View Full Version : Gun Owners need to Shape Debate and Scrap Bad Terminology
Firstly this article was written by my wife - who is a member here, but more of a lurker and not a poster. I posted it here as I think its important - and while I had disagreed with aspects of this prior, I will say I have come around.
http://eastorlandopost.com/gun-owners-need-shape-debate-scrap-bad-terminology#
By Megan Boland
https://www.facebook.com/TheDownrangeGirl
I have two broad statements that I want you to take away from this article; 1) gun owners are part of the problem, and 2) we can fix this, as it all goes back to training.
The majority of law-abiding firearm owners practice and implement safe procedures while training at the range. Just going to the range is indicative that the owner understands the necessity for perpetual improvement of their skills. We go to the range to practice accuracy, precision, and speed -- ultimately leveraging those to achieve greater results. It is the focus-driven attention to detail, and correction of habitual problems that make us proficient, adaptable, and confident in our ability to protect. But, the problem for law-abiding firearm owners is not in our range training methodology; it is that we don't implement the same commitment to accuracy in our messaging.
Let's step back to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) it was there that terms like, "assault weapon", "assault rifle" and "high capacity magazines" came to the forefront as terminology used by legislators and the American public. Since the AWB sunset in 2004, gun owners have been lapse and have adopted those terms as our own. Due to current events (Aurora and Newtown) as a pro-2nd Amendment community we became suddenly aware that many negatively link the term "assault rifle" with violence, and the potential for mass carnage. I have heard friends, industry individuals and peers use the term "assault rifle" not fully comprehending they are complicit in negatively branding rifles.
There is a disconnect in knowledge of what the modern sporting rifle (semi-automatic) and an "assault rifle" (fully automatic) is. Select politicians and the media are calling for an "assault rifle" ban but since 1986, true assault rifles have been banned, as no new machine guns can be sold to the public. Recycled, inaccurate terminology is hindering our ability to present the facts of our position.
Visually, a semi-automatic and an automatic rifle look the same. Both are primarily large, black, and hold a magazine that protrudes downward. The non-firearms educated population visually see them as interchangeable machinery but they also hear them referred to as the same -- assault rifle. Allowing visual and spoken reinforcement of their misinformation. My solution? As a community we need to stop calling it an "assault" rifle. We own rifles. By losing the word "assault" we more accurately portray what our rifles are for; sport, hunting and / or self-defense.
High capacity magazines? Most modern sporting rifles come standard with a thirty round magazine, and most pistols have magazine capacity from 15-18 rounds. Our rifle magazines are larger than our pistol magazines, but that does not qualify it to be deemed high capacity. Our magazines are standard. Please stop referring to it as high capacity (unless you have specifically purchased one that has higher capacity than standard with your firearm.)
As a community we need to make a focused effort of taking the same commitment to accuracy and precision on the range to our vocabulary. The more pointed we are with our terminology, the more we strategically enable ourselves to repel the misconceptions of firearm / rifle ownership. The forums we like to write on, can start by removing the term "assault rifle section" (unless it is specifically dedicated to either transferable machine gun assault rifles, or strictly government post ’86 manufactured machine guns).
We need to stop unwillingly supporting the misconceptions out there. I am a firm believer that had we targeted our word choices more aptly over the past years then our public relations situation wouldn't be as dire. As Larry Vickers (of Vickers Tactical) slogan says, "Speed is fine, but accuracy is final."
It's not too late for us to take ourselves back to the proverbial range and practice accuracy and precision with our terminology.
Megan Boland is the owner of The Downrange Girl. The Downrange Girl is committed to supporting and enhancing female firearm ownership through education, civic participation and providing quality gear for women. You can visit The Downrange Girl at facebook.com/TheDownrangeGirl.
- See more at: http://eastorlandopost.com/gun-owners-need-shape-debate-scrap-bad-terminology#sthash.e0gNOyRa.5Ip8wmxe.dpuf
militarymoron
04-15-13, 14:40
good article. agreed.
brickboy240
04-15-13, 15:07
Hard for pro-gun people to shape the language or the debate when the media is mostly owned and run by the left.
