Make it Hurt

[giggitygiggity]

With this year's election right around the corner, our pro 2A congressmen and senators should be trying to push through every pro gun bill possible. I am talking about existing bills as well as drafting new bills that are as much a threat to the anti gun population as bans and executive orders are to us. Propose bills to reopen the 1986 registry, bills to not require background checks, bills that make it illegal for states to restrict magazine capacities. Granted, most won't have time to pass and even if they do, they could be vetoed, but some might and the heat alone could cause the liberals to go on the defensive and, instead of creating anti gun legislation of their own, they'll have to fight off the pro gun legislation.

I think that it is truly shameful when the 2A is the only amendment that must constantly be fought for. Nobody ever worries that a candidate or party will target free speech or any of the other amendments. And the idea that it's a bunch of liberal whiners and hippies striping the rights of tough, God-loving, meat-eating, red-blooded American conservatives is ridiculous.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please try and stay focused on the idea of making the liberals hurt by proposing an unlofty amount of pro gun registration and avoid turning this into a purely political/election thread and getting the thread closed.

 

[dastardly-D]

Second !

GIGGITY...... '' I think that it is truly shameful when the 2A is the only amendment that must constantly be fought for ''. ......You have that absolutely correct !:banghead:

 

[giggitygiggity]

And just how the antis tell horror stories about how guns are evil and cause crime and murders and how all guns and people with guns are bad in an attempt to scare people to their side, we need to scare people to our side... Convince them that murders, a government takeover, a Nazi zombie takeover, whatever will happen if we lose the 2A. The Democrats, unfortunately, know how to sway people... Tell them fairy tales, horror stories, and give people free stuff that they don't deserve. Using the same tactics, but with a pro gun spin could prove successful.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

GIGGITY...... '' I think that it is truly shameful when the 2A is the only amendment that must constantly be fought for ''. ......You have that absolutely correct !

Yes, he is absolutely correct so long as you only have a very narrow mind and limited understanding of civil rights issues.

Convince them that murders, a government takeover, a Nazi zombie takeover, whatever will happen if we lose the 2A.

Well crazy talk is just the plan for making Pro 2A folks and ideas seem reasonable and respectable. After all, we want to look paranoid and delusional.

No, wait, such crazy talk is one of the very reasons anti folks are against the 2A.

 

[hso]

the 2A is the only amendment that must constantly be fought for

Ummmm, wrong. Speech is as much under attack as the 2A if you consider what the government is trying with control of the internet, airways, prosecution for translation or ...

Let's not be make the mistake of thinking our particular ox is more gored than others just because it is our ox.



Have you looked at what legislation is proposed from our side? Tons, but it doesn't get out of Committee because it doesn't pass procedural review or potential for passage. We don't want Congress wasting time on the legislative equivalent of a food fight.

 

[Hummer70]

Heard someone say the other day that the 2nd Amendment is what guarantees the others and the Constitution.

When Hitler got gun registration followed by confiscation that was it.

Wasn't it Mao that said something like All power comes from the mouth a gun?

 

[Theohazard]

Please try and stay focused on the idea of making the liberals hurt by proposing an unlofty amount of pro gun registration and avoid turning this into a purely political/election thread and getting the thread closed.

I find it sadly ironic that in your request to keep partisan politics out of this thread you used the term "liberals". I can't begin to tell you how disgusted I get when ignorant people use the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun".

Here's a news flash: Many people who could be classified as "liberal" are also pro-gun. Yes, the primary party of most liberals is the Democratic Party, and that party has gun control as a plank in its platform. But that doesn't mean that all liberals are anti-gun, and it's absolutely idiotic to lump them all in the same category.

I served four years active duty in the Marine Corps infantry and I deployed overseas twice. I've been a gun owner since I was 18 and I've been shooting since I was 12. I manage a gun shop and I've personally sold literally thousands of guns. I strongly oppose gun control and I believe the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment. Or the Third. Or the Fourth. I will never vote for the Democratic Party so long as they support gun control.

