PROOF: Antis Look on Message Boards to Use Our Irresponsible Rhetoric Against Us

[Art Eatman]

All this strawmen/strawdogs, fallacy/fantasy stuff still doesn't deal with the point of the thread nor the reality of life: Gunowners are judged by their rhetoric. Rightly or wrongly, that's reality.

So. The deal at THR is simple: Harumphing and chest thumping about various evils, with phraseology that that leads to the poster being seen as a Keyboard Kommando or Neanderthal knuckle-dragger, ain't gonna survive editing.

The same ideas, expressed in a civilized manner, are pretty much just fine and dandy. (The usual caveats about race and religion will always apply; read the rules.)

That oughta be easy enough to understand.

Art

 

[cuchulainn]

I'll bet when that happens the liberals will be rioting in the streets with torches and pitchforks and saying exactly the same stuff, just with "book" substituted for "gun".

I'm sure they will be, though I didn't know there were that many pitchforks on hand in The Village, Berkeley and Harvard Square. Must be from all those faux-rustic window displays.

 

[cuchulainn]

Point taken, Art.

Thanks -- as always -- for pulling us back on topic.

 

[RealGun]

What about those who complain about the PC intimdators when faced with a harsh criticism of their opinions?

Interesting question, which I will carefully consider.

I had not intended for you to take my comments personally, since I would be generally supportive of what you have posted here. The posts I had in mind were those of ranting absolutists and negativists who provide little more than sniping at what others offer along with unrealistic and embarrassing proposals. There is always an element of ad hominem, when the source of ideas is discredited (without real arguments) along with the ideas themselves. That is just a form of bullying, what I referred to as intimidation. When trying to ignore these posters or not encourage them, they do tend to get the last word and set the tone for the forum.

 

[cuchulainn]

Fair enough, Realgun, and sorry for my surly response

 

[cuchulainn]

Art: Gunowners are judged by their rhetoric. Rightly or wrongly, that's reality.

Indeed.

Another way to look at the angry responses to such rhetoric is this: If cop/soldier-killer rhetoric generates such negative reaction in a gun-friendly, liberty-friendly forum -- where we all understand your motives despite our anger at your words -- imagine how it plays among the general public who don't understand where you're coming from?

If you don't care about the opinions of the general public (who can vote our worst enemies into office), then I don't know what to say.

If you do care ... if you still think we have a chance at the ballot and soap boxes, then please act accordingly.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Gee, I thought the NRA was more often criticized here for
NOT being what VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann
accuses NRA of being.

I have Channel 2, CNN amd ABC News videos of the gun grab
in N.O.La to make me mad as hades, I did not need to read or
hear Wayne LaPierre.

I might occasionally post stuff like:
"They'll get me gun like they'll get me Guiness Stout:
when they pry the empty from my cold dead fingers."
but
VPC promotes a mindset that sees a boy, his dog and
his mother back-shot at Ruby Ridge or twenty-one children
barbequed at Waco as acceptable law enforcement in
the name of gun control.

I have decided at times not to post in anger, and have tried
to compose my posts with a view that any comment I might
make can and will be taken out of context and used against
me in the court of public opinion.
__________________
Cogito, ergo sum. Cogito non, ergo *poof*

 

[ARperson]

Gunowners are judged by the fact that they own guns. Period. End of sentence. Since that fact alone is generally not enough to convict us in the court of public opinion, our opponents are relegated to using our comments, right or wrong, within proper context or not, against to paint us with a broad brush of extremism and violent tendencies.

I whole-heartedly agree that in a perfect world we could all take the high road and be civilly eloquent in our rants. But the unfortunate fact remains that as a group, people tend to let emotions rule, if only temporarily. And even more so when communicating on the internet (anonymity has is privileges).

What I don't understand from this thread is the argument that if we were to behave nicely (as would be the appropriate thing to do in any circumstance) that our opponents would not have anything to use against us. Is it not obvious that they would simply pick some other aspect with which to injure our repuation with the general public?

