What's the PRIMARY REASON why the Anti-2A Camp so often seems to be more successful at its mission t

[HetchHetchy]

If you only read Die Volkischer Beobachter and the Mainichi Shimbun in December 1944, you'd think that Germany and Japan were winning the war.

We can't stop the anti-gun cult from believing its own propaganda. That doesn't me WE have to believe it.

Denial and apathy are real killers...

 

[Officers'Wife]

Or perhaps it's just human nature to have a fear of what is different. City people by and large have little to no contact with firearms save for LEO's, the occasional hunter that travels and the criminal. Various groups demonize the LEO on far too many times "cop attitude" sets the idea in stone. Hunters are demonized on social media whenever they are identified. The dentist that shot the lion is a prime example. The criminals... Oddly enough they actually get a pass in the media both social and mainstream on their behaviors yet the firearm is touted as somehow being to blame for the body count.

Like it or not, the media shapes public opinion. Public opinion is slowly and surely being turned to the weapon being the cause of man's ills rather than those individuals intent on performing evil deeds. Until that opinion changes the 2A is in mortal danger.

 

[Deanimator]

It sounds like we have nothing to worry about, then. Carry on.

The anti-gun cult's second biggest handicap is smugness...

 

[Deanimator]

Denial and apathy are real killers...

As are defeatism and gullibility.

 

[RX-79G]

1. I'm not a conservative. I'm a liberal. There's NOTHING "liberal" about gun control. It is by turns, racist, misogynistic and fascistic.
2. Nobody's ever accused me of being a cop fanboi or promoting idolatry of police. They have a name for places where only the police have guns... "police state". The places with the worst records of police bias and criminality are also gun control "paradises", like NYC and Chicago.

You have a VERY narrow view of what passes for the pro-gun side... probably by design.

No, I don't. There are plenty of people that are like me, or maybe like you. But the majority of the pro-gunners see 2A protection as a Conservative tradition and vote against Liberals by voting for GOP Conservatives, with everything else that goes along with the GOP plank.

All you're doing is playing games with labels. While your personal views might be "liberal" in many senses, you don't vote for "Liberals".

There are certainly plenty of pro-gun people that have little interest in Conservatism and the GOP, but since various versions of libertarianism are powerless in the US, the Conservative ticket is the default for single issue pro-gun voters.

 

[Deanimator]

All you're doing is playing games with labels.

All you're doing is pulling the wool over your own eyes and trying to pull it over those of others.

You can't fight what you can't name or identify. I've seen a lot of recent examples of people who refused to do so... because they had no intention of fighting it.

 

[RX-79G]

All you're doing is pulling the wool over your own eyes and trying to pull it over those of others.

You can't fight what you can't name or identify. I've seen a lot of recent examples of people who refused to do so... because they had no intention of fighting it.

I'm sorry, I'll have to be more specific for you:

The standard convention is to use lower case to refer to general system of belief, and to capitalize when referring to a political party. Thus, Marks and Engels wrote about about "communism", and the Soviets were "Communists".

So when you refer to yourself as an "Liberal", you are saying are associated with the US Democratic party or similar offshoots. What you meant to say was that you are "liberal", because you believe in the tenants of liberal thought, not the Liberal party in the US.

Using your own independent definitions while trying to have a constructive discussion breeds confusion and disrupts the discussion. Did you want to confuse and disrupt? Of course not.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm sorry, I'll have to be more specific for you:

If that was your intent, you failed badly. I have my doubts.

The standard convention is to use lower case to refer to general system of belief, and to capitalize when referring to a political party. Thus, Marks and Engels wrote about about "communism", and the Soviets were "Communists".

It's Marx, not "Marks".

So when you refer to yourself as an "Liberal", you are saying are associated with the US Democratic party or similar offshoots.

If you're going to claim something, you might not want to quote something with completely refutes it...

 

[RX-79G]

Thank you for the spelling lesson, but I'm telling you that your constant word games make you impossible to speak to. You need to either provide a glossary or chose to discuss the topic as offered without doing the War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength thing with every post.

 

[Deanimator]

Thank you for the spelling lesson, but I'm telling you that your constant word games make you impossible to speak to.

I believe that what you meant to say was, "I'm telling you that your accurate historical references baffle me."

Don't feel bad, I get the same complaints from Holocaust deniers, Japanese militarists, Marxist-Leninists (note the "x") and especially anti-gun cultists.

I could suggest that you educate yourself, but who am I kidding...

 

[RX-79G]

The thing is, you are not talking about the topic, but trying to disrupt the topic, like in the post:

The anti-gun cult's second biggest handicap is smugness...

The thread topic is not the anti-gun "cult's" handicaps. This post is off topic and designed to distract from the thread topic, rather than be part of the discussion.

 

[Deanimator]

The thing is, you are not talking about the topic, but trying to disrupt the topic, like in the post:

Again, what you MEANT to say was, "You're not talking about the topic in a way which I can refute, dismiss or deflect. I find that very frustrating!"

I have no duty to allow you to set the terms of debate.

I don't with Holocaust deniers, Japanese militarists, Marxist-Leninists (note the x), NAMBLA members, or anyone else.

I have no intention of doing so with you.