WE can call it a magazine all day long but on every TV channel (even Fox News at times) they call it a "clip" or refer to black guns as "assault weapons."
To these people...a word or two does not matter. They want guns gone and will do anything to make that happen. Call guns by incorrect names, lie about guns or gun owners....you name it.
-brickboy240
Failure2Stop
04-15-13, 16:12
Hard for pro-gun people to shape the language or the debate when the media is mostly owned and run by the left.
WE can call it a magazine all day long but on every TV channel (even Fox News at times) they call it a "clip" or refer to black guns as "assault weapons."
To these people...a word or two does not matter. They want guns gone and will do anything to make that happen. Call guns by incorrect names, lie about guns or gun owners....you name it.
-brickboy240
Just because the other side will fight back is hardly a reason to stop fighting :smile:
Megan thank-you very much for the heartfelt and well-spoken input. Now more than ever we need everyone who cares to be reasonably proactive at the very least and it's good to see you doing just that.
There is little doubt that certain aspects of our inherited terminology may not come off as well as they did years ago, surely we can all agree there. However the extent of the damage being done as a result today is in all honesty likely minimal.
If for example the term "high capacity" was eliminated it would still be a 30 round magazine and therefore rightfully still perceived as such. Our military now utilizes them because they were deemed more efficient in a firefight than the prior standard twenty round magazines and no wording can make that fact irrelevant.
Along with many others my suggestion would be to focus on what the legitimate uses for these firearms are not just today, but also within the foreseeable future. We can look to the mother in GA who ran out of ammunition while protecting her child or those defending their livelihoods as well as their lives after Katrina or the LA riots. We can look to not just the recent past but also the present and see examples of tyranny and even genocide. And what on earth should be wrong with clarifying that we have become utterly complacent as a society? To us, aside from a potential speeding ticket or a power outage tomorrow is essentially assured to be alright, yet no where is this comfortable routine carved in stone.
What I suppose I'm trying to say is that we have a lot to work with fundamentally and legitimately, yet our efforts up to this point remain limited as we bicker among ourselves about who is stupid for living where or what company should retreat to a "safer" state. Little to no organization beyond the NRA is our problem and so far few, aside of course from yourself and also what often seems only a handful of others, are willing or able to see the big picture that looms so large right in front of us.
Don't stop thinking and please do keep up the good work. Feel free to bounce an idea off us anytime.
Voodoo_Man
04-15-13, 22:10
Good article.
Hunter Rose
04-15-13, 22:13
Well written but I differ in some of my conclusions. My views are pretty much the same as this bloggers. It's well written as well.
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/02/12/weapons-of-war/
I agree with and like using the terms "Modern Sporting Rifle" or "Modern Defense Rifle". Much like gun controls use of "Assault Weapon," I like the made up monikers of MSR or MDR because they make AR-15s et al sound less scary and dovetail well into a discussion on the legitimate uses of these weapons.
I don't think the pro-gun community is really well served though by nitpicking how an AR-15 is not technically an assault rifle because it is not select fire, and that makes it somehow less lethal. To me this just seems so much of nitpicking semantics and doesn't pass the common sense test. I have plenty of friends and colleagues who have deployed either as or in direct support of infantry or mechanized troops. None of them every used the happy switch. Their M-4s were used pretty much exclusively in semi-auto, as most M-4s are used semi-auto.
I just find it a weak argument that AR-15s are not as lethal as M-4s because they are not select fire when 99% of M-4s used in warzones are used in semi auto. Discussion should not be focused on the minimally less lethality of an AR-15, but rather why that lethality is needed and beneficial.
Heavy Metal
04-15-13, 22:21
I prefer Modern Defense Rifle.
Defense is serious. Sport is trivial.
