View Full Version : Things the Gun Community Need to Stop Doing
BoringGuy45
06-11-14, 13:55
If we're to have a fighting chance to ever gain back the rights we lost, we need to appear to be the more intellectual, logical, and level headed side to the debate. While we have a very good group of people on this site in terms of intelligence and logic, beyond even the crazies and inbred dumbasses that make up the fringe of gun rights movement, there's a bunch of moderate, dedicated, well meaning people who unfortunately do more harm than good. I'd like to discuss what kind of things need to be changed in the gun community. Here's a list of things I've just thought of:
1) Be more careful not to repeat false quotes. Too often we repeat things as evidence of our cause without even checking to see if the quote is authentic. The favorite quote we use, for example, is Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto declaring that an invasion of the U.S. wouldn't work because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Unfortunately there's no written evidence that he ever said such a thing/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/). Yeah, maybe the false quote is a factually true statement, but we still look uneducated at best when we use false or wrongly attributed quotes, and dishonest at worst.
2) Stop comparing guns to cars all the time. This is one I'm really tired of. It can be used in some instances, but I'm tired of hearing "a car is more dangerous than a gun and we don't have to do a background check for car, why should we have to do a check for a gun?" It's too easily a beatable argument. If I were an anti-gunner, here's what I would say to that: "Cars were not designed as weapons, guns are weapons. No one has ever held up a bank with a car. Soldiers and police officers are not equipped with a car as their primary weapon. Though cars have been responsible for a few venison dinners, they aren't designed for hunting." Yes I know what people are getting at when they use the car analogy and I generally agree, but I think falling back on it is as overused as the anti-gun argument that you don't need a 30 round "clip" to hunt for deer.
3) Stop feeling the need to justify semi-auto weapons as "sporting" arms. When pro gunners call the AR a "modern sporting rifle", it's playing into the anti-gunner's hands. It's essentially admitting that yes, there is no reason to own a weapon that isn't designed for sporting. I don't own an AR for hunting or specifically for competition. I can use it for such things, but I own my AR for personal defense and for absolute worst case scenarios. The truth of the matter is there is very few, if any actively anti-gun people who truly believe in ONLY getting rid the scary looking guns, so there should be no need to try and be politically correct about our weapons; they want them all, we're not giving up a single one, and that's that. I've won a LOT of on-the-fence people over to our side by being prudent and diplomatic but honest about why a civilian should be allowed to own an AR-15 without having to claim that it's just a scary looking deer rifle. On a related note:
4) Stop feeling the need to play down the lethality of semi-automatic weapons and higher capacity magazines. This is another case of us playing into the hands of the anti-gunners. We feel like we need to claim that banning 10+ capacity magazines is pointless because a shooter will just carry more 10 round magazines. Well, if it makes no difference, why do so many of us want 30 round magazines for our AR and want standard 15-17 round mags for our 9mm handguns? We don't oppose magazine restrictions bans on semi-auto weapons because they make no difference. We oppose them because they DO make a difference and because law abiding citizens should legally be able to own weapons that criminals are using in order to give us a fair chance.
5) Stop stifling dialog within our community. There are some hard lines that I think that those of us fighting for gun rights don't cross. I think any talk of bans on ANYTHING should be tolerated for example. However, we need to major on the majors and minor on the minors and not go to personal attacks whenever so of the issues that don't include outright prohibition of any or all weapons is are discussed.
Agreed 100%. Increased talk in a positive direction would be good. Sometimes the gun owners can be their own worst enemy.
The opposition will always revert to lunatic gorilla tactics, and thus force the pro 2A folks to step down at least a little from the high road.
We need to stop making youtube videos of petite women smacking themselves in the face with a desert eagle, and stop being so macho and think women can't handle anything more than a 22. Honestly the industry needs to focus on women in general, as they are the fastest growing group in shooting right now.
The gun community needs to just stop being so scared. The antis are never going to like you. The antis are few. Don't worry about them. If you're always on the defensive you're losing. If you want to beat an anti just take a non gun person shooting and show them a new world. The equivalent of curb stomping the anti.
