We should take our gloves off

Status
Not open for further replies.
That doesn't sound dumb at all, DogBonz.
Terminology sends a message, and we'd be well advised to remember that.

As an example from a different perspective, just this morning I was reading what seemed to be a balanced article on gun control.
Then I came to the reference to Florida's "shoot first" law.
That told me all I needed to know about the writer's agenda.
 
The anti's can be rabid, lying dogs because of one simple little thing: they aren't the one's with the guns. The minute we start playing their game, we become a rabid, lying dog, WITH TEETH, and those are the ones that get put down. No, I don't think we should play their game at all, we need to take the high road, and show them that we are better than that, and THAT is our point!
 
Change "take our gloves off" to "turn our brains on", you'd have a winner.

If you are walking on the street, and you see two people loudly arguing, do you walk up to them or walk away?

I don't think that we need to engage the wild anti's to win. There are some people whom you will never convince - but maybe you don't need to.

I think that there are a lot of folks out there who are vaguely anti because they really haven't thought about it. If we can convince them, we can win, but I also think that most of them will walk away from a "gun nut."

I don't have a solution, but that's the hard nut to crack.

The only thing that I have done is take people shooting whenever asked (so far a niece, a nephew and a lady*from synagogue). I ask them to the rage orientation course first - for two motives. First, they learn how to shoot safely. But more importantly, the learn to think of guns has items that can be safely handled, and they learn some of the vocabulary of gun safety.

Today my nephew was over, and he wanted to see my new Beretta Neos. It was fun to watch him explain to his mom and and sister (both vaguely aniti) why he was ejecting the magazine locking back the slide before he handed the weapon to his sister. He explained to her that "If you see the hole in the back of the barrel, the gun's not loaded. Every time someone hands shows you a gun, the action should be open."

One thing that might help is younger spokespeople - Charlton Heston was a grand old man, but his career peaked in the late '50s and early '60s. I get a kick out of Ted Nugent, but he's close to 60. It's been a long time since "Magnum, PI" was on the air.

Quick - name a pro gun celebrity under 45!

A quote from a very old THR thread:

swingset said:
Yeah, there are couple of good guys on our side, but you gotta be honest here - most of the pro-gun celebs would have a hard time getting on Hollywood Squares.

It's cool to see "7 of 9" (Jeri Ryan) on the list - she's someone people under 40 have heard of. It would be nice to see Dennis Franz speak up more - NYPD was famous for a while. Kim Delaney for the same reason.

Is there anyone of the fame and age of Matt Damon or Jake Gyllenhaal who's pro RKBA? I've seen some notes that Russell Crowe is pro gun - that's pretty cool, if it's true.

Back on topic - I think that we need to find ways to convince the "vaguely anti" of our cause. The only way that I have figured out to do that is take their kids shooting.

Mike
 
By our very own John Ross----

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issues such as Natural Rights and the Second Amendment and letting our enemies define the terms.

They say… we’d be better off if no one had guns.

We say…. you can never succeed at that, as criminals will always get guns. That is FLAWED reasoning, as the implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it should be a reasonable plan.

WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang and you want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed and perfect prey. Sorry, that is totally unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a firearm.”

They say…. those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30 round magazine for hunting deer. They’re only for killing people.

We say…. we compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15/M1A. You need a large capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me…wa wa wa wa wa (a la adults in Peanuts cartoons). This is FLAWED as you have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban your firearms with no sporting use. Eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade game substitutes.

WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people and these devices obviously serve different purposes than firearms. To be precise, a high capacity military pattern rifle, shotgun or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself, my loved ones, my freedoms, my liberty and my Natural Rights, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom, liberty and Natural Rights is that they’re good practice for when they need to be protected from the overreaching tyranny of our government officials.”

They say…. if we pass this CCW law or that Castile Doctrine, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender benders, in bars, people will kill just to kill without any reason and they will actively seek out confrontation since they don’t have to run away from trouble, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it. Think of the children…”

We say….. studies have shown blah blah blah. This is FLAWED because you have implied that if studies showed CCW laws or Castile Doctrine equaled more heat of passion shootings or killings because someone sought out a fight rather than leave the trouble area, the CCW and justified actions with the doctrine should be illegal.

WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What are important are our freedom, liberty and Natural Rights. If saving lives is more important than anything else, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound? Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that law enforcement has no legal obligation to respond to your emergency call, rather that they are charged with the general safety of a community. You should remember that when you say that one should call the police instead to protect yourself rather than defending yourself with a firearm.”

They say…. they don’t see what the big deal is about a five-day waiting period or a limit on how many guns per month someone can purchase.

We say…. it doesn’t do any good as criminals don’t wait five days or restrict their purchases to a fixed number per month and it is a waste of resources to enforce it. The FLAW is you have implied that if waiting periods or a purchase limit DID reduce crime the measures would be good ideas.