Let's step back to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) it was there that terms like, "assault weapon", "assault rifle" and "high capacity magazines" came to the forefront as terminology used by legislators and the American public. Since the AWB sunset in 2004, gun owners have been lapse and have adopted those terms as our own.
It's not too late for us to take ourselves back to the proverbial range and practice accuracy and precision with our terminology.
The problem is that it isn't so much if people like us use those terms or not. The big problem is as a result of the 1994 legislation those are now LEGAL terms and definitions in use by ATF. The sunset didn't end the legal use of those terms by government or the ATF.
We can call them anything we want, it really won't change that fact. We lost the "word game" almost 20 years ago. Now if anyone has a plan for changing the terms and definitions in use by ATF I'm all for that.
People in general have a poor opinion of things they've never tried or are unfamiliar with.
To them a scary black rifle is still scary with or without full auto.
Many people respond with "why does anyone need a scary black rifle with a big clip?"
They conveniently ignore history when you remind them WHY the people need to be armed.
That is the question WE need to do a better job answering.
ETA:
The liberal antis are pretty much a lost cause.
But Many "Traditional Hunters" while not Anti-gun, aren't PRO AR either.
One good way to help the cause is to simply introduce them to the AR.
It is such a versatile platform that the benefits sell themselves to someone who is OK with guns but isn't "into" ARs.
Good article.
Many live in a state where high capacity magazine is a legally defined termed. To refer or confuse new gun owner types can be legally perilous.
I have wound up using the term 10+ round magazine. At least it is accurate and I refuse to say "high" and capacity magazine in the same sentence.
If I need to, I call things 'so-called "assault weapons"' and 'so-called "hi-capacity magazines"' or 'incorrectly, so-called "assault weapons"' etc. I never (except with the occasional slip up) call things just "hi-capacity magazines" or "assault weapons." I make sure to always cast doubt with so-called and often with a note of it being incorrect.
---
Well stated, do you mind if I share it?
You cant win a war where they send armed men to your door to collect your property by changing the name of the property. In a fight against people who dont care about logic and will do anything to get what they want, steering the debate to terminology is a losers arguement. Period. Full stop.
The real argument is as simple as "if you try to take my assault rifle and high capacity magazine from me I will kill you and your family". let them argue that.
When it all boils down to it the whole reason for ownership constitutionally is to present a threat to tyrants and those who would take from you. If you dont/cant do that, who gives a shit what they call them?
brickboy240
04-16-13, 11:27
I never said that we should not fight...just that the left controls the media so therefore they control the language for the most part.
If anything...that means we need to fight smarter and not fall for their usual traps when it comes to talking guns and gun ownership.
-brickboy240
Its hilarious how many people i've had in the back of my "work car" that comment on the "assault rifle" i have in the rack.
I then have to explain that its a semi auto rifle (aka sporting rifle...says so on the damn thing). I then explain that REAL assault weapons are control and registered by the ATF and numerous step and fees are collected to obtain them.
Morons.
I never said that we should not fight...just that the left controls the media so therefore they control the language for the most part.
If anything...that means we need to fight smarter and not fall for their usual traps when it comes to talking guns and gun ownership.
-brickboy240
You cant win a fight when they control the arena.
THIS is the trap gunowners fall into.. believing that the enemy is reasonable logical and open to arguments. they are not. this is about removing these weapons from your control. all these intermidiary people that you might argue with on a day to day basis are NOT the ones forming the arguement and they do not grasp what the real agenda here is.
THE ONLY way to win this fight is to take it outside the arena and rules of "fair play" they have framed for it. By simply stating you plan to kill those who would take from you, you remove the arguments they are making and put everything at the bottom line for them to choose:
a: you leave me alone with my guns and I will do what I can to stop evil from happening
b: you can try to take my guns and I will hunt you down and kill you and your family.
There is no "argument" to be made anymore. the time for talking is over. choose a side and go with it.
THATS how we frame this argument if you wanna win.
brickboy240
04-16-13, 12:00
That is what I meant by not falling for one of their "traps."