But I also believe in many "liberal" causes: I think it's pure delusion to deny all the science behind global warming. I can't imagine how someone could justify actively denying gay people the right to get married. I think a woman should have a right to decide if she brings a pregnancy to term or not; no matter what you think of abortion, that should still be her choice. And I believe in a strong separation between church and state.

With those beliefs, one could justify classifing me as a liberal. So should I be lumped in with all anti-gunners? I'm one of the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment you'll find, and yet you're willing to write me off because of my unrelated political views? That's unbelievably ignorant.

 

[HexHead]

I find it sadly ironic that in your request to keep partisan politics out of this thread you used the term "liberals". I can't begin to tell you how disgusted I get when ignorant people use the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun".

Here's a news flash: Many people who could be classified as "liberal" are also pro-gun. Yes, the primary party of most liberals is the Democratic Party, and that party has gun control as a plank in its platform. But that doesn't mean that all liberals are anti-gun, and it's absolutely idiotic to lump them all in the same category.

I served four years active duty in the Marine Corps infantry and I deployed overseas twice. I've been a gun owner since I was 18 and I've been shooting since I was 12. I manage a gun shop and I've personally sold literally thousands of guns. I strongly oppose gun control and I believe the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment. Or the Third. Or the Fourth. I will never vote for the Democratic Party so long as they support gun control.

But I also believe in many "liberal" causes: I think it's pure delusion to deny all the science behind global warming. I can't imagine how someone could justify actively denying gay people the right to get married. I think a woman should have a right to decide if she brings a pregnancy to term or not; no matter what you think of abortion, that should still be her choice. And I believe in a strong separation between church and state.

With those beliefs, one could justify classifing me as a liberal. So should I be lumped in with all anti-gunners? I'm one of the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment you'll find, and yet you're willing to write me off because of my unrelated political views? That's unbelievably ignorant.

Yes, they can and they should, if you vote for politicians that support your other liberal beliefs. The majority of those politicians are also anti-gun. You could be a bigger part of the problem than you realize.

 

[hso]

When Hitler got gun registration followed by confiscation that was it.

That's a myth our side likes to throw out there, but in reality it was the case before Hitler AND private firearms ownership wasn't significant in the groups targeted. The more subtle message on this we need to use is that setting up such a system it demonstrated that the powers did not consider the public trustworthy foreshadowing the eventual confiscation of firearms, property and ...lives.

 

[danez71]

Yes, they can and they should, if you vote for politicians that support your other liberal beliefs. The majority of those politicians are also anti-gun. You could be a bigger part of the problem than you realize.

I suspect you and the OP could be a bigger problem than you think.

It seems your both saying that you're willing to alienate pro 2A people for parts of their 1A beliefs.

Wow.

Can you better explain how alienating pro 2A people helps the Pro 2A cause?

Chances are that once you alienate someone they won't be back.

 

[Theohazard]

Yes, they can and they should, if you vote for politicians that support your other liberal beliefs.

Did you not read the part where I pointed out that I vote 2A and I will never vote for any Democrat as long as the party supports gun control? Sure, oppose someone if they vote anti-2A, but if you want to alienate someone who votes 2A just like you do just because they disagree with you on other issues, that's extremely ignorant and counterproductive to our cause.

Not all liberals are anti-gun. Using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun" is short-sighted and simply idiotic.

 

[barnbwt]

Theo, perhaps the real issue is the party with whom you agree on all these other issues except this ONE being so utterly intractable with regards to firearms issues. I mean, is it more rational to expect a group with which you otherwise are in full agreement to be more accommodating, or the one with which you are nearly diametrically opposed? Just because you're pro-gun and want to support pro-gun politicians, it's pretty unrealistic to expect an embrace when you stand in defiance of --whether you like them or not-- what are much more popular stances among their group.

