testtest

Gun Control: How to Influence Politicians And Change Their Votes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Annihilator

Emissary
Founding Member
Good article on what we can do to influence politicians and change there votes, we need to do as much as we can to keep our 2nd amendment rights.

 
The author is right that the only way to change political agendas is to change the voters' agendas. In some circumstances that just wont mean anything (investingvin infrastructure has huge support, yet is opposed by a significant number of reps and sens). How do you change the minds of people who either dislike firearms or don't care? You have to meet them where THEY are, on their ground, and display understanding of their reasons.

Aside from 2A I'm left of center, that's well known here. I am the highly educated professional whose peers dislike guns. I don't consider myself elite but I would be lumped in with that group at a trump rally. How, then, would you reach someone like me? First, how not to. The "what about 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" line is a total waste. People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong. Coming at me angry and indignant, or with insults like "you don't understand facts and logic" is also a waste. People like me make their livings with facts and logic. They might not have all the facts because they havent had a reason to find them, so share them without acting like that person is an idiot. Getting shouty and spewing that stuff will reinforce the idea that gun people are ignorant, emotional loons who themselves don't know how to reason. Stop wandering into Target in a bunch of body armor with a Punisher patch and your AR slung across your chest. That makes you look like a militia lunatic. At best you're perceived as a reactionary nut, at worst threatening. Either way no one's mind is being changed and no dialogue is being opened.

My suggestion, dump the conspiracy theories and don't act like you know they're all part of some elaborate scheme to subjugate the country. If we start with things like "Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want to take our guns and make us patriots into communists! Freedom! 1776! MAGA!" we've failed before we've begun. I'd tune you out and write you off immediately if you came at me with that. Find common ground. Statements like "I won't talk to a libtard damnorat." make it adversarial and no one is going to listen to someone spewing that ****. Ask why they're anti 2A and remember that they consider their position just as valid and reasonable as yours and it often is. I've had some success with a calm conversation. I had a physician who hated guns because all she ever saw of them were bullets in bodies. An abdomen destroyed by a bullet is pretty horrible. She saw gun owners as low class, uneducated, dangerous people. She was surprised I own a bunch but softened when I explained that target shooting is very similar to going to the driving range. Eventually she tried a .22 and chilled out a bit. The new experience gave her new perspective.

To sum up, leave the conspiracies and attacks at home, meet people where they are, ask why they hold their opinion, and be measured and reasoned in the discussion. If we're trying to change their opinions we have to connect with them on their turf about their beliefs and present the most reasoned presentation we possibly can. Others may here have other ideas. This is just what's worked for me and what would work with me if someone wanted to change my mind about an issue. If someone on here doesn't care about changing minds then of course they're welcome to disregard the above and do their thing, as they have a right to do.
 
Not all of the unbelievable stories about them are untrue. And the same can likely be said about a lot of politicians. It's naive not to think so.
I agree with that to an extent. I don't dispute claims that they are hostile to 2A. I do think its a stretch when people assume intent such as turning the U.S. into Venezuela or something. But that's a digression. When it comes to trying to change minds on divisive topics like 2A its going to be best to avoid going down those roads. My suggestion is to discuss the person's opinions rather than start with arguments about Nancy and Chuck.
 
I agree with that to an extent. I don't dispute claims that they are hostile to 2A. I do think its a stretch when people assume intent such as turning the U.S. into Venezuela or something. But that's a digression. When it comes to trying to change minds on divisive topics like 2A its going to be best to avoid going down those roads. My suggestion is to discuss the person's opinions rather than start with arguments about Nancy and Chuck.


Certainly they are hostile to the 2A and that's about as far as I think we are allowed to go here. I do think they support and put forth other policies which in my view are not in the best interest of the country, but I agree there is hyperbole abound with regards to them, same as there is with the bad orange man.
 
Certainly they are hostile to the 2A and that's about as far as I think we are allowed to go here. I do think they support and put forth other policies which in my view are not in the best interest of the country, but I agree there is hyperbole abound with regards to them, same as there is with the bad orange man.
You got that right. Our country has a sickness right now, and its hyperpartisanism. Way too much division frequently based on BS.
 