The left loves to get Wayne LaPierre or Ted Nugent on some tv program where a panel of leftists can use them for a verbal pinata. Alex Jones let Piers Morgan do it to him. You would think that someone that is this paranoid and suspicious of big media (like Jones) would not fall for the trap but he stepped right into the middle of it bigtime. This type of conflict makes us look stupid and solves nothing.
It is time we stop falling for this nonsense. It cost Palin, Todd Akin and others their career. Stop allowing the left to control the narrative and get you in their traps. They are very good at this type of maneuver.
We lose by engaging these morons...almost every time.
-brickboy240
That is what I meant by not falling for one of their "traps."
The left loves to get Wayne LaPierre or Ted Nugent on some tv program where a panel of leftists can use them for a verbal pinata. Alex Jones let Piers Morgan do it to him. You would think that someone that is this paranoid and suspicious of big media (like Jones) would not fall for the trap but he stepped right into the middle of it bigtime. This type of conflict makes us look stupid and solves nothing.
It is time we stop falling for this nonsense. It cost Palin, Todd Akin and others their career. Stop allowing the left to control the narrative and get you in their traps. They are very good at this type of maneuver.
We lose by engaging these morons...almost every time.
-brickboy240
Agreed.
this is why I feel this (albeit) well reasoned and well intentioned argument are counter productive.
A good analogy is the use of the word "nigger" the more people argue against it's use the more power the word has.
re-frame the discussion. Make the bottom line clear, ignore/adopt the language for our own purposes. That language is used to create fear. Use it for that exact purpose and win!
If the populace is not more afraid of gun owners reactions to a ban, than they are of criminal attacks... then we are doing it wrong.
quote me on that!
brickboy240
04-16-13, 13:56
But you have to admit that it is funny to hear Pelosi call magazines "assault clips" isn't it?
LOL
-brickboy240
You cant win a war where they send armed men to your door to collect your property by changing the name of the property. In a fight against people who dont care about logic and will do anything to get what they want, steering the debate to terminology is a losers arguement. Period. Full stop.
The real argument is as simple as "if you try to take my assault rifle and high capacity magazine from me I will kill you and your family". let them argue that.
When it all boils down to it the whole reason for ownership constitutionally is to present a threat to tyrants and those who would take from you. If you dont/cant do that, who gives a shit what they call them?
Let me know how well that argument works out for you will you? I mean it worked so well for James Yeager...
This is an arena where the court of public opinion actually does make a difference - as Politicians generally like to get re-elected.
Acting like a raving loon is not getting us anywhere - and is more likely to get your guns taken in this atmosphere based on a physiological assessment ordered by the courts.
We have rights, however it is in our best interest as gun owners to show that our firearms are just modern sporting/defensive tools. We own and enjoy them legally.
IMO, it's a mistake to assume that terminology will help change minds of the people who are doing the misleading, when it isn't the item that's truly at the heart of the topic.
It's not the gun they hate. It's the gun owner.
The only reason there is a push for rifles is because they thought that was the easiest thing to ban/remove FIRST. It has nothing to do with calling it an assault clip - that's just what they use for hyperbole. The thing they want to remove is the person that wants the box and spring, not the combination of parts themselves. Remove the item and you'll starve the culture, at least that's the idea.
I don't disagree with using correct terminology to assist in not allowing people to be mislead. Make no mistake though, the politicians (on both sides), the media, and the people who assume to know what's best for everyone do not care. Your enemy is defined, they let themselves be known, it's not your property, it's YOU they hate.
brickboy240
04-16-13, 14:50
The original reason for allowing private citizens to own guns was to protect us from the very people that are now trying to restrict this right. The govt. and the govt-media complex. It was not for hunting deer or ducks and not protection from criminals.
They control the language and the screens in most cases. They know they are affecting the public perception of guns and gun ownership. They also know that none of the measures they propose and push will stop these senseless shootings.
Once the guns are gone...then they can begin to take away other rights they think we don't need.