I hear this a lot; "I want a party that's pro-gun but isn't saddled with all the social-conservative stuff" or "I want a progressive party that is still pro-gun"

Sadly, the latter is philosophically impossible at the end of the day, as detailed innumerable times by posters here, so the only alternative is the former. Since the former doesn't exactly exist, the best options are to influence either of the two primary parties (the ones that can actually win elections) toward that end. Until one of the two stops putting the outright banning & confiscation of firearms up front as its primary purpose, the other party is more fertile soil.

Maybe we'll get a miracle, and the social-conservatives and statist-liberals will somehow form their own Tyranny Busybody Party, or something, where they agitate for all the things they'd like to foist upon us all (btw, they'd have like a 75% lock on the election; it's a good thing both are too stubborn to ever team up). But until that time, your options are to either seek to shift the Republican party away from its social-issues focus (which we're seeing already, btw) by supporting those who pay mere lip-service but aren't pushing policy, or to try changing millenia of urban statist dogma that sees effective weapons as the cause of all social problems. And the banning of them the only solution.

"Not all liberals are anti-gun. Using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun" is short-sighted and simply idiotic."
We're not writing in Victorian English; why would we write according to definitions from that time period? What was 'progressive' is now 'liberal,' what was 'liberal' is now 'libertarian,' though 'conservative' has largely remained the same (figures). 'Deist' has now become associated with 'atheist', whilst 'socialist' is becoming conflated more and more with 'progressive/liberal' as that branch of thought nears its only logical conclusion. Labels help us communicate effectively; seeking to artificially restrict the use of labels, or especially to dictate their usage, is a rhetorically weak tactic to steal control of the debate and restrict/contort the message of the opposition.

My point is that people who claim to be liberal, and actually express themselves in liberal ways by supporting liberal politics, are at this point almost uniformly against the free ownership of firearms by the people. I suspect you are much more aligned with 'libertarian' or even 'conservative' principles, but for a mere handful of issues with which you disagree (to which I would say 'congratulations, you've got the best political party you're likely to ever have the opportunity to support').

A very important discussion for us all to have with ourselves & each other; we're nearing a period of revolution in this country (no, not that kind of revolution) where ideologies will briefly play a much larger role in who gets what, rather than entrenched interests. A gas-bubble in an otherwise stagnant swamp. It's good to know where you actually lie among the various groups that will be jockeying to set up their own power structures, rather than getting hung up on colors or labels.

TCB

 

[X-Rap]

Very well put TCB, I'd only add this and paraphrase a current popular line. "Not all liberals and progressives are anti gun but all anti gunners are liberal or progressive."

 

[Theohazard]

Theo, perhaps the real issue is the party with whom you agree on all these other issues except this ONE being so utterly intractable with regards to firearms issues.

Just to be clear, I never said I was a liberal or a Democrat. I'd probably call myself a libertarian or an independent if I was required to label myself. I was simply trying to make the point that many of my views could be considered "liberal".

My whole point is simply this: Political views are a lot more complicated than simply conservative vs. liberal and Republican vs. Democrat. I would love to live in a country where both major parties were against gun control and only a radical fringe supported it. And one of the ways to work towards this goal is to not purposefully alienate liberals by assuming they're all anti-gun.

Here's an example: I got a friend of mine who leans liberal in most things to vote against Washington's I-594 UBC bill when I described exactly what was in it. Isn't that the kind of thing we should be doing instead of just deciding that all liberals are against us and writing them off?

Very well put TCB, I'd only add this and paraphrase a current popular line. "Not all liberals and progressives are anti gun but all anti gunners are liberal or progressive."

Nope. Plenty of conservative Republicans are also anti-gun. I recently had a four-way email debate about gun control with my father and two of his closest friends. Those two friends are staunch conservative Republicans, but one supported an "assault weapons" ban, a ban on .50 cal rifles, and a ban on magazines greater than 6 rounds. The other supported mandatory federal waiting periods on all gun purchases. And then there was my father, a liberal-leaning independent, and he was against gun control. (On a side note, I was able to make a pretty good argument and I think I may have changed his friends' minds on a few things.)

