job.

But having that anger as our public face is usually detrimental.

It would be in our best interest to do everything we can to appeal to other demographics.

Absolutely.

 

[ExTank]

Maybe I should have said pro gunners against antis, although I do not know any gun owners who are antis.

I wish I could say the same; I've met and know a few people who are just fine with gun ownership as long as it's the "right" people, typically college-educated, upper-middle class types, urban/gated-suburban, and typically (but not eclusively) white. The handful of these types that I have met cross political party affiliations; some were Kennedy/Johnson Democrats, others were Reagan/Bush Republicans.

If you are not firmly in the above category, then too bad/so sad, gun ownership is not for you (in their view).

Another (much smaller, IME) category is simply a typical gun owner who just doesn't trust anyone else to safely own or carry a gun.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

DavidMS, I agree with you 100%. It isn't a Democrat versus republican thing. It is straight up an anti versus a gun owner. But as I said we have some sheep in wolf's clothing here too. Some that would give out rights away at the drop of a hat, yet proclaim to fight for the cause.

I know many,many Democrats that own guns. Living in my area guns are a part of life. Most of these Democrats vowed never to vote for another Democrat or republican again after the last two administrations, but that's a different story.

My father said " don't fear the enemy you see across the battlefield, fear the one that has snuck up beside you" we have to many pro gunners that say "there really isn't a use for weapons designed after the military", "our shotguns and hunting rifles are all we need (as long as they aren't big enough to be a sniper type rifle".

 

[cpileri]

One of the local Texas rags did an an article and interview featuring Sen. Cornyn from Texas. Senator was complaining that he was demonized on an issue as being a "1% traitor" and invoked Ronald Regan who said somethign like, 'What do you call a person who agrees with you 80% of the time? An ALLY, not a 20% traitor!"
Suggesting of course that he shoudl not be so demonized. Likewise, some moderates who support compromise and gun control in "moderation", should not have been so soundly shunned by the firearm community.

I thought about that for awhile and I find myself thinking:

That Regan quote may be true in and of itself, and might have applied to the gun freedom/control debate in the beginning (like in the 1960's). but getting in bed with the 20% traitors is what got us to he point of 'no more compromise' we are currently facing. We have reached the limit of tolenrance to encroachment on our freedoms, in this and other topics, and now view any further disagreement RIGHTFULLY as treason to the cause.

We see this on many issues in this country; not just guns. That is why supreme court decisions are 4-to-5 or 5-to-4, why elections are 51%-to-49% etc- we have reached an ideologic impasse on important issues. Where the aforementioned "line in the sand" has been reached. People formerly willing to compromise are no longer willing as their tolerance will be exceeded by any further encroachment of their rights.

My thoughts anyway.

C-

 

[Dain Bramage]

"Close-minded absolutist"? Guilty as charged... and with regard to slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust and adults having sex with children too.

Aww, c'mon Deanimator. Don't you want to have a "nuanced" opinion?