Anti-Gunners

[IanS]

I feel a lot of posts discussing antis simply undermine our cause of convincing our fellow Americans of our right to bear arms. They're our mothers, fathers, siblings, uncles, cousins, and neighbors. I understand their fear of firearms and the devastation they could possibly cause if applied the wrong way. But if we continue to make them feel like they're our enemies, traitors to freedom, and basically alienate them we are hurting our own cause.

I think the gun lobby, the gun industry, and gunowners in general need to work on better public relations. Simply calling them idiots isn't going to win any friends which we need. We need to have a more Christian like attitude. Like missionaries we need to look upon every anti as those who simply haven't seen the light and avoid derisive or divisive comments. We should be aggresive but with a light touch.

*This doesn't apply to those who really want to take freedom from the people.

 

[w00dy]

I agree 100%

 

[Art Eatman]

Ian11, let's separate them into two groups: Those who can respond to facts and logic, and those who absolutely refuse to do so.

The latter do indeed fall into the category of "enemies" and "idiots". Do you think that the Feinsteins and Schumers don't already know the facts? When people say things like, "Well, it might not do any good, but we've GOT to do SOMETHING!", do you really believe they're not idiotic or irresponsible in their thinking?

And just how would YOU classify those who know the Second Amendment means what we believe it means, yet push for total disarmament of all "civilians"? I sure don't see them as real or potential friends...

The first group? Well, there's hope.

FWIW, Art

 

[Dave R]

I agree we need better PR. And that starts with each one of us being rational and factual in our arguments. I think the tone exhibited by most TFL-ers is right on (rants excluded).

I'd also like to see more news releases by pro-2nd amendment organizations. For example, when my company entertains Japanese visitors here, we offer them a number of recreational options. They most frequently choose shooting. They love it. I think there's a human interest story there...

I think there should've been more news coverage of the shooting events at the last Olympics. There was a little coverage of the USA winning its first gold medal (on opening day?) thanks to a woman in one of the shooting events.

But how do we get past the media bias?

 

[Red Label]

Right-on Art! I totally agree.

My late father-in-law was a GOOD MAN. He was not an idiot. But where politics were concerned, his thinking was lazy and idiotic. He voted for Klinton on the premise that we needed "change". I argued that no change is better than change for the worse. He just wanted "change". Didn't matter what kind. A typical, irrational, modern American feeling. Stupid, lazy, and ignorant.

Wonder how he felt about the 2nd Ammendment... I figure that it wasn't the way Klinton does, because he found use for one of his rifles when he chose to end his life with it...

 

[IanS]

Art,

Forget the 2nd group, those people are lost. These are the same type of people who believe violence is never a necessity. That violent means should only be in the hands of those who have power. The same kind of screwy logic that says preparing for war ALWAYS leads to violence. The very type of people who have been taken advantage of throughout history.

The people in the 1st group are the ones we desperately need.

Regardless there's no need to be shrill about our beliefs if we truly believe we stand for the truth.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Groups of

Hi, this is my first post, but I figure here's about as good a place to "jump in" as anywhere (this is a terrific board, by the way!).

I tend to delineate four groups for the "antis." They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The first group is the Power Hungry Types with Agendas. Clinton (both of ‘em), Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, and their ilk all fit in this category. Basically, these people probably KNOW the facts, but they wish to do everything in their power to muddy the truth and/or stick their collective heads in the sand to pursue an anti-freedom political agenda. These types are highly hypocritical and elitist (having bodyguards, permits to carry, etc. for themselves) and IMHO, utterly incorrigible.

The second group is the Clueless Celeb or Otherwise "Trendy" Antigunner who is antigun because they think it fits neatly into their political cubbyhole and/or gives them something "hip" to rant about when they haven't got anything better to do. Rosie O'Dumbbell fits in here, as does Sharon Stone and Gloria Steinem. Basically, these folks are antigun because they either cannot learn about the issue in depth (I read that Rosie initially "decided" to think guns are icky because she was grossed out by how a can of tomato paste looks when it's shot), or because they refuse to do so (i.e., National Organization for Women's surreal position AGAINST women being able to exercise their basic right of self defense - and they call themselves FEMINISTS?! ARGH!). These folks tend to be highly hypocrital as well, and are often representative of the "elitist" bias; but unlike the first category, they ain't tryin' to take over the world. They do, however, tend to be incorrigible (IMHO).

The third group can overlap with the first and the second at times, but they need their very own category. They are the Emotional Types. Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and Courtney Love all belong in this category (though Sarah B. and Carolyn M. overlap with Category 1 and Courtney L. overlaps with Category 2), and no doubt a few of those .05 Million Misinformed Moms belong in this category as well. Some are hypocrites, but not all. The defining characteristic for these people is that some actual event in their life (usually loss of a loved one) has made them "blame the gun" and go on a "crusade." These people can be hard nuts to crack, but I don't think they are necessarily COMPLETELY hopeless.