-brickboy240
IMO, it's a mistake to assume that terminology will help change minds of the people who are doing the misleading, when it isn't the item that's truly at the heart of the topic.
It's not the gun they hate. It's the gun owner.
The only reason there is a push for rifles is because they thought that was the easiest thing to ban/remove FIRST. It has nothing to do with calling it an assault clip - that's just what they use for hyperbole. The thing they want to remove is the person that wants the box and spring, not the combination of parts themselves. Remove the item and you'll starve the culture, at least that's the idea.
I don't disagree with using correct terminology to assist in not allowing people to be mislead. Make no mistake though, the politicians (on both sides), the media, and the people who assume to know what's best for everyone do not care. Your enemy is defined, they let themselves be known, it's not your property, it's YOU they hate.
I agree with some of what you say
-- however its not the die hard gun grabbers you need to reach with the message - its the moderates, on both sides.
1) The Hunters, folks often called Fudds by folks (which does not really help us and just serves to further divide).
2) Neutral to Moderately Negative Non Gun Owners.
Acting like you're going to run to the Hills and start yelling "Wolverines" is not helping our cause. We need accurate and well defined arguments, as when you look at it, the truth is on our side.
We just don't need anyone running off frothing at the mouth making the Legal Gun Owners look like rabid dog's.
But picking apart their arguments often makes folks look beyond the facade of "Gun Control", most of the vocal anti-gun folks have large security details or carry guns themselves for protection - as they believe they are more equal than we are, and they 'know better'. When you expose them for what they are, it lets everyone else see the falsehood of their argument, and the fact that gun owners are just like them, and pretty good neighbors and friends.
Voodoo_Man
04-16-13, 15:13
Saying you will target anyone (and their kin) going after your firearms will alienate a very large number of the public.
That is a losing position, even if it is something that will occur. I would suggest not taking that position openly.
I prefer Modern Defense Rifle.
Defense is serious. Sport is trivial.
You're just so super serious aren't you. :)
Jack-O
In every way I cannot support your message of kill them and their family, and frankly I cannot point out a better message to be scrapped.
I agree with some of what you say
-- however its not the die hard gun grabbers you need to reach with the message - its the moderates, on both sides.
1) The Hunters, folks often called Fudds by folks (which does not really help us and just serves to further divide).
2) Neutral to Moderately Negative Non Gun Owners.
.
For the traditional hunters, simply introducing them to the platform and its benefits seems to work pretty well.
What's the approach for group #2?
Magic_Salad0892
04-16-13, 16:07
In my opinion it's actually kind of satisfying beating them on their own terms. That said, Kevin's wife is totally right. We need to find a way to get these legal definitions changed, because they're derogitory.
I stick with my whole "I'll defend your right to marriage, and free speech, if you defend my right to own "assault weapons", and not be harassed by the government."
Heavy Metal
04-16-13, 16:33
You're just so super serious aren't you. :)
A Sport is a trivial act. Trivial matters are subject to banning at a whim.
We need to purge the prhase 'sporting' for anything gun related, it is not our friend.
A Sport is a trivial act. Trivial matters are subject to banning at a whim.
We need to purge the prhase 'sporting' for anything gun related, it is not our friend.
Whoa whoa. If you haven't noticed, sports are a big deal in this country so I think that it deserves attention.
Here's a little slideshow I think Belmont posted a while back if you haven't already seen it. It digs into the legal terminology defined in the 1994 AWB and is a good way to present the information to a non-gun person.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
We can no longer leave it to the NRA to fight our battles for us. Neither should hunters when their sniper rifles could be next ;)
Hi guys,
I'm Megan (Kevin's awesome and amazing wife). My account TheDownrangeGirl is not letting me post for some reason so he's letting me post this on his.