The issue isn't guns, it's control. Don't debate the guns at all - stay focused on the control. You can argue guns and action and capacity all day long; in the end, you'll still lose, because, as we all know, it will never be "enough."
Don't engage a debate about guns.
BoringGuy45
06-11-14, 14:39
We need to stop making youtube videos of petite women smacking themselves in the face with a desert eagle, and stop being so macho and think women can't handle anything more than a 22. Honestly the industry needs to focus on women in general, as they are the fastest growing group in shooting right now.
Big HELL YES on this! It drives me nuts, guys come in our store with their wives, girlfriends, sisters, etc and what do they go for? LCPs, J-Frame .38s, or P22s. Too often the woman will insist that they want a 9mm and the patronizing boyfriend/husband will insist, "No, it's too big for you. You want something easier to shoot." The funny thing is, it always seems to be the "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46" guys who do this.
3) Stop feeling the need to justify semi-auto weapons as "sporting" arms. When pro gunners call the AR a "modern sporting rifle", it's playing into the anti-gunner's hands. It's essentially admitting that yes, there is no reason to own a weapon that isn't designed for sporting. I don't own an AR for hunting or specifically for competition. I can use it for such things, but I own my AR for personal defense and for absolute worst case scenarios. The truth of the matter is there is very few, if any actively anti-gun people who truly believe in ONLY getting rid the scary looking guns, so there should be no need to try and be politically correct about our weapons; they want them all, we're not giving up a single one, and that's that. I've won a LOT of on-the-fence people over to our side by being prudent and diplomatic but honest about why a civilian should be allowed to own an AR-15 without having to claim that it's just a scary looking deer rifle. On a related note:
You do realize this is directly related to the 1968 Gun Control Act and the "sporter clause" qualification for import within that legislation don't you? Basically if the ATF finds that a given firearm is "not particularly suitable for sporting applications" they can reclassify it as "non importable" or in the event of another domestic manufacturing ban "not suitable" for domestic production.
10 years of being told your "flash hider is a felony" has made some folks a bit gun shy when it comes to declaring their firearm "has no sporting application."
The most important thing we could ever do is strike the sporter clause from the 68 GCA.
The most important thing we could ever do is repeal the 68 GCA.
FIFY.
On points 3 and 4, actually I've found that to be very constructive to talk about it that way, downplaying their absurd fears, because their absurd fears for the most part misinformation and caricature. It so happens that my rifles ARE versatile and I DO buy them for all kinds of different purposes, and percentage of use of one versus the other is mixed. My 30 rd PMags and whatever the capacity is on the pistol I happen to be using because it's an advantage for MULTIPLE uses, so why deny that? I'm thankful to say that most of the rounds I've fired have been at paper or cardboard and not into human flesh--should that change? I hope not. Whether I like it or not I do have to talk in ways they'll understand--it's clear they DON'T understand the need for emergency protection or guess what they'd be doing it themselves. That isn't handing the antis a win, it's neutralizing their tactics. You have to dismantle the case they make to win permanently. We have to win permanently or this will continue to be a contest of interest balancing, us with what they think of as unnecessary toys versus their imaginary cause to not have people be brutally killed because of things they see as having no social value at all much one worth dying for. Guess what, while what they believe is total bullshit, they'll act on it just as if it were real, and they do. You have to cure the idea, and first you have to expose it for what it is as it occurs. Otherwise you might as well be speaking German to a Chinese person or Thai to someone in Denmark.
If you want babies to grow you do have to feed them baby food until they can chew solid stuff. I'm not a moderate by any means on much of anything but I have learned enough to know that much. My wife had never known anyone who was a gun owner nor been in the room with anything gun related until meeting me, and didn't shoot until three or four years later. She had grown up in the Philly area in a Catholic liberal family with a creampuff down-and-out no career dad (loving, charitable, friendly guy just no money or ambition or direction...and died of a heart attack 4 years ago w/ life insurance barely covering debt), preschool teacher mom, unsuccessful stage actress sister with an expensive theater degree from a school in NYC that has her working at Starbucks, and an almost entirely female and beta-is-being-generous male urbanized extended family. Now she shoots somewhat regularly and is a voice of reason among her friends, family, and colleagues, and I hear from her often about how hard that is and what nonsense she has to put up with in their midst. You think I got anywhere saying "Yeah it's better for fighting in an emergency or war, so what?"