The fourth group is, quite simply, the Folks Who Don't Know No Better. These people tend to be Everyday Joes or Joe-ettes who get their news from Dan Blather and take the pulse of the nation by watching Oprah or Rosie. They often are well-meaning, though misinformed, people who have simply never thought about the issue in depth and have been "subjects" in the mainstream media's great Orson Welles Anti-Gun "The War of the Worlds" experiment (the Martians - oops, the Gun Nuts - are coming!). The greatest number of the antis fit in this category, and the good news is that no, they are NOT hopeless, and the greater capacity they demonstrate for rationality the less "hopeless" they are. Ergo, they are our best bet. Ignorance can be cured, thankfully. Boneheadedness (see especially first two categories) cannot.

I apologize for the length of this post. I type really fast.

 

[nualle]

Uh... hate to rain on everyone's parade (and this may not be the ideal forum for this sentiment) but... conservatives are by no means universally sensible, self-consistent, or freedom-loving.

I have long shaken my head wondering how some of the very same people who espouse pro-freedom policies regarding the 2nd amendment can say such ridiculous things regarding the 1st.

*sigh*

Nuallë

 

[Calamity Jane]

Ummmm...where did I say anything about the First Amendment? I was only talking about categories as they relate to educating people about our position. My references to the mainstream media were not made out of an advocacy of censorship! I was only trying to make the point that the pro-gun position is given very little credence in mainstream media outlets, and people who get their news or form their opinions only from such sources are likely to be missing some crucial information.

Please know that I certainly was not *in any way* endorsing coercion or encouraging the infringement of other people's rights to speak freely or to disagree with the pro-gun/pro-freedom position! That would be pretty hypocritical of me, eh?

And I certainly didn't mean to imply that conservatives are universally freedom-loving or sensible or consistent. Actually, just MHO, but I don't care much for political labels (conservative, liberal et al), period.

 

[LawDog]

Welcome to The Firing Line, Jane. Good post.

Myself, I would tend to lump your second and third groups together.

LawDog

 

[Monkeyleg]

Calamity Jane, I think you summed up the groups pretty well. Most of the anti's I know fall into the Don't Know Any Better category. With a little calm talk they can be persuaded to abandon most of their positions. While dropping film off at the lab the other day, I mentioned to the woman at the counter that I was going target shooting. From the look on her face you'd have thought I'd told her I was going to shoot her family. Letting that go, I started talking about how soothing it can be. Then got into how technical it can become (case length +/- .002, etc). She, of course, had no idea how much is involved in trying to shoot well, and was impressed by all this. By the end, she had a different perspective. Over the next few months I'll keep working on her. Eventually I'll take her shooting.

Welcome to TFL, and be forewarned about my rambling posts.

Dick

 

[nualle]

Clarity is so difficult in a written forum...

at least when constrained by the desire for brevity.

Calamity Jane: In no way did I mean to imply that I thought you in any way advocated censorship. I didn't and don't think you do. I apologize that what I wrote could be construed to mean that I did.

When I wrote my earlier post, I was thinking specifically of polititians like Jesse Helms. His thoughts on the 2nd amendment might be characterized as "freedom-loving" while his thoughts on other issues (including 1st amendment issues) could not be. Most folks would consider him to be a "conservative" polititian, perhaps even typical of "conservative" polititians.

I, like you, am not fond of the labels available. Frankly, what I was attempting (and apparently utterly failed at) was to get the thread to try a non-label-oriented train of thought. People here have no problem deconstructing "liberal." (Characterizations like "power-hungry," "clueless," and "trendy" have fulfulled that function here.) Let's try deconstructing "conservative" along with it and see what we're left with.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Hey, no problem, Nualle! I was just worried that I wasn’t making myself clear. Like you, I get aggravated as HECK about the political scene and the polarization of “liberal” and “conservative” when, in reality, both sides simply take turns chipping away at whichever of our freedoms they don’t happen to like. And I like what you said about a non-label oriented train of thought with regard to this thread. On the subject of educating “antis”, I think an emphasis on FREEDOM in all its aspects, as opposed to political “pigeonholing”, would go a long, long way.

My husband just suggested a wonderful analogy. He said the “liberal”/”conservative” thing is like two egg cartons. When I go to the grocery store and buy a carton of eggs, I lift the lid and see if any of the eggs are cracked. If even one of them is cracked, I don’t buy that carton of eggs. I select another carton. Well, with the “choice” between “liberal” and “conservative”, we are offered a choice between two egg cartons, and one or the other of the two is often taken. And whichever of these cartons is opened, there’s always at least one cracked egg.

My husband just said, “I ain’t buyin’ no more busted eggs.” (Me, neither.)

 

[gconan]

nualle , sentor Helms only gets a c+ from GOA.