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

Keep control of the conversation.

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by JRWhit, Feb 6, 2013.

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

    JRWhit Member

    Sep 13, 2012
    Fellow 2nd supporters,
    It has become very troubling to me that many of us have been pushed into a position of defense of our rights, when it is incumbent upon the proposer to justify their proposal. This is a tactic that has been very effective in the past and continues to be so, as we are busy defending ourselves, allowing everyone else to loose sight of what was to be the main focus. The current Proposals have not been able to articulate how said proposal would have prevented previous mass shootings or curtail future mass shootings. We have allowed the narrative to move onto Universal background checks. While there are people who see this as something that needs to be addressed, It would not have effected the mass shooters they propose to prevent, as none of these weapons in use came from a FTF sale or other legal transaction that would be effected by such.
    Let us not forget previous shooting in which weapons were purchased legally through retailers. That is where the shortfall is.
    The AWB again while some see it as a needed discussion, has not at this point justified there position in proposing said ban, other than to ask,"Why do you need that?", putting us on the defense rather than proving there own case.
    The magazine limits; Again we are put in the position of defense when it is incumbent upon the proposer to justify there proposals. We already know of mass shootings that took place during the last weapons ban that were unaffected.
    I believe we need to keep control of the conversation and keep it on narrative. We must be aware, as it is easy to engage someone seeking to put you in defense, but remember that we are not charged so much to defend our right,as they are to prove the need for restriction of that right. When the topic turns to discussion of a matter that would have no effect on what it is supposedly set to address, point it out, and leave it to the proposer to defend and justify their proposal. The current narrative set forth by those who propose said restrictions have a great job putting forth the appearance that there proposals are the answer and that we are the only thing that stands in the way of saving lives by enacting these new laws. We are quick to defend our rights but we must also remember that these proposals still have not been properly justified. We must also remember that all these proposals are for the prevention of mass shootings, and point out when said proposals have nothing to do with what is suppose to be the issue at hand.
    My apology to the moderator if this is in the wrong forum. Hopefully I was not mistaken.
    If I am wrong point it out, I am completely open to all input. I felt this as a needed message do to a surplus of instances where we are put on the defense by the aggressors.
  2. Still Shooting

    Still Shooting Member

    Mar 27, 2010
    Lake George, NY
    Presenting the Facts

    I have recently had to "defend" my right to keep and bear arms to several acquaintances; I have also responded to an editorial in the local newspaper which included the phrase "a good hunter only needs two or three rounds at most to be successful." The somewhat liberal Editor thought he was doing a good job at representing the middle ground, but his bias was showing. He was not in favor of the entire New York State debacle (yes, I live in this accursed state!), but selectively thought that parts of it made sense, in view of the recent Newtown massacre.

    I reponded in print with a reference to the best source I know for good statistics on the entire guns/crime/violence/control issue. Shortly thereafter, I saw another editorial in this paper in which the Editor had come pretty close to the position I believe "fits the facts." The reader response to this second editorial was unanimously about Constitutional rights and protections, and what could the motivation of the gun control politicians be, other than appeal to those who hate guns, and as an exercise of power.

    The website I referenced is this one:


    I recommend it to all here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page