There have been a fair amount of comments on the media, so let's start there. First off, the mainstream media early on assessed who their primary stakeholders were going to be and tailored their messaging to align with them. Unfortunately conservative media did not aggressively 1. pursue non-traditional stakeholders and 2. tailor their messages to reach the moderate sector of society. However, that does not mean that collectively we can't think outside the box and figure out who our stakeholders are and do more pointed engaging with them. The NRA is targeting the pro-2A community in their messaging yet they have not branched out enough to get the moderates. Nor will they get the moderates if they don't tailor their messaging (not their stance) with moderates.
@hunter rose. While I appreciate your comments you keep referencing that the person "chose" to use semi-automatic. Because they did not choose "automatic" does not make them without the capacity and ability to do so. My semi-automatic does not have the capability of being automatic. Highlighting the lethality of a firearm is not what we want to do. As a community we can highlight the necessity of firearms for defense but you never want to make the correlation of defense with lethal capability. It scares the shit out of people who do not understand. The progressive factions of society will always dislike the right to own firearms. By confirming the lethality of something only gives them (pardon the pun) ammunition to support their messaging.
@Jack-O. It's not an issue if someone "can't" speak like that, it's that they shouldn't. Dialogue such as yours only serves to reinforce the negative stereotype about gun owners; that we are emotive and reactionary. Both, are two things we want to stay away from. James Yeager talked like that and law enforcement DID come and confiscate his firearms.
While my comments may be considered by some to be mere semantics the truth is semantics work. Changing the dialogue and language within our internal stakeholder structure will eventually trickle out to how we engage those not traditionally in this grouping. It most certainly will not be over night but it will happen. The more we personally educate those that are within our inner circle and provide accurate information the greater their ability to combat internally / externally what the media presents. As G.I. Joe would say, "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle." (You're welcome for that one.)
I encourage each of you to talk to one female (in a NON-creepy way) that is on the fence about gun ownership. Encourage her to go out to the range. Moderate females are the LARGEST demographic out there -- and it's time we focus on them.
- Megan aka thedownrangegirl (on facebook)
Saying you will target anyone (and their kin) going after your firearms will alienate a very large number of the public.
That is a losing position, even if it is something that will occur. I would suggest not taking that position openly.
see thats where a lot of you are missing the point. the people in the middle dont matter where the metal meets the road. They've had a chance to pick a side but cant do it for whatever reason. the 80% of people in the middle dont matter because they dont DO ANYTHING. Only actors make a difference. Ignore the rest.
we can no longer afford to try to win the fake game of public opinion because public opinion doesnt make any difference! no politician follows it (saw that in colorado) and only those on the "winning side" acknowledge it's legitimacy anyway! so who cares?
Trust me on this... Fear is the only way to win this at this VERY late stage in the game. if you cannot or WILL not present a credible threat to tyranny then nothing you say has any meaning.
Failure2Stop
04-16-13, 22:14
If the populace is not more afraid of gun owners reactions to a ban, than they are of criminal attacks... then we are doing it wrong.
quote me on that!
I absolutely disagree with that on several levels.
If you think that you are going to puff yourself up here and make vague threats against the populace, you are absolutely wrong. Choose you next words carefully and weigh them against the ideals of the constitution. The bill of rights was not haphazardly penned to allow petulant children to throw temper tantrums about anything they disagree with, and certainly not to encourage the same to make or imply threats against the people if they happen to vote counter to your beliefs.
If you are wise, you will delete all of your posts in this thread and discontinue participation on this topic.
I am not making a threat, I am providing guidance.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I don't own any high capacity magazines or assault rifles. only standard capacity mags for sport-utility rifles...
Voodoo_Man
04-17-13, 02:07
Im not going to quote what you are posting, hint hint.
Just giving you a fair and unbias opinion on the matter.
The only way anything gets done in this country is by popular vote. Hate it, dispise it, abhor it, it is fact. If enough people bitch, whine and complain about it you see it occur, this has been proven by history.
Threatening people, especially on the internet, especially when some of those people can read what you are posting who may those tasked with taking firearms is not only foolish it is shortsighted.