BoringGuy45
06-11-14, 15:12
You do realize this is directly related to the 1968 Gun Control Act and the "sporter clause" qualification for import within that legislation don't you? Basically if the ATF finds that a given firearm is "not particularly suitable for sporting applications" they can reclassify it as "non importable" or in the event of another domestic manufacturing ban "not suitable" for domestic production.
10 years of being told your "flash hider is a felony" has made some folks a bit gun shy when it comes to declaring their firearm "has no sporting application."
The most important thing we could ever do is strike the sporter clause from the 68 GCA.
I know. My point was that, in a conversation with your average Kool Aid drinking anti-gunner, the "modern sporting rifle" argument is often used as a response to "You can't hunt a deer with that gun. Why is anyone allowed to own one of those things?" Instead of obeying the gun control's orders that, in a debate, that we'd better find an innocent reason for wanting such a scary gun or concede that it should be banned, we need to stand firm and give our reasons why we own weapons like an AR-15. It doesn't mean descending into "Shall not be infringed! Don't tread on me! Molon labe, mother****er!" We can give honest but diplomatically delivered reasons why we support the right to own these rifles and, consequently, why the 68 sporter clause should be stricken from the record.
The issue isn't guns, it's control. Don't debate the guns at all - stay focused on the control. You can argue guns and action and capacity all day long; in the end, you'll still lose, because, as we all know, it will never be "enough."
Don't engage a debate about guns.
Actually you or someone representing you sure as hell better be able to intelligently and successfully debate about guns or we're all in trouble soon. More emotionally driven ideology that comment is.
Somehow we here forget we are a minority, that the viewpoints we hold so dear are not evident to most including a portion of the right. It wasn't supposed to happen but far too few of our fellow Americans understand the pitfalls of the government setting social standards let alone what led to something on the scale of the holocaust. They do not understand the many man-made catastrophes that have ravaged our planet over the millennia on most continents. They simply DO NOT fathom the potential for disaster some of us do because that's what happened a long time ago before everyone carried a cell phone and people were less civilized.
One thing I always appreciate is when a well spoken immigrant who was oppressed themselves by that bad old government over there long ago finds their way to a podium at a local town or county discussion regarding gun laws and offers some real perspective. Sad to say but we need more of them then the gung-ho dopes messing everything up for the rest of us now.
Things the Gun Community Need to Stop Doing ...
While I pretty much agree with the above....
1. Have kids stop shooting up schools. Or rather, come up with some credible plan to address this.
At some point, public pressure to do something regarding school shootings will boil over. Whether it's right/wrong, logical/illogical, anti's/Dem's/etc. will have enough ammunition (pun intended) to paint a picture that in order to make your kids safe at school, assault weapons (yes, I understand the term is incorrect), handguns, high cap mags and maybe even ammo, will need to be banned. This issue is where the anti's are getting serious traction. Until a credible solution is given for this issue from the pro-gun crowd that is palatable for the masses, the anti's will continually gain ground.
2. Build a credible voice for pro gunners that does not involve the NRA. Rather, yes of course still have the NRA doing what they do, but also the need for non-NRA pro gun voices need to be out there and heard. The perception of the NRA from those who are not gun friendly, is that the NRA is holding the government hostage to a singular issue. The NRA makes an easy target for the anti's to fixate on. If there were more voices heard not affiliated with the NRA, I believe it would paint the perception that gun support is greater than what the anti's try to make the masses believe.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-14, 15:51
Well hell guys, I'm heading to Starbucks then Chipotle with my Kel-Tec trailer park Uzi . . . anyone else want to join me?
