Name calling and gun folks

[Plink]

If and when the nation needs men, many who do not carry would be at the forefront, while some who do carry and are always shouting about their rights would flee to Canada, and claim it was not a lack of courage, but just an illegal war. I continue to think of that as cowardice.

While I agree about those who don't carry being as brave as those who do, I have to voice a short opinion about those who don't always answer the call to arms.

During WWII, an enemy attacked MY COUNTRY! I would have been first in line to fight. During the Vietnam war, I would have probably fled to Canada also. It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with refusing to conform to a corrupt government trying to further it's agenda.

I believe that ALL of our military men and women are heroes, regardless where they served, and I respect and admire them all. But I do not believe that all of those who refuse to serve in a conflict that doesn't involve us, are cowards.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

I believe that ALL of our military men and women are heroes, regardless where they served, and I respect and admire them all. But I do not believe that all of those who refuse to serve in a conflict that doesn't involve us, are cowards.

While I understand your feelings, you are wrong.
You (as in the you are part of the populace) elected those people to represent you. You cannot simply "choose" to not accept their decision on whether or not it is necessary to be in a conflict. You have the right to put them out if you do not like their decisions, but you do not have the right to simply pick and choose which decisions you are going to obey or disobey.
Like it or not, they are privy to a lot more information than you are, and YOU put them there to make those decisions based on the information avaiable.
You do not have the right to decide which laws you choose to obey and disobey, you do have the right to change the laws you do not like. If each individual gets to pick and choose what they want to obey or disobey, then there are no law only anarchy.

 

[JaxNovice]

I have a entirely different theory. My feelings are not to automatically demonize someone because they have different opinions. Just because someone has a different religion, political affiliation or views on the 2nd Amd, does not mean I will dismiss them as stupid. There are plenty of really smart and good people in this world who have completely different views than myself.

I am not so narrow minded that I only respect those who share my interests or principles.

 

[Glockfan.45]

"The Unenlightened" is certainly better than "bliss ninnies," "sheep,' "sheeple," "Eloi," and the like. I'd also do away with pejoratives aimed at liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Libertarians, atheists, Muslims, homosexuals, pacifists, and the rest.. But it's not completely up to me, so...

While I can agree with most all of your opinion there really is no room for socialists. Anybody who believes socialism is the answer is beyond hope. Democrats sure, Liberals perhaps, Socialists no way. The core values of socialism, can in no way fit into a pro-gun mindset. Its funny that you list Libertarians though since they (me ) are probably the most pro-gun group out there.

 

[FCFC]

That's why a think a person who doesn't have a gun should be called "a person who doesn't have a gun," and people who don't want anyone to have a gun should be called "people who don't want anyone to have a gun."

Inventing new labels loaded with negative connotations isn't telling it like it is.

Depends on the purpose of the rhetoric. If one just wants to badger some individual or group, then use of the labels, including silly and negative ones, is a good approach.

If some effective communication, learning or persuasion is the objective, then staying away from the cute terms and slams would be in order.

Most of the time, by far, in the gun/anti-gun contestations, both sides seem to favor the former.

 

[Damien45]

I have not read this entire thread, but about half. I just got off work (12hrs) and am rather tired so I hope this is pretty clear. If not, I appologize.

The way I see it:

When it comes to firearms there are 3 classifications for Americans:

1) Those who want to preserve and restore our firearm Rights.
2) Those who want to restrict and ban our firearm Rights.
3) Those who do not have an active opinion on the matter.

Each classification has their own types. Class 1 has those who choose not to own, those who choose to own and those who choose to own and carry. Class 2 has those who want a "safer nation" and those who want to have a "firearms free nation". Class 3 is the majority. They are the folks who either do not understand, care enough or know anything about firearms.

These are the people that I choose to refer to as "friends I have yet to meet". While some may vote for candidates that seek to strip us of our gun rights, I think it is not their (the voters) main issue. I feel that they vote on issues more important to them. Since they are unaware of the truth about firearms, they do not pay attention to that issue as much. If we can educate them enough to at least bring them to the "those who choose not to own" type of Class 1, maybe they would vote for a candidate that supports their other issues, as well as ours.

This fight is a tough one. The money pouring into the opposition is staggering. They have more organizations than we do. Ours have been tagged and labled by the media that supports the opposition. Unfortunately it is those in Class 3 that get their firearms education from that same media. It is then augmented by Hollywood and TV. All we have to educate them with is ourselves, the internet and word of mouth. We can not afford to alienate the majority with derrogatory names.


One of the comments posted earlier commented on the "Why do you need a gun? Only criminals have guns". My usual reply to that is this:
"My gun doesn't make me a criminal. It's my choices that prevent it."

 

[FCFC]

One of the comments posted earlier commented on the "Why do you need a gun? Only criminals have guns".

This is a logical fallacy. Here is the form:

Criminals have guns
Damien45 has a gun
Therefore, Damien45 is a criminal

It's criminal that people use such easily refuted constructions. They are very easy to spot.

 

[Damien45]

This is a logical fallacy. Here is the form:

Criminals have guns
Damien45 has a gun
Therefore, Damien45 is a criminal

It's criminal that people use such easily refuted constructions. They are very easy to spot.

Absolutely agree.

 

[ZeSpectre]

FWIW, I despise the gun owners who use terms like "sheep," "sheeple," "hoplophobes," "liberal," "communist," etc. I think it demonstrates thoughtlessness, ignorance, and hostility.

I don't know about others, but I do use Hoplophobe... however I only use it when I've determined that someone REALLY is phobic (and I've met a few). For example, I met someone at a friend's birthday party who couldn't (not wouldn't, actually couldn't) go into the dining room because the birthday cake was shaped like a hunting rifle. She also refused to handle the knife used to cut the cake and somebody else had to hand her a slice to eat. It was a little disturbing.

In my own mind I tend to "categorize" the opposing camp people into

The Aggressors - Those with an active agenda of disarmament. Usually to forward some private purpose of their own.
The Managed - Those who have been socially trained to be against guns, even though they usually don't actually know WHY.
The Hoplophobes - Those who have an actual psychological illness in line with any other phobic reaction.

My own approach to each group is...
Aggressors - I treat them as the enemy. I will do as much as I possibly can to hinder them, bring their plans to a halt, or cause them a reversal.
Managed - I treat them as uneducated. I will do as much as I can to teach them facts and neutralize propaganda while realizing that I must respect their right to make up their own minds on the topic.
Hoplophobes - I walk away. I don't have the disposition or psychological training to deal with an actual clinical phobia.

 

[pax]

Guys,

If the goal is to advance responsible firearms ownership (and it is), we're not going to get too far calling people names.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Thread closed, since pretty much everything that should be said has been said. (And some things that should not have.)

pax