You will talk yourself out of the rights you hold dear faster than the gov will legally take them from you.
It doesn't help that almost every criminal you see on TV or movies has somehow mysteriously gotten hold of a full auto M16 or AK. This is precisely what these arguments are trying to combat is that machine guns have been banned since 1986. The point isn't that soldiers use their rifles semi auto most of the time. The point is civilians don't have the select fire option period.
Perception is reality.
The way i see this debate is that we all fall into three basic categories. you get to choose which one you wanna be by your choices.
you can:
1- stay with the rest of the frogs in the pot and argue about how warm the water is
2- you can be the frog that jumps out of the pot
3- you can be the guy turning up the heat getting ready for dinner.
Im not going to quote what you are posting, hint hint.
Good thing you've never had that problem.
Hint, hint. ;)
The way i see this debate is that we all fall into three basic categories. you get to choose which one you wanna be by your choices.
you can:
1- stay with the rest of the frogs in the pot and argue about how warm the water is
2- you can be the frog that jumps out of the pot
3- you can be the guy turning up the heat getting ready for dinner.
I like the Boiling Frog analogy - so Unintended Consequences of you (love the book BTW).
:stop:
However, I for one don't think we are at a point where its time the hoist the jolly roger, and I definitely do not want our country to come to a point where anyone has to make a choice like that.
You seem to believe that there is not point to attempting to dialogue with folks, well news flash, this country is still a democracy. Since it is, and our Senate did not fail us, it behoves each and every one of us to attempt to bring more shooters into the fold.
How can you do that, well as a non shooting friend or co-worker to go to the range with you. My wife did that two weeks ago with a friend from work, who also brought another friend (a friend who was scared of guns and had never shot). Now both of those women are looking at buying guns, and want to shoot more.
If we stay in a tight circle, and tread water in the pot, well then yes we will get boiled, but if we all work together, and remain calm and rational, when then we can hop out of the pot, and turn off the heat.
Jack-O, if you don't change your path, someone if going to come knocking on your door, and it won't be a Jehovah's Witness group telling you about God. Frankly I won't shed a tear for you, but I will be pissed at you, as you are making it 100 times harder for the rest of us to prove we are rational, responsible, and law abiding gun owners.
Failure2Stop
04-19-13, 09:34
The way i see this debate is that we all fall into three basic categories. you get to choose which one you wanna be by your choices.
you can:
1- stay with the rest of the frogs in the pot and argue about how warm the water is
2- you can be the frog that jumps out of the pot
3- you can be the guy turning up the heat getting ready for dinner.
I am never eating dinner at your place.
I like the Boiling Frog analogy - so Unintended Consequences of you (love the book BTW).
:stop:
However, I for one don't think we are at a point where its time the hoist the jolly roger, and I definitely do not want our country to come to a point where anyone has to make a choice like that.
You seem to believe that there is not point to attempting to dialogue with folks, well news flash, this country is still a democracy. Since it is, and our Senate did not fail us, it behoves each and every one of us to attempt to bring more shooters into the fold.
How can you do that, well as a non shooting friend or co-worker to go to the range with you. My wife did that two weeks ago with a friend from work, who also brought another friend (a friend who was scared of guns and had never shot). Now both of those women are looking at buying guns, and want to shoot more.
If we stay in a tight circle, and tread water in the pot, well then yes we will get boiled, but if we all work together, and remain calm and rational, when then we can hop out of the pot, and turn off the heat.
Jack-O, if you don't change your path, someone if going to come knocking on your door, and it won't be a Jehovah's Witness group telling you about God. Frankly I won't shed a tear for you, but I will be pissed at you, as you are making it 100 times harder for the rest of us to prove we are rational, responsible, and law abiding gun owners.
You know, I get all that. trust me I REALLY do. I still do my part to educate the willing. STILL! it's my responsibility. Hell taught an eight year old to shoot last weekend... what a blast!