The author is right that the only way to change political agendas is to change the voters' agendas. In some circumstances that just wont mean anything (investingvin infrastructure has huge support, yet is opposed by a significant number of reps and sens). How do you change the minds of people who either dislike firearms or don't care? You have to meet them where THEY are, on their ground, and display understanding of their reasons.

Aside from 2A I'm left of center, that's well known here. I am the highly educated professional whose peers dislike guns. I don't consider myself elite but I would be lumped in with that group at a trump rally. How, then, would you reach someone like me? First, how not to. The "what about 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" line is a total waste. People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong. Coming at me angry and indignant, or with insults like "you don't understand facts and logic" is also a waste. People like me make their livings with facts and logic. They might not have all the facts because they havent had a reason to find them, so share them without acting like that person is an idiot. Getting shouty and spewing that stuff will reinforce the idea that gun people are ignorant, emotional loons who themselves don't know how to reason. Stop wandering into Target in a bunch of body armor with a Punisher patch and your AR slung across your chest. That makes you look like a militia lunatic. At best you're perceived as a reactionary nut, at worst threatening. Either way no one's mind is being changed and no dialogue is being opened.

My suggestion, dump the conspiracy theories and don't act like you know they're all part of some elaborate scheme to subjugate the country. If we start with things like "Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want to take our guns and make us patriots into communists! Freedom! 1776! MAGA!" we've failed before we've begun. I'd tune you out and write you off immediately if you came at me with that. Find common ground. Statements like "I won't talk to a libtard damnorat." make it adversarial and no one is going to listen to someone spewing that ****. Ask why they're anti 2A and remember that they consider their position just as valid and reasonable as yours and it often is. I've had some success with a calm conversation. I had a physician who hated guns because all she ever saw of them were bullets in bodies. An abdomen destroyed by a bullet is pretty horrible. She saw gun owners as low class, uneducated, dangerous people. She was surprised I own a bunch but softened when I explained that target shooting is very similar to going to the driving range. Eventually she tried a .22 and chilled out a bit. The new experience gave her new perspective.

To sum up, leave the conspiracies and attacks at home, meet people where they are, ask why they hold their opinion, and be measured and reasoned in the discussion. If we're trying to change their opinions we have to connect with them on their turf about their beliefs and present the most reasoned presentation we possibly can. Others may here have other ideas. This is just what's worked for me and what would work with me if someone wanted to change my mind about an issue. If someone on here doesn't care about changing minds then of course they're welcome to disregard the above and do their thing, as they have a right to do.
Very well said!!!!!
 
You got that right. Our country has a sickness right now, and its hyperpartisanism. Way too much division frequently based on BS.

As a nation we are Spiritually ill.

Left of center today is far left. That is not criticism, just my view.

I have no mandate to convert anti gunners/2nd Amendment deniers; they have a right to their choice. And, reasonable sincere communication with folks that are not reasonable is futile, wasted breath.

But when they demand to shove their views down my throat and deny me my ( yes, will say it again: My God Given Rights) I'll express myself, expect entitlement, and Katy bar the door when they refuse.

You don't have to believe and live as I do.......but you do have to allow me to believe and live as I chose and the Constitution guarantees.
 
benstt, with all due respect I find it pretty ironic you preach that we should not approach with a condescending attitude toward those we don't agree with when you said "To sum up, leave the conspiracies and attacks at home, meet people where they are, ask why they hold their opinion, and be measured and reasoned in the discussion."

But then I remembered you had just prior to that written this .... "People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong" when someone offers to you the part about 'shall not be infringed'. You see others can also can read case law and in their opinions, the phrase is valid and means exactly what it says with no qualifiers.

I would also offer this assertion that I saw somewhere ....... "I should add that nothing above is targeted at any person here. I'm painting in broad strokes and addressing approaches to winning people over".

