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

[holdencm9]

Interesting thread. I just had a few thoughts.

--THR is not representative of gun owners, nor is NRA membership. With something like 50 million gun owners and less than 5 million NRA members, and even fewer in THR (I estimate).

--I agree with the sentiment that it isn't just gun owners versus antis. As expressed above, the vast majority of gun owners probably don't hold the rights in high regard as most here do. In fact, I know a few gun owners (including ARs and handguns) that would support UBC, and some hunting types who thought handguns and "assault" weapons needed to be more strictly regulated. Likewise I know folks who have no guns at all but oppose more gun control, or know intellectually that the laws do nothing. Some of these folks will vote for legislators that are pro or anti, but it won't be because of their stances on gun laws, it will be due to other issues.

--Rather than view it as "us vs them" or "pro vs anti" or try to label each person and put them in a box, I look at it as tipping the needle one way or another. As has already been expressed, 10% of the population fall firmly into "pro" and 10% fall firmly into "anti" and both groups are entrenched and will never change their views or opinions. The 80% as I illustrated above are the ones that we can engage with and take shooting and have intelligent conversations or debate. If we tip their needle slightly in favor of guns, and do it often enough, then we can tip the overall needle in our favor as well.

--I liked Tony K's comments about the political compass. I agree, it isn't like a see-saw that goes back and forth. There is a marble in a dish. You have left/right but you also have forward/backward (libertarian/authoritarian). I believe that over time people in this country are getting more and more comfortable with authoritarianism, and we see the government as the solution far too often. We try to regulate morality, among other things. I have to wonder if part of the new push toward gun control is partly due to this trend. What if views on guns haven't changed as much as our views on regulation? I think if we try to push the needle (well it is really more of a joystick then, since it moves in 4 directions ) in the opposite direction of authoritarianism, that will also help our cause. It isn't really within the scope of THR to discuss so I will leave it at that.

 

[Deanimator]

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

I don't know what you're doing, but I've been exposing the lies of the other side for decades. Even more so, I've been exposing their bigotry, to include racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and misogyny. And I've gotten results.

You do whatever you think works for you.

 

[horsemen61]

yes I do feel that it is us against them why because they are spreading lies about us as fast as they can tell a lie long enough and hard enough it becomes the truth

 

[Mike1234567]

I don't know what you're doing, but I've been exposing the lies of the other side for decades. Even more so, I've been exposing their bigotry, to include racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and misogyny. And I've gotten results.

You do whatever you think works for you.

Examples?

 

[Deanimator]

Examples?

I used to be very active in usenet talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, etc.

The anti-gunners there were some of the most incandescently racist types I've seen since I was in highschool in Apartheid Chicago in the early '70s.

I used to save EVERYTHING they said and frequently repost it and use it in my signatures. It was VERY eye opening to newcomers, who frequently commented on it.

At one point, one of their fanbois started babbling about how he should sue me. I said "Bring it. Discovery will NOT be his friend, since my attorney will subpoena EVERY word he's EVER said on EVERY BBS, every FidoNet echo, and usenet newsgroup. At that point it becomes public information. Go ahead and sue, PLEASE. It'd be worth it to LOSE, just to have OFFICIAL confirmation of what you all are." The talk of lawsuits evaporated like spit on a hot griddle.

One of my favorites was the one who likened opponents of gun control to "over-educated, New York Jewish lawyers opposing prayer in schools".

You can't BUY propaganda like that.

 

[larryh1108]

Presently, the best way is by voting out the politicians who have a true anti-gun agenda. I believe we opened some of their eyes with the recall votes in CO where 2 were shown the door and a 3rd quit (way to go CO!). The way we handled the Metcalf situation further shows we are done compromising. We are done because we are the only side that gives anything and in return we get it stuck up our orifices. I believe that we are fed up and won't accept it any more. Now we have to back it up.

Sure, voting out the incumbents in hard core anti areas will be difficult. It probably won't happen any time soon but the fact that their landslide results are now much more narrow will open their eyes. In areas where the races are close and the pro-gun guy wins more often than not will send a serious message to those who choose to run in the future... don't mess with the pro-gun crowd. It will lead to defeat or short-term job security.

The statistics tell us that less than 65% of the voters of voting age actually vote. That means 1 in 3 does not vote at all. If that stat also applies to the people here then if you don't vote you give your vote to the Democrats. That has to change. We need 100% turnout to achieve sending the message to those who are anti-gun.