WE SHOULD SAY: “How about a 24 hour cooling off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives being ruined such as the one of Richard Jewel? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own firearms tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment and controlling someone. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”

They say…. in 1776 citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s, M-16s/M-4s, M60s, M203 grenade launchers, etc. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs.

We say…. uh, well, uh…

WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue – it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same weaponry, as were the issued weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but some individuals and private companies owned their own field pieces as part of the civilian militia and even had exploding shells. In 2006, soldiers are issued M-16s, M-4s, M249s, grenade launchers and more, but not howitzers and atomic bombs though artillery, mines, grenades and other ordinance are legally owned by private individuals right now. According to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand operated and used fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing, web presses or electricity, let alone television, radio, computers, the internet and satellite transmission.”

They say…. we require licenses for driving and registrations for motor vehicles, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction
.
We generally say… nothing, usually, and just sit there looking stupid.

WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, operating a motor vehicle on tax funded public roadways is a privilege, where the right to travel freely and the right to defend oneself through the ownership and use of firearms are both Natural Rights which existed before our Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the United States you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars or truck so any size as you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property you can get a license, depending on the state, between 14 and 18. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing but a basic driving test, written test and vision test. If we treated firearms like cars, a teenager could go into any state and legally buy handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at a certain age he could get a state license good for anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. However, as driving a motor vehicle on public property is a privilege and firearms ownership is a Natural Right, the former requires a government issued permit while the former must never require government sanction.”

They say…. the government will never confiscate your deer rifle or turkey/duck shotgun.

We generally act all paranoid and rant away at them.

WE SHOULD SAY: “In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we saw rather clearly that our government did and will confiscate firearms from the law abiding while rendering them easy prey for criminals, many of which the government itself set free rather than keep them locked up. Additionally, even the government’s own employees, police officers in fact, abandoned their posts and took part in the looting rather than carry out their sworn duty to uphold the law and the Constitution.”

And finally, a comment that is useful with most all anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-Natural Rights zealots:

YOU SAY: “You know I’m amazed at how little you care about your children and grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”
They say… huh?

YOU SAY: “Well, passing this new gun control law won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years neither George Bush nor Ted Kennedy is going to open up interment camps like Roosevelt did fifty odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40 or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your children or grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom, liberty and Natural Rights? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?
 
"Axctal" said:
Pictures:
Jewish jellow star from nazi germany in front of conc.camp
with text: They were disarmed "for public safety"
American flag with M16-or what-not with text:
Second amendment is NOT about sporting!

couldn't find one with an American flag behind it, but how's this?

they-were-disarmed-for-public-safety1.jpg
 
Totally agree with CZ and you cool-headed guys.
With cold head thinking - Why our politicos are not "nuking" the media
with statements like "guns save lives" or similar?
It does not have to be a long rant, it could be inserted into
other talks, messages, etc.
The key is in FREQUENCY. People need to hear it over and over and over.
It looks like politicos from the opposing side have no troubles doing that
with their messages.
 
Ghostly - arrangement of those two pictures.
Ideally, should be printable on normal "Letter" or A4 paper.
maybe message with Jews should be "Their government disarmed them ..."
or "They were disarmed by government ... "
Explicitly introduce idea that it is to keep government in check.
Dunno ... on the other hand (without word "government")
it makes poeple think even if little ... and they will be getting message ...
 
When a 'local' news person makes a dummie-automatic for auto loading for example just email them and invite them to the range. In a couple days call and invite them assuming jno return on email. Would have to do that at a club most likey. For those in clubs have a "legislator and News person Day and invite them out to shoot. If you get one-that is one more than you had last week. They will soon know that we are not a bunch of 'wackos etc'.
cant get my club to do that. One other club I belong to has the club pres go on a local radio ststion every Sat am and talk about the shooting sports.

get women involved cause one fellow says "if Mom shoots-everyone shoots" even the dog-and they VOTE-not the dog unless it is Chicago and there they dont shoot.
 
Axctal said:
Ghostly - arrangement of those two pictures.
Ideally, should be printable on normal "Letter" or A4 paper.
maybe message with Jews should be "Their government disarmed them ..."
or "They were disarmed by government ... "
Explicitly introduce idea that it is to keep government in check.
Dunno ... on the other hand (without word "government")
it makes poeple think even if little ... and they will be getting message ...

ok, re did the message and added a border to resize it for A4 printing.

2 versions, hotlinked to reduce loading time for slower connections.

This first one has border text that I thought gave it a nice finishing message.

and without the border text

note I am still looking for a picture of an M-16 or AR-15 in front of an american flag that is large enough a resolution for a decent picture
 
As a German myself I am maybe a bit oversensitive to this issue but we have to keep in mind the dignity of the victims of the holocaust.
I do not question the message or the connection between disarming and genocide but as this is a public campaign we've got to think twice.

I am not sure myself whether it would be a good idea or not, I only want to point out that there might be more involved than we possibly think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top