:jester:
I have all but stopped trying to have a conversation about guns or 2A if they are not openmined. You deal with enough people, you begin to see them pretty quickly. I would really not "go through the motions" so to speak, with people who can't open their mind. Not let me change it, just flick on a light and let them do the reading.
It is shocking the number of those who will not only "not read", but "turn the light off". These people you cannot reach.
1. Have kids stop shooting up schools. Or rather, come up with some credible plan to address this.
That's like saying "have criminals stop committing crimes"; it's impossible. Get doctors to quit drugging kids up. Repair our broken society/morals.
I'd like for gun guys to quit open carrying rifles in public places to get a reaction. No one is impressed, quit acting childish.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-14, 16:44
Things the Gun Community Need to Stop Doing ...
While I pretty much agree with the above....
1. Have kids stop shooting up schools. Or rather, come up with some credible plan to address this.
At some point, public pressure to do something regarding school shootings will boil over. Whether it's right/wrong, logical/illogical, anti's/Dem's/etc. will have enough ammunition (pun intended) to paint a picture that in order to make your kids safe at school, assault weapons (yes, I understand the term is incorrect), handguns, high cap mags and maybe even ammo, will need to be banned. This issue is where the anti's are getting serious traction. Until a credible solution is given for this issue from the pro-gun crowd that is palatable for the masses, the anti's will continually gain ground.
2. Build a credible voice for pro gunners that does not involve the NRA. Rather, yes of course still have the NRA doing what they do, but also the need for non-NRA pro gun voices need to be out there and heard. The perception of the NRA from those who are not gun friendly, is that the NRA is holding the government hostage to a singular issue. The NRA makes an easy target for the anti's to fixate on. If there were more voices heard not affiliated with the NRA, I believe it would paint the perception that gun support is greater than what the anti's try to make the masses believe.
Whoa just read that, how are gun owners responsible for school shootings? Gun owners need to get behind the NRA and their suggestions of putting armed police/security in schools. Our ISD just annouced every freshman in the district is going to get an Apple notebook. Wasting money on things like this and not armed security is one of the problems. We have armed security at airports, banks, etc. then why not at schools?
The best thing is take some time and educate yourself on the history of the 2nd Amendment as well as the tradition of the right to self defence. Read up on not just what the Founders said but also what THEY were reading that influenced them
The right to self defence is a natural right of every human being no different than the right to free expression, religion.
In my almost daily argument with anti gun Liberals, this is the approch that shuts them down. Total silence.
The best thing is take some time and educate yourself on the history of the 2nd Amendment as well as the tradition of the right to self defence. Read up on not just what the Founders said but also what THEY were reading that influenced them
The right to self defence is a natural right of every human being no different than the right to free expression, religion.
In my almost daily argument with anti gun Liberals, this is the approch that shuts them down. Total silence.
Per my sig. I have yet to have anyone counter it. The is what anti 2A/anti human rights/anti Liberty types do when faced with such a thing, ignore it. Counter it, never.
Things the Gun Community Need to Stop Doing ...
While I pretty much agree with the above....
1. Have kids stop shooting up schools. Or rather, come up with some credible plan to address this.
At some point, public pressure to do something regarding school shootings will boil over. Whether it's right/wrong, logical/illogical, anti's/Dem's/etc. will have enough ammunition (pun intended) to paint a picture that in order to make your kids safe at school, assault weapons (yes, I understand the term is incorrect), handguns, high cap mags and maybe even ammo, will need to be banned. This issue is where the anti's are getting serious traction. Until a credible solution is given for this issue from the pro-gun crowd that is palatable for the masses, the anti's will continually gain ground.They're not gaining ground, first of all, and second and more importantly, we the pro gun people need to start going after the anti gun political and social complex and dismantle it so we don't have to keep worrying about when they'll eventually be able to win. We need to work on shutting them down permanently rather than do what we've done in the past just trying to stop them for a day or two at a time. Our biggest problem with the antis isn't that they're numerous, but they're persistent, trying to catch us sleeping or wear us down. We've got to stop tickling the snake's tail and instead chop its head off.