Just sayin' !!!



 
benstt, with all due respect I find it pretty ironic you preach that we should not approach with a condescending attitude toward those we don't agree with when you said "To sum up, leave the conspiracies and attacks at home, meet people where they are, ask why they hold their opinion, and be measured and reasoned in the discussion."

But then I remembered you had just prior to that written this .... "People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong" when someone offers to you the part about 'shall not be infringed'. You see others can also can read case law and in their opinions, the phrase is valid and means exactly what it says with no qualifiers.

I would also offer this assertion that I saw somewhere ....... "I should add that nothing above is targeted at any person here. I'm painting in broad strokes and addressing approaches to winning people over".

Just sayin' !!!
I don't see the irony. If you want to try to change someone's mind you do have to meet them where they are, not where you like them to be. Conspiracy theories will immediately turn people off if they dont share them. You have every right to your beliefs but certain beliefs are ineffective if you're going to try to change someone's position.

As to "shall not be infringed," legally it is flatout wrong to say that as though it means you have the right to own whatever you want. SCOTUS has repeatedly held that there is no absolute rights in this country, not 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, etc. 2A CAN be limited. You can disagree with the state of the law but that doesn't change what the law is. So, to come to someone like me and use "what about 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" as an argument in support of unlimited firearm ownership will get you precisely nowhere. People can have their opinions of what they'd LIKE it to mean but that is not what it DOES mean as of right now. There is no binding case law I've ever seen where the Court says a right, including 2A, is absolute. I appreciate your critique but I stand by what I wrote.
 
Well benstt again with all due respect, when you come at those who do believe in the phrase 'shall not be infringed' with the statement that you "know that argument is already wrong", it doesn't leave much room for the discussion you mention. Other's feel just as strongly that they also 'know' that phrase to mean exactly what it says.

As for your assertion that the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that there is no absolute rights isn't even the real argument. I think most folks from both sides know that any right can/does have some restrictions. And as for the phrase in question, the argument is not necessarily in support of "unlimited firearm ownership" as you write, but in support of ownership of those firearms in common use of the day. Maybe a big part of the problem is that the two sides do not even agree on the point of the argument to begin with.

So the bottom line is this ...... when one tries to argue the phrase does not entitle another to 'keep and bear' an AR15 for example, I would strongly disagree with that argument since there is little or no argument it is in very common use today. So, if I were to say to anyone ..... 'what about that part that says I can keep and bear arms without infringement don't you understand?', I'm not necessarily saying I should be able to keep and bear just any weapon. I'm arguing I should be able to keep and bear any firearm in common use today and the most common one being the AR.

There's a funny little fact that keeps popping up it's ugly head for all of us on both sides of the argument as to what arms should and shouldn't be allowed; and that is that if the citizenry had not had access to keep and bear the very same arms, including his biggest cannons, that ol' King George had in his well trained army (that's a whole different meaning than 'well regulated' BTW), there likely would not be a United States of America today with any rights to argue. And btw, I read some articles on that topic too and 'know that argument to not already be wrong'. ;)(y)(y)
 
You don't have to believe and live as I do.......but you do have to allow me to believe and live as I chose and the Constitution guarantees.
+10,000,000.

THAT is the key right there.

To flip it around - you say we have no right to control how you live...fine. But it goes both ways, and YOU have no right to control how I live.

As to the "shall not be infringed" - it does not GRANT us the right. God does that. As sentient beings, we have an innate right to life, health, happiness, and peace. If that involves self-protection, so be it. We have the right to protect ourselves, our families, and our loved ones. Government doesn't give us that. God does. The 2A has nothing to do with granting us a right. The 2A is there to tell Government that they are not allowed to restrict our God-given right.
 
My approach is simple. I do not care what someone else likes or does not. Never have and it is what is called freedom. All I ask in return is the same respect. Do not tread or infringe on me and I will not tread or infringe on you.
After that basic understanding of mutual respect is agreed upon, if they want me to take them to the range, they might just find out how much fun it is. You know how little kids are on Christmas morning? My wife says that is how I am at the range and it rubs off or at least is noticed and some what appreciated by others.
In the end, it all starts with I do not care how you like your coffee, I do not care what kind of car you drive. I do not care......... Now since my guns do not hurt anyone it is nobody else's business what I do for fun.
Not only is that a 2a argument it is the right to persue happiness argument.
 