Argue all you want that it is in our best interest to behave as gentle men and women because it's simply the right thing to do. I have no beef with that logic. In fact, I agree.

But the minute you start thinking that righteous behavior is going to change any one's mind (be they opponents or fence sitters-let's face it anyone fence sitting here is going to get a goodly dose of proper behavior anyway, it's not like we're all knuckle-draggin neandertals who support violence in any circumstance) one way or the other is ludicrous and laughable.

One bad meal at a restaurant does not make me condemn the restaurant forever. Likewise, some fellow blustering and bellowing on the internet is not likely to cement anyone's opinion of gunowner's singlehandedly.

 

[cuchulainn]

ARperson: What I don't understand from this thread is the argument that if we were to behave nicely (as would be the appropriate thing to do in any circumstance) that our opponents would not have anything to use against us.

No one has suggested that they'll stop attacking us if we behave well. But what's the point of practically handing them the propaganda?

ARperson: But the minute you start thinking that righteous behavior is going to change any one's mind (be they opponents or fence sitters-let's face it anyone fence sitting here is going to get a goodly dose of proper behavior anyway, it's not like we're all knuckle-draggin neandertals who support violence in any circumstance) one way or the other is ludicrous and laughable.

I agree. Good behavior alone won't change people's minds. But bad behavior makes it impossible to change their minds.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Again, I think that both sides of the argument are useful, the nice face of THR for recruiting those who can see through the VPC garbage and the nasty side to keep the VPC and its Political lackies at bay...

This came from the same post you tried to dodge the fact that you were using an ad nauseum argument...that's what I have to say on the initial subject. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that another famous fallacy to imply that I had nothing to say on the issue, but rather resorted to ad homminum...

Art,

All this strawmen/strawdogs, fallacy/fantasy stuff still doesn't deal with the point of the thread nor the reality of life

Very true, but it is Cuchullain's favorite tactic, so I thought I would respond in kind...(see some of his earlier posts trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with him)

ETA: Here's a real fantasy...thinking you can make any effective change through the ballot box...there a fanatsy for ya! Because I believe it to be so, does that make it true?

 

[cuchulainn]

Actually, I try to discredit arguments that I disagree with, and there's nothing wrong or unfair about that.

But you're correct in that I glossed over your point about both ways being valuable in my surliness this morning. Sorry.

The problem with your argument is that I cannot think of one current or historical example -- including the American Revolution -- where angry words from the mob gave pause to a tyrant or would-be tyrant.

Can you give an example where murderous rhetoric kept a tyrant at bay?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I walked around my apartment recently doing a security check.

I made a point of bringing inside or getting rid of anything that
could be used as a burglary tool.
__________________
Cogito, ergo sum. Cogito non, ergo *poof*

 

[cuchulainn]

Sorry, Carl, I don't follow your analogy.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Given the track record of Brady Campaign (the group formerly known as
Handgun Control Inc.) attempting to depict the Florida Stand Your Ground
law as "Shoot First" this attempt by Violence Policy Center ( the group
formerly known as National Coalition to Ban Handguns) may probably backfire.

I'll catch hades for this one:
Can you give an example where murderous rhetoric kept a tyrant at bay?
Well, when Xerxes demanded that Leonidas and the 300 Spartans lay down
their arms, and Leonidas respomded "Nuts" why, Xerxes just packed up and
went back to Persia.

If we did not say anything inflammatory, Handgun Control Inc and
National Coalition to Ban Handguns would make something up anyway.
Back in the 1960s the New Republic published a bogus link between the
NRA and Robert Depews' Minutemen.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Sorry, Carl, I don't follow your analogy.

I made a point of bringing inside or getting rid of anything that
could be used as a burglary tool.

Do not supply your enemies anything they can use against you.
__________________
Cogito, ergo sum. Cogito non, ergo *poof*

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Can you give an example where murderous rhetoric kept a tyrant at bay?