Heck, a while ago I had a very liberal friend of mine point out to me how important the Second Amendment was. He used the Holocaust as an example of where widespread gun ownership might have changed history, and how widespread gun ownership by African Americans back in the early and mid-1900s probably helped further the civil rights movement.

So yeah, making generalizations about people's views on gun rights is a little myopic. Just because one of the two main parties is for gun control and the other is against it and that's the way the TV news political pundits spin things, that doesn't mean things are that simple in the rest of the real world.

 

[Theohazard]

Sadly, [a progressive party that is still pro-gun] is philosophically impossible at the end of the day

Why? Many progressives and liberals strongly support the First Amendment and the Fourth, why not the Second? The Second Amendment is completely compatible with the progressive ideal of government-induced "equality" for all. I can definitely imagine a future where the liberal party sees gun control as another social injustice that hurts the poor and those who are less physically able to defend themselves.

 

[danez71]

"Not all liberals are anti-gun. Using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun" is short-sighted and simply idiotic."

We're not writing in Victorian English; why would we write according to definitions from that time period?* What was 'progressive' is now 'liberal,' what was 'liberal' is now 'libertarian,' though 'conservative' has largely remained the same (figures).* 'Deist' has now become associated with 'atheist', whilst 'socialist' is becoming conflated more and more with 'progressive/liberal' as that branch of thought nears its only logical conclusion.

I believe Libertarian was before the others; not last

Labels help us communicate effectively; seeking to artificially restrict the use of labels, or especially to dictate their usage, is a rhetorically weak tactic to steal control of the debate and restrict/contort the message of the opposition.

Then used them correctly instead if trying to redefine them for this thread.

Funny that you say he is trying to control the use of them but you attempt to go into some sort of history lesson about words and how they change etc etc.... and what they could mean.... arent you doing the same thing you're accusing him of?

My point is that people who claim to be liberal, and actually express themselves in liberal ways by supporting liberal politics, are at this point almost uniformly against the free ownership of firearms by the people.

"uniformly against"????

If that's your point, you're either grossly exaggerating or failed miserably as you didn't lay out anything but your opinion preempted by some oddly presented hypothetical that attempts to paint only 2 options... your options.... of which it seems that you're really trying to reframe the conversation to something that is based on your own opinion.

Most of my inlaws are socially liberal and agree with gun ownership. Believe it or not, one is a elementary teacher in Southern CA.


She wasn't always in favor of gun ownership though.... she changed over time. She now owns her own after vowing to never own one.


She changed because me and another family member (who is extremely conservative) didn't alienate her, we educated her.

But the funny thing is.... still leans liberal on social issues, now owns her own gun... has a great time shooting his AR.... and votes nearly the same as the extremely conservative guy.



Painting everyone as the same, in groups that you have labeled with your own definitions, and then go on to alienate those groups .... ?....myopic was a good word

 

[barnbwt]

Wildly off-topic for this forum, but a succinct pictoral depiction of how the apparent 'paradox' in conflicting ideologies isn't a conflict at all

Very well put TCB, I'd only add this and paraphrase a current popular line. "Not all liberals and progressives are anti gun but all anti gunners are liberal or progressive."

Thank you for the compliment. I'd add further that "and they dominate their progressive party since the anti-gun stance is fundamentally synchronous with the government monopoly on force their ideology requires." Same goes for certain swaths of conservative groups. See the chart, and note how close certain 'diametrically opposed' groups are. I don't agree with the exact placement & bounding of all the groups listed, but the gist of these four-sided maps is very coherent.

I would love to live in a country where both major parties were against gun control and only a radical fringe supported it. And one of the ways to work towards this goal is to not purposefully alienate liberals by assuming they're all anti-gun.