Last edited:
The author is right that the only way to change political agendas is to change the voters' agendas. In some circumstances that just wont mean anything (investingvin infrastructure has huge support, yet is opposed by a significant number of reps and sens). How do you change the minds of people who either dislike firearms or don't care? You have to meet them where THEY are, on their ground, and display understanding of their reasons.

Aside from 2A I'm left of center, that's well known here. I am the highly educated professional whose peers dislike guns. I don't consider myself elite but I would be lumped in with that group at a trump rally. How, then, would you reach someone like me? First, how not to. The "what about 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" line is a total waste. People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong. Coming at me angry and indignant, or with insults like "you don't understand facts and logic" is also a waste. People like me make their livings with facts and logic. They might not have all the facts because they havent had a reason to find them, so share them without acting like that person is an idiot. Getting shouty and spewing that stuff will reinforce the idea that gun people are ignorant, emotional loons who themselves don't know how to reason. Stop wandering into Target in a bunch of body armor with a Punisher patch and your AR slung across your chest. That makes you look like a militia lunatic. At best you're perceived as a reactionary nut, at worst threatening. Either way no one's mind is being changed and no dialogue is being opened.

My suggestion, dump the conspiracy theories and don't act like you know they're all part of some elaborate scheme to subjugate the country. If we start with things like "Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want to take our guns and make us patriots into communists! Freedom! 1776! MAGA!" we've failed before we've begun. I'd tune you out and write you off immediately if you came at me with that. Find common ground. Statements like "I won't talk to a libtard damnorat." make it adversarial and no one is going to listen to someone spewing that ****. Ask why they're anti 2A and remember that they consider their position just as valid and reasonable as yours and it often is. I've had some success with a calm conversation. I had a physician who hated guns because all she ever saw of them were bullets in bodies. An abdomen destroyed by a bullet is pretty horrible. She saw gun owners as low class, uneducated, dangerous people. She was surprised I own a bunch but softened when I explained that target shooting is very similar to going to the driving range. Eventually she tried a .22 and chilled out a bit. The new experience gave her new perspective.

To sum up, leave the conspiracies and attacks at home, meet people where they are, ask why they hold their opinion, and be measured and reasoned in the discussion. If we're trying to change their opinions we have to connect with them on their turf about their beliefs and present the most reasoned presentation we possibly can. Others may here have other ideas. This is just what's worked for me and what would work with me if someone wanted to change my mind about an issue. If someone on here doesn't care about changing minds then of course they're welcome to disregard the above and do their thing, as they have a right to do.
While I agree and respect your premise, the left has individuals that shout and come at us “right of center” folks quite agrily as well with their “anti” views on several topics.

what we need as a society is to respect each others views and not force a social agenda on either person.
 
"...You have every right to your beliefs but certain beliefs are ineffective if you're going to try to change someone's position."

For some strange reason, that statement reminds me of a placard on the desk of one of my high school teachers:

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion...as long as you agree with me in the end." 🤔
 
While I agree and respect your premise, the left has individuals that shout and come at us “right of center” folks quite agrily as well with their “anti” views on several topics.

what we need as a society is to respect each others views and not force a social agenda on either person.
I used to lean left. I believe what you just said, that everyone is entitled to their view and freedoms. But where I draw the line and started leaning right is when they start pushing agendas. I understand politics and agendas, but very few of the issues they are pushing belong in politics.
I can not stand the argument by the left that america is the worst civilized nation for gun violence. Not when America is also the largest importer of immigrants from nations that are the highest on the list of gun and other forms of violence. Jesus, after ww2 we brought in scientist and engineers and the country did well. Now we bring in what we do and..............
So stop blaming guns, because guns have always been around.

As for the article it is exactly right. Even dems around here know that if they vote against 2a rights, they just lost their seat come next election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top