I lived in Chicago with Obama's first run in '08. They concentrated on signing up the inner-city population because they typically didn't turn out like the general population. The party needed those who collect various forms of government handouts to pull a victory and it worked. They voted again to keep their benefits. Now we'll have a different face looking to shut us down. Early predictions show us that queen Clinton will be the one who will try to take our guns away. We already know her agenda. If we allow her to get into office, we are in deeper than we wish to be.

With the mid-term elections coming up this November, we need to send a message. If Obama gets both the House and the Senate along with his hand picked puppets in key places, we will be up a creek without a paddle. The votes this November are probably the most important in our lifetime when it comes to our 2A rights. If we (the pro-gun advocates) do not turn out 100% of our eligible voters, then shame on us. If you haven't voted and don't vote this November, then just look in the mirror when they take away our rights. It starts with us and will end with us. We have to send a message like never before. We need to vote out the antis and vote in the pros and nothing else is acceptable.

 

[xfyrfiter]

We as gun owners, owe it to our fellow gun owners, to make sure that we vote for candidates that will support our rights, or we are the enemy at the gate.

 

[HexHead]

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.

Bingo. It's not really about guns. It's about control. They need to disarm us to control us.

Just like 0bama making statements in the last week or so supporting the legalization of weed. Stoned apathetic people are easier to control.

 

[AlexanderA]

atomd wrote:

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.

Exactly. There's a growing cultural divide going on in this country, and guns are just a part of it. In 2008, Bill Bishop came out with his book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart, which detailed how people are self-segregating based on demographic and ideological factors. This extends to neighborhoods, churches, schools, clubs, and every sort of affiliation. But we see it most clearly on a state-by-state basis, with the South and the heartland being one "country" and the Northeast, the West Coast, and scattered large urban areas in between being another. Restrictive vs. permissive gun laws follow this division exactly.

I'm a student of history. What we're seeing now, on a host of social issues, tracks what happened on the issue of slavery in the 40 years before the Civil War. The difference is that now, communications take place at a much faster pace, and the whole process is much more compressed. I don't preclude the possibility that, before this whole thing is over, whole chunks of the country are going to break off and go their own way. Let's hope that this process is not as bloody as last time.

 

[JRH6856]

I'm a student of history. What we're seeing now, on a host of social issues, tracks what happened on the issue of slavery in the 40 years before the Civil War. The difference is that now, communications take place at a much faster pace, and the whole process is much more compressed. I don't preclude the possibility that, before this whole thing is over, whole chunks of the country are going to break off and go their own way. Let's hope that this process is not as bloody as last time.

I see the same. The similarities between then and now are uncanny. Apparently we as a country didn't learn from history because we are certainly repeating it.

 

[Sam1911]

AA, I wonder about that, too.

However, the other factor I'm seeing confuses the whole picture. And that is the increasing fragmentation of ideological platforms. When you can find gay, liberal, second amendment supporters, and social welfare-voting bible belt social conservatives, and anti-statist libertarian minorities, and all the other strange new reconfigured political orientations we see today, I'm not sure if I can really believe in the "rift" so much as the spider-web fracturing of coalitions.

As alluded to before, there isn't a linear left-to-right political spectrum, but actually an axis that shows a left-right "x" axis as well as statist-individualist "y" axis. And now even that seems an incomplete picture. What does that mean for the nation's long-term future? I've no idea.

 

[goon]

As dumb as this is gonna sound, I wonder what would happen if the entire membership of the NRA registered to vote as Democrats.

You could obviously still vote for whomever you want in the big elections, but a large influx of voters could exercise more influence over who makes it out of the democratic primaries and hopefully land us with a pro-RKBA candidate from both parties.

If not that, maybe we need to mount a movement for widespread open primaries.

Whatever we need to do, we HAVE to get off the plan of thinking that just sticking primarily to one political faction and hoping like hell they win is the best strategy. It's not. No matter what, eventually the party you like is going to lose big. When that happens, if they are the only people protecting your rights, you're screwed.
And when the party you're betting on is largely composed of older folks and many of them are going to die in the next couple decades, it's an even worse strategy. As it is, the anti-gun crowd doesn't have to beat us... all they have to do is wait for enough of us to die of old age.
We just plain have to figure out what to do about that.