I forget exactly which poll it was, but some six months back there was a query on several gun issues put to self-confessed members of the two parties. It was like 60% of Republicans against UBCs, and 70-something against AWBs. It was nearly 90% the other way for Democrats. We don't need 90% of the Republicans to see Gun Rights as a sacred cow to achieve the wonderful dual-party respect you describe; we need only the Democrat party to temper its stance in a 'reasonable' manner. I actually doubt that the Republicans would do much to help us, were they to reap huge majorities running against gun control --they'd just keep running against gun control, but keep that boogey man around to justify their wages. But get them competing to see who can respect the RKBA more, and we just might get somewhere. At any rate, far more realistic than expecting the 'pubs to abandon every other platform issue & not toss their grudging restraint on the RKBA with the rest of them.

The only ultimate end to the gun control story in this country is for it to follow a path similar to the Temperance movement. It overreached and was shown for the fallacy it is in the 94 AWB, and it's been in its death throes ever since. Unlike Prohibition, the AWB died on its own, quietly, so the victory was not so rapid & definitive as with the passage of the 21st Amendment. The anti-rum brigade did not disappear with its ratification, but they ceased to be important in national politics. Eventually, the Temperance folks died out and were not replaced, and their ranks of Progressive adherents (remember what I said about how Progressivism fundamentally relies on Draconian state intervention in free behavior, backed by a monopoly on force) ultimately replaced, IIRC, by so-called 'welfare state Democrats' in favor of the New Deal, etc during the Depression. Always chasing the next promised cure-all for society's ills; a compulsion fundamentally at odds with civil gun rights except in a situation of an electorate extremely well educated on the issue (i.e. where guns possessed and borne for defense of life, liberty, and property is ubiquitous and unquestioned so far as social utility). I happen to think that expectation is considerably more impossible than forcing the Democrat party to abandon this crusade against civil firearms rights as a core issue.

"I think that it is truly shameful when the 2A is the only amendment that must constantly be fought for."
They must ALL be fought for. Arms are useless against state-sanctioned illegal searches. Arms alone cannot form a peaceable resistance against government overreach. Arms are the last of the last resorts to preserving freedom; the ace in the hole; the Hail Mary pass. No guarantee of what comes out the other side, whatsoever. All the other rights we recognize serve to reinforce and protect our liberty-minded way of life and governance, arms are nothing but a wildcard if you neglect all the other fail safes that come before them. I agree that the 2A is more openly & proudly attacked by prominent politicians than any other, and is one of the most compromised in many states (the 9th and 10th being worse than useless at this point).

"Many progressives and liberals strongly support the First Amendment and the Fourth, why not the Second? The Second Amendment is completely compatible with the progressive ideal of government-induced "equality" for all. I can definitely imagine a future where the liberal party sees gun control as another social injustice that hurts the poor and those who are less physically able to defend themselves."
Gun control from its inception has been a Progressive creation. Maybe the scenario you describe is plausible, but it is not possible to arrive there from where we are. Not while Progressives are so opposed. Progressives (again, about 90% of their party) do not see sufficient social utility in firearms to warrant allowing them among the population. They make for a people that are ultimately hard to control for their own benefit, and will to some degree use them to abuse each other. People that will to some degree reject and resist the benevolent policies of their government and reduce its effectiveness. That firearms can also be used to protect the people from each other is consistently ignored, as that task is routinely promised by the progressive government, whose job it is to oversee the well being of the people. They have been, and will be, blamed for any failings of Progressive policy.

I've mentioned before that a key flaw in the Progressive/egalitarian belief system, is the inherent contradiction that in its pursuit & moderation of all inequality, it must necessarily focus on and base its policy decisions on inequality; the ultimate death spiral that inevitably chases ever more minor & imagined objectives to the point of either lunacy or tyranny. It's self-serving and convenient for a government to diminish the people to the point of equality vs. elevating them to the same by weakening itself, but this is the only way for a Progressive governing system to maintain the authority & power it needs to decide outcomes for others. If you can imagine an objectively utilitarian governing structure with power to dictate all outcomes fairly in this imperfect world of Man, maybe it could work --but then again you'd essentially be imagining a 'Deus ex statum', and would most likely end up with something painfully short of that goal.