 

[barnbwt]

"But the majority of the pro-gunners see 2A protection as a Conservative tradition"
I want to quote this just because it stuck out as so totally inaccurate. 2A is not about tradition, and never has been, it is a human civil right, and always has been. Most pro gun people understand this, and are not simply chasing a social more; that was how the Fudds operated while we got our buns kicked the last century.

 

[RX-79G]

Again, what you MEANT to say was, "You're not talking about the topic in a way which I can refute, dismiss or deflect. I find that very frustrating!"

I have no duty to allow you to set the terms of debate.

I don't with Holocaust deniers, Japanese militarists, Marxist-Leninists (note the x), NAMBLA members, or anyone else.

I have no intention of doing so with you.

No, I meant that a thread about anti-gun marketing success and pro-gun marketing failures IS NOT a thread about anti-gun failures. I have no need to refute something off topic.

If I wanted to argue like you do, I would just write "Peanut butter sandwich" as a reply.

 

[barnbwt]

"Thus, Marks and Engels wrote about about "communism", and the Soviets were "Communists"."
Oh God, you're not one of those people who thinks Communism simply hasn't been done "correctly" yet, are you?

 

[barnbwt]

RX, with regards to marketing, our primary weakness is coordinated censorship by practically all media outlets. The NRA literally cannot get its message out on anything but independent channels. The problem is not the message, but the gate keepers (and the fact the gates are in urban centers predisposed against gun rights)

 

[RX-79G]

"But the majority of the pro-gunners see 2A protection as a Conservative tradition"
I want to quote this just because it stuck out as so totally inaccurate. 2A is not about tradition, and never has been, it is a human civil right, and always has been. Most pro gun people understand this, and are not simply chasing a social more; that was how the Fudds operated while we got our buns kicked the last century.

You're right, it is not striclty accurate.

It would be more accurate to say that American Conservatives see the ownership of firearms by themselves as a conservative value, like they see Protestant Christianity as a conservative value. And they bolster those values by referring to the protections offered by the 2nd and 1st Amendments.

 

[Deanimator]

"But the majority of the pro-gunners see 2A protection as a Conservative tradition"
I want to quote this just because it stuck out as so totally inaccurate. 2A is not about tradition, and never has been, it is a human civil right, and always has been. Most pro gun people understand this, and are not simply chasing a social more; that was how the Fudds operated while we got our buns kicked the last century.

And just by reading various firearms forums, it's obviously untrue.

There's as big a libertarian streak in gun owners as conservative.

I see PLENTY of criticism of police, and of conservative shibboleths by gun owners on line.

But if somebody has a fixed narrative that they're pushing, none of that matters.

 

[Deanimator]

If I wanted to argue like you do, I would just write "Peanut butter sandwich" as a reply.

That is in fact, what you've been doing all along.

I confront you with documented historical precedents, and all you can do is try to dismiss factual proof as a concept.

Hence, your accusation against me, DIRECTLY refuted by your own QUOTE of what I really said.

It's YOUR duty to educate yourself, NOT mine to disdain facts.

 

[RX-79G]

RX, with regards to marketing, our primary weakness is coordinated censorship by practically all media outlets. The NRA literally cannot get its message out on anything but independent channels. The problem is not the message, but the gate keepers (and the fact the gates are in urban centers predisposed against gun rights)

What's the message? Is it a message that is "newsworthy"?

Media outlets report events, not philosophies. "Guns are good" is not a new and controversial idea, it is an old and oft repeated statement. There is nothing to report about that.

If you want to be in media, you have to generate interest by linking to topical events or creating controversy. Our side does not have anything new to say.

However, if LaPierre were (for instance) to show up a BLM rally for Philando Castile, because he is concerned that the policeman killed Castile out of irrational fear of Castile's CCW, then that would get on the TV.

 

[Deanimator]

You're right, it is not striclty accurate.

It's not even LOOSELY accurate.

It's a talking point intended to caricature and marginalize pro-2nd Amendment thought.

It's a falsehood derived from a false premise in the service of a false flag operation.

 

[RX-79G]

"Thus, Marks and Engels wrote about about "communism", and the Soviets were "Communists"."
Oh God, you're not one of those people who thinks Communism simply hasn't been done "correctly" yet, are you?

No. I was just using that example because it is fairly well known.

Communism is a silly idea.

 

[Deanimator]

Media outlets report events, not philosophies. "Guns are good" is not a new and controversial idea, it is an old and oft repeated statement. There is nothing to report about that.

And yet virtually EVERY day, they report exactly the OPPOSITE.

That's not an accident, it's a POLICY.

Hence the news magazine ("Newsweek"?) which in the '90s declared that it would no longer treat the alleged "need" for gun control as a subject open to debate.

The truth is plain to see... unless you have an agenda which REQUIRES blindness to it.

 

[Deanimator]

No. I was just using that example because it is fairly well known.

Do you REALLY know why you used it? I have my doubts... especially given the glaringly non sequitur way in which you used it... coupled with an accusation which you YOURSELF refuted before you made it.

Communism is a silly idea.

I doubt seriously whether you could cite a coherent reason WHY...

(Hint: "Because" isn't a reason.)

 

[RX-79G]

Articles about gun control are generally in response to EVENTS of gun violence. Occasionally, there are articles of gun support after EVENTS of gun usefulness, but those events are few and far between compared to the opposite.