I suggest we realize that many within our ranks are libertarian and even a lot are liberal, then we figure out a way to build a coalition based on that. But someone messaged me just today to express his opinion that unhitching the protection of the Second Amendment from the conservative right is a bad strategy, so obviously some of you disagree with me.

I realize this is pushing the envelope on politics, but it's impossible to talk guns and protecting gun ownership without talking about how we're going to do that, and that often includes politics.

 

[JRH6856]

As it is, the anti-gun crowd doesn't have to beat us... all they have to do is wait for enough of us to die of old age.
We just plain have to figure out what to do about that.

When I die, of old age or whatever, I imagine I'll have more important things to worry about. Thanks for putting this in perspective.

 

[goon]

When I die, of old age or whatever, I imagine I'll have more important things to worry about. Thanks for putting this in perspective.

When I die, I hope I'll go knowing that the rights I value so much are still intact for the next generation.

But that's beside the point.

My point is that when you die, the pro-RKBA will lose a strong supporter (judging by the information in your signature line).
If you aren't replaced with someone who's just as strong of a supporter, preferably two or three of them, then we will lose by attrition.
Hence, a strategy that relies largely on support from older conservative people (a bit of a stereotype, but more accurate than not) isn't the best bet for long-term success.

We got all our eggs in one basket. We have to diversify.

 

[JRH6856]

The point is, in the overall scheme of things, these poltical issues are probably ot important. We struggle with them while we are alive and when we die, the struggle belongs to someone else.

But that's later. As for the here and now, yes, we need to diversify. And the only way to do that is to stop stereotyping others and actually listening to them and finding some common ground. Finding common ground is not the goal, it is the starting point.

In elections, most voters probable think they know the ideology of the candidates, but what they really know is their party affiliation and the associated stereotype. But do they really know if the candidate is a statist or not? If they are authoritarian or libertarian? Do they know what these terms really mean? Or are they relying on more stereotypes? We have to guard against this in ourselves and help other to overcome it and really know who and what they are voting for. And I think that is best done one-on-one.

 

[PiratePenguin]

Whatever we need to do, we HAVE to get off the plan of thinking that just sticking primarily to one political faction and hoping like hell they win is the best strategy. It's not. No matter what, eventually the party you like is going to lose big. When that happens, if they are the only people protecting your rights, you're screwed.

I suggest we realize that many within our ranks are libertarian and even a lot are liberal, then we figure out a way to build a coalition based on that. But someone messaged me just today to express his opinion that unhitching the protection of the Second Amendment from the conservative right is a bad strategy, so obviously some of you disagree with me.

Speaking as a newly gun-loving liberal, I really wish there were more people like you on the other side of the political divide.

I tried to convince the folks on my local board of exactly what you said here, and got all but accused of being a "plant". Several of the folks over at the Liberal Gun Club forums have similar stories—for many of us, that's the reason we're there. And trust me, we're as disillusioned with some of the elements of the Democratic Party as anyone else.

 

[goon]

Speaking as a newly gun-loving liberal, I really wish there were more people like you on the other side of the political divide.

I tried to convince the folks on my local board of exactly what you said here, and got all but accused of being a "plant". Several of the folks over at the Liberal Gun Club forums have similar stories—for many of us, that's the reason we're there. And trust me, we're as disillusioned with some of the elements of the Democratic Party as anyone else.

Glad to make your acquaintance amigo.
I'm somewhere between a liberal and a libertarian myself and honestly don't have a lot in common with the hardcore conservatives.
But the RKBA is a civil right. It shouldn't be a left versus right thing. Having it be that way is unacceptable and the sooner we all stop our bickering and figure out a way to unite just long enough to protect it together, the better.

I promise I'll argue with any liberal or any conservative as much as they want about anything else... but on constitutionally enumerated rights, we all need to shut up and protect those.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

But you don't seem to vote against them OR better yet, attend the party functions and make them answer to your face why they don't trust you to own or carry a firearm. I attend political functions of both left leaning parties here but the Democrats expect me to be against their policies and that is never going to change their vote one iota, but if it came from inside they might just consider their actions..... but probably not since it is an agenda, not a well thought out idea.