BUUUT... it's also my responsibility to be a credible threat to tyranny. thats what is ensconced in the 2nd. it's not about guns and never really was. it's the last line in the sand preventing bad people from doing bad things at a national right down to an individual level.
Just like you have a responsibility to protect your family, so you have a responsibility to protect your country. We are in fact NOT a democracy, and never have been. we are a republic, which is probably the only thing keeping us together at this point. that fact also makes it incredibly slow to turn the ship around, and we are headed off the edge of the world at a very fast pace.
what should give you pause are the things not readily apparent, like the following things:
-China forming relationships with the entire rest of the world thru capitalist measures while the US enforces its will thru capital controls
-increasing US restrictions on it's citizens leaving the country and moving hard earned assets out of the US to the point of ZERO privacy
-that the US claims jurisdiction over it's citizens and thier money no matter where they live or where they earned that money in the world
- the fact that voter fraud is SO MUCH a part of the democratic party model that it's openly reported in the media and measures allowing it are openly supported in the legislatures
-the fact that computer assisted voting has made vote adjustment much easier and has been well documented
-the fact that even republican party causcus at county levels are deliberately manipulated and openly falsified
-the fact that in many states due to the way the parties allocate their votes to the state caucus, the individuals vote never actually counts for anything
-the fact that out currency is deliberately being destroyed and that fact has been publically reported as policy by this administration
-the fact that gun grabbers have the agenda to disarm the people in violation of the 2nd and openly admit that fact.
- the fact that gun grabbers are making an emotional debate that cannot be argued with logic
-the fact that most banks around the world wont even let americans open an account due to their governments policy of interference
and these are just the things i've discovered or experienced FIRST HAND!
As patriots, those of us who swore an oath, those of us who have served with honor and honorably, those of us who KNOW that when the US falls the rest of the world falls, that when our freedom goes, it's the last freedom to be had at this level. And it'll probably not happen again in our lifetimes.
When I say we need to become a threat to these tyrants, I'm not saying it from the perspective of a petulant child, i'm coming from the perspective of a CEO of a successful corporation, who has ground away at the grindstone to carve out a niche. As a man who served his country for 8 years with 4 overseas tours. As a man who has received enemy fire and who turned down a medal of valor. As a man who has trained hard for the last 8 years and has at least 15 training classes under his belt in addition to military training and gun games and matches. As a man who has learned multiple trades in civilian life. A man who see's a once great country destroyed by fascism. As a man who understands the concept that responsibilities often outweigh rights. And finally as a man who knows what it's like to love and to lose.
Thats where I'm coming from when I say you need to present a real and credible threat to tyrants. It comes not from hate, but from love.
I am never eating dinner at your place.
I use a lid when cooking frogs:smile:
Jack-O
I understand where you're coming from. Part of my concerns come from the fact that there seems to be a new push on getting guns from Veterans. I also agree with you that the 2A is there to ensure we can do our duty to prevent tyranny. The sticky part is one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and usually the definition is by the winner.
I believe that the majority of us who have been overseas, own weapons, and still train with them are a credible deterrent to tyranny.
As the Senate actually did not fail us this week (shocking to all I know), I do not think we've hit the brink, where such discussions/comments are reasonable.
I am concerned that the President will consider an EO, and I also believe if he does EO a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, and magazines that it will be unconstitutional, and that our elected officials will have a duty to proceed with impeachment procedures. IF they do not act, and if things do go sideways, then I don't know what will happen, I do pray to god that it will not get that far, as I think at that point there would be a civil war.
I am saying this from the bottom of my heart, as we say what 1 person could do in the Los Angeles area in CA, and what 2 (now 1) Terrorist are doing in Boston. Both ironically areas of significant firearms restrictions.
Firstly this article was written by my wife - who is a member here, but more of a lurker and not a poster. I posted it here as I think its important - and while I had disagreed with aspects of this prior, I will say I have come around.
http://eastorlandopost.com/gun-owners-need-shape-debate-scrap-bad-terminology#
Your wife is really smart. You better be sure to keep her.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.