"Funny that you say he is trying to control the use of them but you attempt to go into some sort of history lesson about words and how they change etc etc.... and what they could mean.... arent you doing the same thing you're accusing him of?"
The difference is I'm trying to clarify my use of labels so as to get past them to the underlying issue at hand, whereas you still seem focused on my usage, despite what I believe to be more than adequate explanation for doing so.

"If that's your point, you're either grossly exaggerating or failed miserably as you didn't lay out anything but your opinion preempted by some oddly presented hypothetical that attempts to paint only 2 options... your options.... of which it seems that you're really trying to reframe the conversation to something that is based on your own opinion."
'Grossly exaggerating' uniformity is a bit disingenous itself, given how fundamental anti-gun politics has become within the Democrat party. My 'two choices' were laid out as I see them, which is why they're both 'my choices' --fancy that. Either change everything you don't like about the Republican/conservative groups besides the gun stuff, or get the Democrats/liberals to give on that one issue. I then describe why the former is rather unrealistic, and why the latter is so difficult but more plausible, and why it got to be such a critical issue for the Progressives.

"She changed because me and another family member (who is extremely conservative) didn't alienate her, we educated her."
Bravo, score one for the good guys . Alienation is never helpful; it is antithetical to our system of government. Be honest; would the methods, techniques, and processes you used to win over your inlaw be practical to apply at large, though? Change begins at home, I wholeheartedly agree, but we're talking about macro-political, nation-scale stuff, or at least I am. Personal appeals, friendly relationships, and offers to go shooting or teach safe handling have a scaling problem. People like you doing the right thing are undoubtedly helping, but apparently not enough to prevent the Democrat party from lurching ever harder into an opposition to firearms --full on bans with confiscation are now on the table for the first time in history, promoted by all their major presidential candidates! Maybe more pro-gun liberals are being created, but they are not pressuring their parties to change their politics anywhere besides harder anti-gun stances; this is not progress as far as we gun owners are concerned.

"But the funny thing is.... still leans liberal on social issues, now owns her own gun... has a great time shooting his AR.... and votes nearly the same as the extremely conservative guy."
This despite her opposition to almost everything else in the platform, right? Tells me she either values gun rights a lot more than the causes she had shown support for previously, or sees a better shot at achieving her policy goals by influencing the Republican Party over the Democrats (which again suggests a priority on firearms issues). And if the Democrats ever dropped their focus on denying the RKBA, she would be in almost total agreement with their policy set, right? This is the point I am making. It is better for a person like her to remain a Democrat at the end of the day with that party having abandoned its gun crusade, than to fruitlessly strive against the vast majority on every other issue. At that point, neither (R) nor (D) is out to get us, and we can both get to work repairing the damage anti-gun Progressives wrought in decades past. Frankly, the true Progressives will never abandon the cause, just as tea-totalers still decry the sale of alcohol, but it is entirely possible for the Democrats to marginalize them as far as policy stances.

That's my end goal, I should 'our' end goal. How we get there remains to be discovered, but I doubt it lies with changing the major political party that isn't the problem as far as this particular issue. Truth be told, if the RKBA is looking more stable next election, I'll be primarying as a Democrat in order to try elevating pro-gun Dems within Texas as best I can; would be less danger of them implementing policies I deem destructive due to their minority status, but I would gladly take their assistance in getting the Hearing Protection Act passed, for example. At least in Texas, they aren't such an endangered breed of politician as in most places (your inlaw, while a liberal gun owner, isn't running for office; and that's what matters when it comes to public policy)

"Painting everyone as the same, in groups that you have labeled with your own definitions, and then go on to alienate those groups .... ?....myopic was a good word"
Describing different groups of individuals is by definition not painting everyone the same. Describing the broad aspects of their stated political motivations & where the RKBA comes into conflict with them is not alienation. I have very good long-distance acuity, and at least try to reach the same clarity in politics. I understand that there are individuals, many individuals even, which do not fit these categories; but they do not matter as far as influencing their party leaders. They aren't primarying antigun candidates, they aren't refusing to support, donate to, or vote for antigun candidates. They are by all political measures (of which voting is the most obvious) antigun constituents. I intentionally did not specify either party in this chunk of my response, since it applies to both of them. The only place we sort of saw this kind of effect was Colorado after the mag-ban, and it was much more due to gun owners becoming politically active as Republicans than Democrats influencing their party.