The definition of murder is to take a life without justification. If Randy Weaver had seen the Feds in the woods on his property aiming a rifle at his fourteen year old son's back, reached for a scoped rifle and shot the Fed dead just in time to save his son, would that have been murder in your book, sir? What about if he managed to plug Lon Horiuchi just before he pulled the trigger on his sniper rifle, the cross hairs of which were on Mrs. Weaver's head? Murder in your book? The comments that you are condemning are assuming similar circumstances exist. They are not discussions of murder plans, but of actions in justifiable self defense.

 

[cuchulainn]

Carl N. Brown: If we did not say anything inflammatory, Handgun Control Inc and National Coalition to Ban Handguns would make something up anyway.

They probably would -- and we'd rightly out them as liars. Why give them "real world" examples to play with -- that only lends credibility to their propaganda.

Carl N. Brown: Xerxes just packed up and went back to Persia.

Exactly my point. Spear rattling never stopped a tyrant. Standing up to a tyrant is the honorable thing to do -- but don't think you give him pause with scary threats.

Thus, I don't buy the argument that violent rhetoric keeps gun banners at bay.

 

[Phetro]

If your faith in THR's mission to portray responsible gun owners is being undermined by the irresponsibly violent rhetoric of some members, read this thread.

The funniest sig line ever! As if he gets to decide--and already has--what's "irresponsible" and "violent!"

Exactly my point. Spear rattling never stopped a tyrant. Standing up to a tyrant is the honorable thing to do -- but don't think you give him pause with scary threats.

Thus, I don't buy the argument that violent rhetoric keeps gun banners at bay.

Interesting...yet you want your rhetoric to shut us up?

 

[cuchulainn]

The Real Hawkeye: The definition of murder is to take a life without justification.

OK, then can anyone give me an example where violent rhetoric kept a tyrant at bay?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

OK, then can anyone give me an example where violent rhetoric kept a tyrant at bay?

Hitler refrained from invading Switzerland because Switzerland informed him that any invasion attempt would be met with armed resistance to the last man. Since Hitler knew that they possessed the ability to inflict great casualties on the German war machine, he went around Switzerland instead.

 

[cuchulainn]

Phetro: Interesting...yet you want your rhetoric to shut us up?

Yes, I believe I can convince some people that violent diatribes are a bad idea -- though probably not my more vocal critics in this thread. Yes, I believe that tyrants don't listen to threats of violence.

One point has nothing to do with the other.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Can't think of any documented cases where a "gungrabber" has proclaimed that the angry rhetoric of pro-gun folks have made them back off.

However, when someone earlier offered some examples in history (i.e. Cuban missle Crisi, etc.) you dismissed them as irrelevant to the current discussion.

I would suggest that there are those who would try to take our rights away outright, but refrain due to rhetoric...can't prove i though.

 

[cuchulainn]

The Real Hawkeye: Hitler refrained from invading Switzerland because Switzerland informed him that any invasion attempt would be met with armed resistance to the last man. Since Hitler knew that they possessed the ability to inflict great casualties on the German war machine, he went around Switzerland instead.

Switzerland's "violent rhetoric" had nothing to do with Hitler's decision -- it had everything to do with Switerzland' mobilization of 430,000 troops (20% of its population) on the border.

Hitler reacted to Switerzland's actions, not its rhetoric.

Interaction between two militaries doesn't translate to tyrant-to-population dynamics.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

er reacted to Switerzland's actions, not its rhetoric.

Really? So, I suppose if Switzerland's rhetoric had mirrored that of, say, Austria, Hitler would still have refrained from sending in the troops based solely on the troop strength of Switzerland?

Interaction between two militaries doesn't translate to tyrant-to-population dynamics.

Yes, so you keep saying.

 

[cuchulainn]

thereisnospoon: However, when someone earlier offered some examples in history (i.e. Cuban missle Crisi, etc.) you dismissed them as irrelevant to the current discussion.

Yes, when one nation demonstrates (via action) its ability to meet force with force, other nations often will back off.

I don't see how a military-to-military show of power tells us anything about people making violent threats against tyrants.