Quite frankly, when the anti's mention "need" my reaction (and I make no apologies for it) is to say "I don't recall electing you, or anyone else for that matter, to determine what I 'need'. It's something I want, and this is still a free country, so that is all you really need to know about it."
I'm not interested in making friends with them. I'm not interested in "compromising" with them. They are indeed a domestic enemy of gun owners. If they had their way they'd see us thrown in prison or killed in the process. F*** them. I have nothing but contempt for their assinine views.
Could this be seen as digging in your heels and being obstinate? Yep, damn right. Take careful note of what I bolded above.
Just a warning for any whom might not have gotten this argument or have not heard it yet, but their new response is, "so you blame the victims," or "stop blaming the victims." I have been seeing it quite a lot on the internet. I have no idea how being against banning firearms is "blaming the victims" but that is their "rhetoric."
BoringGuy45
06-12-14, 07:55
Just a warning for any whom might not have gotten this argument or have not heard it yet, but their new response is, "so you blame the victims," or "stop blaming the victims." I have been seeing it quite a lot on the internet. I have no idea how being against banning firearms is "blaming the victims" but that is their "rhetoric."
Their claim is that we're saying "They got raped/robbed/murdered? Well, that's what you get for not carrying a gun. We have no sympathy." It goes along with their collectivist mindset that nothing is anybody's fault. When there is a problem, society, not the individual is to blame, and thus, society must pay the cost. It also goes along with their mindset that it's not up to the individual to take responsibility of their own fate, and it is wrong to do so, or expect someone to do so. It is the job of the state. At any rate, it's a red herring and an appeal to emotion. When the statists can't win a point, they pull out the card that's been long established: You are not allowed to make any logical argument if it appears to be insensitive or divisive. If you do say something they deem insensitive, they can then label you and use ad hominum attacks to shut you down anytime you open your mouth: "Oh, he thinks we should have the right to carry firearms? Well, he's an insensitive prick who implied that a rape victim was asking for it, so his point is invalid."
Whoa just read that, how are gun owners responsible for school shootings? Gun owners need to get behind the NRA and their suggestions of putting armed police/security in schools. Our ISD just annouced every freshman in the district is going to get an Apple notebook. Wasting money on things like this and not armed security is one of the problems. We have armed security at airports, banks, etc. then why not at schools?
I can see how what I wrote would be interpreted in a context that I wasn't going after. Having said that, you just gave, in my mind, a credible answer how to solve that problem.
I live in northeast NJ, and while there is a hard core gun community here, it isn't large enough and it gets very drowned out by the anti's. When talking to non gun savvy people in this area, it always amazes me how many think one can walk into a gun store and buy a full auto weapon. In this context, the school shootings are the emotional pivot point for many in regards to firearms. I agree with you that having armed security would be a viable option. I think the progun crowd needs to get ahead of this issue and really push their solutions. Maybe it's the area I live in, but my perception is that the anti's are using this issue as their rallying cry to the large population of sympathetic voices in this area. In this area it may be working. The state legislature has passed a 10 round mag limit, from the existing 15 round mag limit. Currently, the bill sits on Gov. Christie's desk awaiting his decision.
The gun community needs to counter the anti's tactical misuse of the terms "reasonable" and "common sense." Infringement of a natural right is neither.
The danger is the low-information, persuadable voter accepting the designations of the Big Lie campaign if they do not see it challenged as often as it is repeated. Make clear to the mushy middle that the grabbers proposals are ineffective and immoral as well as unconstitutional.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-14, 16:07
I can see how what I wrote would be interpreted in a context that I wasn't going after. Having said that, you just gave, in my mind, a credible answer how to solve that problem.
Okay, I'm tracking with you now.
I live in northeast NJ, and while there is a hard core gun community here, it isn't large enough and it gets very drowned out by the anti's. When talking to non gun savvy people in this area, it always amazes me how many think one can walk into a gun store and buy a full auto weapon. In this context, the school shootings are the emotional pivot point for many in regards to firearms. I agree with you that having armed security would be a viable option. I think the progun crowd needs to get ahead of this issue and really push their solutions. Maybe it's the area I live in, but my perception is that the anti's are using this issue as their rallying cry to the large population of sympathetic voices in this area. In this area it may be working. The state legislature has passed a 10 round mag limit, from the existing 15 round mag limit. Currently, the bill sits on Gov. Christie's desk awaiting his decision.