TCB

 

[TimSr]

I think that it is truly shameful when the 2A is the only amendment that must constantly be fought for.

I will staunchly disagree with this. The entire Constitution had been under assault, with constant chipping away, for a very long time. I won't go through the entire list, and explain how each Amendment is under assault, but the 1st Amendment should be obvious, with the PC movement, and crimes being prosecuted based on how you "feel" while committing them. There is not even any question as to whether our 4th Amendment rights are being violated daily. The debate is in how much of it we will tolerate in the interest of perceived security. Try to exercise your 5th Amendment rights when you fill out your IRS forms, and let me know how that goes. The 6th Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. Define "speedy"! Then we have the issue of the federal government powers not specifically outlined in the Constitution belonging to the states. That is probably violated more than any other part of the Constitution. We get caught up, and focus on the 2nd Amendment because we are a gun forum, but the Constitution is a package deal, and any part of it that a person is "anti" towards, has a profound effect on the rest of it.

 

[danez71]

'Grossly exaggerating' uniformity is a bit disingenous itself, given how fundamental anti-gun politics has become within the Democrat party. My 'two choices' were laid out as I see them, which is why they're both 'my choices' --fancy that.

No, its not disingenuous. Your statement was a gross exaggeration... or maybe a better term would be 'grossly stereotyped to a fault'.


How can you possibly see and say that there are only two choices when the link you attached show how a person can be placed in a majority of the area on the illustration and fall into a few different labeled groups at the same time?

It only illustrates how a persons beliefs can have elements that fall into multiple labeled groups.

So while your two choices are as you see them, you provided support that contradicts what you see/say.

http://pre07.deviantart.net/89d7/th...ctrum_simplified_4_by_shirouzhiwu-d5zpetj.png

Be honest; would the methods, techniques, and processes you used to win over your inlaw be practical to apply at large, though?

Yes, absolutely (of course, not universally). If you can present facts that are easy to understand and supportable, and also present facts and supported data in easy to understand way that proves their side is spewing lies and exploiting their trust, I find that people listen because no one likes to be made a fool and taken advantage of.

One of the problems on our side is that we (not me and you, 'them/they') don't initiate or respond well to the anti's statements. For ex. Anti says 'we've got to ban AW's, if we can save one child'. We reply with something like 'Those jack-booted thugs are taking all our guns and turning us into a communist / solcialist / fascist country.' And most people don't buy that, whether or not its true, because of the way we presented the counter and/or they way we talk down about, and to, them.

I said:
"But the funny thing is.... still leans liberal on social issues, now owns her own gun... has a great time shooting his AR.... and votes nearly the same as the extremely conservative guy."

You said:
"This despite her opposition to almost everything else in the platform, right?"

NO.... NO NO NOOooooooo. Not "almost everything". I think this might be, where I believe, you and many others really miss the mark.


Per the illustration YOU linked, it shows that a person can fall into A LOT of areas where-in they have multiple beliefs that notably are inclusive of the (in your words) diametrically opposite Parties


The illustration you linked shows that this issue is far more multi faceted than your narrower view of 2 choices.


That fact is, is that politicians, who are serious about getting things passed, present Bills etc that primarily support their party but also includes enough stuff the other party will support so it will pass.

That's how a large percent of the country votes... for the candidate that appears to support most of their beliefs (or, least worst candidate).