 

[goon]

But you don't seem to vote against them OR better yet, attend the party functions and make them answer to your face why they don't trust you to own or carry a firearm. I attend political functions of both left leaning parties here but the Democrats expect me to be against their policies and that is never going to change their vote one iota, but if it came from inside they might just consider their actions..... but probably not since it is an agenda, not a well thought out idea.

That's precisely right. The only way to change the Democratic party is from within. They don't fear losing votes from conservatives because they never had a chance of getting them in the first place. And they don't fear losing my vote because they don't need it when so many conservative candidates are such easy pickings. They'll only fear losing the votes of the people they do have. So building bridges to those people, the non-traditional gun owners who don't fit the stereotype, is something we should embrace.

And on voting, someone else put it more eloquently than I could when he said that last election, our choices were between a candidate who'd already signed an assault weapons ban (meaning Mitt Romney) and a candidate who wanted to.

How does one vote against the bad guy when they're both bad guys?
I voted Libertarian. Though some call that throwing a vote away, I felt that this was the only way for me to vote against the bad guys, both of them.

(Again, I apologize for pushing up against the rules. I just don't see any way around it in this discussion.)

 

[torqem]

I first get kids excited about man vs man Airsoft practice That's easy cause it's cheap, a lot of fun, and you dont have to go anywhere special in order to do it. Then I take them shooting, 22's only, at first. It will eventually come down to a bunch of people having to die to teach them to leave us be, I am certain of that. This disarmament bs has been going on for centuries. Wannabe tyrants can't stand their intended slaves being able to resist them. Plenty of thugs will work for them, until lots of them are getting killed every day. That is the only thing that's ever stopped such people.-

 

[PiratePenguin]

But you don't seem to vote against them OR better yet, attend the party functions and make them answer to your face why they don't trust you to own or carry a firearm.

Hold up, there. You don't know what I do or what I plan to do, so you're making some awful big assumptions.

I've only been involved in the gun community for a couple of months, and right now I'm still trying to understand how to best make my voice heard and not dismissed. Challenging the party's assumptions on guns is definitely one of the things I plan on, but I don't want to go off half-cocked. That won't change anyone's mind.

 

[Midwest]

One thing that does not add up in the conventional 'conservative vs liberal' wisdom is Vermont. Here is a state that many label as very liberal and yet they don't even require carry permits to carry concealed.

And our governor here in Kentucky is a Democrat and pro-gun.

 

[HoploDad]

I'll pass. Seems intuitively counter-productive. And it could encourage the antis to stop me from going...at gunpoint.

JRH, I support your right to be wrong but I do disagree with you. People watch shooting scenes on TV and in movies all the time. Most of them, while timid, are curious.

So what the heck, it's pretty easy to just say, "would you like to go with us sometime?". If they say no, then the answer is no. My family had no firearms, did not hunt and the prevailing attitude in our home was that guns were dangerous and unnecessary. Then, later in my life a friend invited me to go out to his farm and shoot .22's. It was great. I was seriously ticked off that no-one invited me sooner. Now I am all in.

I encourage all to kindly invite someone to accompany you shooting. Don't be a jerk and give them something with a lot of recoil and laugh when they fall over (that does not seem to be the Highroad personality type anyway). Talk safety and shoot up some paper plates and cans. Go out for lunch or dinner afterwards. Have fun with it.

Preaching and logical debate are water off a duck's back and less effective that the method mentioned above. My gun safe and its contents are proof of that.

 

[Mulk]

To the person who started this post I would directed you to such links as this.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/mayor-bloomberg-maig-foia-documents/

Welcome to the no bs point of view of the rich and/or powerful when it comes to firearms. My take after reading of them.

The anti side still thinks the NRA is the biggest of all the boogey men when it is nerdy/geeky/factual people like me who will call out their crap.

It is black and white. But who do you have more trust in? "Moms" Against gun violence, or the type of guy who can do your personal and business taxes for a small to mid sized company, and do it right to avoid a audit? 8)

 

[JRH6856]

JRH, I support your right to be wrong but I do disagree with you. People watch shooting scenes on TV and in movies all the time. Most of them, while timid, are curious.

So what the heck, it's pretty easy to just say, "would you like to go with us sometime?". If they say no, then the answer is no.

I didn't say I didn't ask. I do. In so many words, the response is a certain and definite NO. They are either totally opposed to guns and won't have anything to do with them, or they simply don't care about guns and have better things to do with their time. In my experience, the curious ask me first, timid or not.