You hit upon something major here in the bolded area.
There is much more at play here than simply a bunch of kooky copy cats running amok. We are witnessing a PSYOP; the mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda wing of the state. The media sensationalizes every "mass shooting" whether they occur at a school, military installation, movie theatre, et al. the very definitions of "mass shooting" and "active shooter" are fleeting. This same media turns a blind eye to stabbings, like we just witnessed at UC Santa Barbara. They also turn a blind eye every time Obama's "hometown" of Chicago (which has some the toughtest gun control measures on the books) experience 40 plus shooting murders every time there is long holiday weekend. Fear is a powerful tool, especially when it is applied to sheep.
Gentlemen make no mistake about it; gun control has never been about keeping anyone safe . . . it’s about disarmament. They want an unarmed populace, they want obedient sheep.
What is wrong with the gun-owning community?
Me. That is what is wrong with it. I am the problem.
Check your OWN behavior, language, and attitude. That is the biggest thing YOU can do. Check YOURSELF. I know I am looking more critically at myself and what message I am broadcasting.
Do the same.
Straight Shooter
06-13-14, 09:02
Ick- you are right. I myself try to check myself when armed. But reality is..ABNACK is spot on too. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, they aren't gonna "compromise" or stop. So, IM NOT. Screw them. Who are they, or anyone else, to tell me what to do? I personally consider them an enemy..THE enemy. The U.S. has almost ALWAYS had more internal enemies than external.
ABNACK is 100% correct in saying they'd rather see all us gun owners in prison or dead. Well, F THEM ALL. Im going to Target today, and for the first time Im thinking about open carrying just to see if some old nag pops off at the f-in mouth. And speaking of Target...their FaceBook page is getting lit up by the anti-gun MOM group, so hit it up if you can.
Anyway...MY opinion on one of many things we gunowners need to do is STOP BEING QUIET. STAND UP for yourselves for God's sake. Im going to step it up from now on myself.
Quite frankly, when the anti's mention "need" my reaction (and I make no apologies for it) is to say "I don't recall electing you, or anyone else for that matter, to determine what I 'need'. It's something I want, and this is still a free country, so that is all you really need to know about it."
I'm not interested in making friends with them. I'm not interested in "compromising" with them. They are indeed a domestic enemy of gun owners. If they had their way they'd see us thrown in prison or killed in the process. F*** them. I have nothing but contempt for their assinine views.
Could this be seen as digging in your heels and being obstinate? Yep, damn right. Take careful note of what I bolded above.
Ick- you are right. I myself try to check myself when armed. But reality is..ABNACK is spot on too. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, they aren't gonna "compromise" or stop. So, IM NOT. Screw them. Who are they, or anyone else, to tell me what to do? I personally consider them an enemy..THE enemy. The U.S. has almost ALWAYS had more internal enemies than external.
ABNACK is 100% correct in saying they'd rather see all us gun owners in prison or dead. Well, F THEM ALL. Im going to Target today, and for the first time Im thinking about open carrying just to see if some old nag pops off at the f-in mouth. And speaking of Target...their FaceBook page is getting lit up by the anti-gun MOM group, so hit it up if you can.
Anyway...MY opinion on one of many things we gunowners need to do is STOP BEING QUIET. STAND UP for yourselves for God's sake. Im going to step it up from now on myself.
I'm soo glad to see that some Folks actually "Get it".
Reading this thread reminds me of an old saying: never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Self-defense is not just a right, it is a personal responsibility. This is not up for debate. It is not paranoia to know that there are bad people out there in the real world, fully willing to do harm to you and your family. Examples abound in the daily news reports. It is not logical to expect someone else to protect you and your family when you are unwilling to do so yourself.
That is what ends the discussion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.