Why????, because people realize the world isn't black and white and it is ludicrous to think a Party, or anyone else for that matter, is going to 100% share their exact beliefs.



As pointed out, there are anti gun R's and pro gun D's. Its not as simple as you make it out to be and your illustration shows that.


You trying to make your point by using terms such as "diametrically opposed" and "utterly intractable" undermines yourself because they are such strong words that they are un-true on their face.


And trying to portray that its only a 2 option issue, 'as you see it', and then go on to provide info that doesn't support your own view, doesn't help either.

I'll be primarying as a Democrat in order to try elevating pro-gun Dems within Texas as best I can

But by doing so, you are supporting the D party of which you said earlier:

Theo, perhaps the real issue is the party with whom you agree on all these other issues except this ONE being so utterly intractable with regards to firearms issues. I mean, is it more rational to expect a group with which you otherwise are in full agreement to be more accommodating, or the one with which you are nearly diametrically opposed? Just because you're pro-gun and want to support pro-gun politicians, it's pretty unrealistic to expect an embrace when you stand in defiance of --whether you like them or not-- what are much more popular stances among their group.

So why are you providing any support the D's?

Ding Ding Ding... because deep down inside, despite your writings here, you do understand that it isn't as 2D dimensional as you portray.

And in fact, you're stepping out into the ka-billion dimensional world and going right into the D partys' house even though you stated its more realistic to get the party that mostly matches your belief to change than engage and try to change the party that you would disagree with on most issues.



So what we have is that:

1) The wording you use is so strong that it appears false on its face. (grossly exaggerating)
**btw, its also an example of a poor response type to an anti because its so 'out there' that they will tune out everything else you say just like you (not you personally) do to them.


2) Your illustration you provided doesn't support what you say is your view and underscores the grossly exaggerative wording you use.


3) At least some of your actions don't coincide with the words you are using to prove your point; which ultimately undermines your entire argument.

I have very good long-distance acuity, and at least try to reach the same clarity in politics.

I don't mean this disrespectfully...

I don't think you do in this case and thats mainly due to the contradictions of your statements and proposed actions.

Or maybe you do, but have a hard time expressing it with out contradicting yourself (which I suspect is probably the case)

I understand that there are individuals, many individuals even, which do not fit these categories; but they do not matter as far as influencing their party leaders.

What?!?!?! Voters don't matter to their Party? What kind of logic is that?

If either Party sees #'s moving to the other Party, they change or the Party becomes extinct. The ideology of both Parties has evolved just over the last couple elections.


I agree with you in the sense that someone like Hillary will never give up and that's because she feels that stance will keep her in power.

However, the People make up the Party. Eventually, Hillary will be long gone... her followers will be forced to listen to some other D leader. The D leader will get their leader position by D Party Members and other D leaders.

Get the members to see the light and eventually the D party will be more acceptable of the 2A or become extinct. Until then, yes, voting in more pro 2a D's is helpful too.


Conversely, if the GOP doesn't listen to their Members, they'll loose members.... to the Tea Party, or Libertarians, or Independents and they'll experience back lash and their members are showing that NOW.

It works both ways. The fact the Bernie and Trump are doing as well as they are is because the 2 Parties are not listening to their Members and as a result, their Parties are being weakened by the own members.


Your comment is wrong and its shown to be wrong, daily, on the news.

But perhaps you'll agree that your statement that a Party's member don't matter influencing their leaders was an over statement..... and if you do....Then stop talking like that!!!!



Using over the top wording doesnt help... it hurts the cause because it just isn't believable on its face and undermines everything you're saying to the listener and can drive a difference of opinion into a alienating wedge.




This isn't an 'either A or B' issue because the human brain is much more complicated than that. The illustration you provided shows that. And, your actions show it as well.

Believing and promoting that it is, is not beneficial to your own (our) goals.



Now.... having said all of that... I DO think you have some good points... and if I'm correctly reading into what you are trying to say, you are largely right in conceptually correct in a global overly simplified way