testtest

Gun Control: How to Influence Politicians And Change Their Votes

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's no better way than to take a non-believer out to shoot with you. I've got a 96% success rate with that approach. Usually after a day of shooting rifles, pistols and shotguns I hear "man I gots to get one of those"...
The other's will not go will not get into dialogue of any sorts.
I especially dislike those political sorts that demand I bow down to them yet stand behind a wall of guns in their security force while demanding I have no right to own my own firearms.
I'll state right here anything demanding that we give up high cap mags or nasty black rifles should also pertain to law enforcement as well. They are not military and should be held to the same restrictions the public is..... Only then will we force them into acting along side us instead of just nodding along with their political upper management heads.
 
Our nation is so vast and varied in experiences that it is often difficult to relate to the other guy. I got my first .410 shotgun at about age 7, grew up in the country with The Lone Ranger and John Wayne and war veterans as my heroes, we butchered our own cattle and hogs and chickens, I am a lifelong hunter, went to war at 19, entered law enforcement, and carried a firearm every day of my adult life.

Even though I have advanced degrees and have been an adjunct professor at two universities, I find it difficult to relate to the "enlightened" who in their arrogance would regard me as barbaric, knuckle dragging, deplorable, or whatever the "woke" choose to call us nowadays.

A person who grew up safely in an urban or suburban environment where they have good schools and good police departments, have no concept of war, violence, or killing for food, likewise is unable to relate to me and my views on the Second Amendment.

Elected officials are fully aware of these differences and play on them in their campaigns for office. Whichever party they are from, they must place emphasis on our differences to distinguish themselves from their "lesser" opponent. It is useful for them to drive a wedge, and demonize the other side to convince voters they are better. It's why we hear ourselves being called racists, Neanderthals, deplorables, etc., and why liberals are labeled snowflakes, pussies, etc.

The Bill of Rights is what sealed the deal for ratifying the Constitution. It is the one place where there should be common interest on both sides of the aisle, as it guarantees rights to ALL of us. The Bill of Rights should be a unifying force and that is where we can best focus our efforts.
 
benstt said:
I think this took a turn from my original post. I wasn't arguing anyone's opinions on 2A here. I was discussing how to reach people who are either anti-2A or ambivalent on it.
Click to expand...
Can't reach 'em. They take to indoctrination well. Some are well educated with it. But if a person or group can not think, reason, and come to logical conclusions they can't be helped nor enlightened.

And most anti 2A types have none or a small helping only of courage, want Uncle Sammy ( or someone, anyone ) to keep them from all harm even though they won't be proactive for their own benefit. And most don't care about the rights they deny others in the pursuit of their fallacy. I don't care to waste my time trying to persuade any of them.
 
C. Sumpin said:
Can't reach 'em. They take to indoctrination well. Some are well educated with it. But if a person or group can not think, reason, and come to logical conclusions they can't be helped nor enlightened.

And most anti 2A types have none or a small helping only of courage, want Uncle Sammy ( or someone, anyone ) to keep them from all harm even though they won't be proactive for their own benefit. And most don't care about the rights they deny others in the pursuit of their fallacy. I don't care to waste my time trying to persuade any of them.
Click to expand...
That's an unfortunate attitude, though one a lot of anti-2A people also have toward gun owners, assuming they're idiots who are scared of everyday life so they rely on guns to feel tough. It's generally incorrect on both sides. You can reach most people if you're cool about it. Go in on the attack and you're correct, they won't listen. This is a problem in our country. It's so much easier to just assume people with other points of view can't use reason or logic than it is to ask why they believe something and make the effort to understand it. The example I provided earlier of the physician who only knew firearms because of the gunshots she has to treat is an example. You could assume shes incapable of reasoned thought and has been indoctrinated, or you could look at her experiences and you would understand her attitude is based on real world, horrible circumstances and she's not indoctrinated or unreasonable at all, she just has narrow experience.
 
benstt said:
That's an unfortunate attitude, though one a lot of anti-2A people also have toward gun owners, assuming they're idiots who are scared of everyday life so they rely on guns to feel tough. It's generally incorrect on both sides. You can reach most people if you're cool about it. Go in on the attack and you're correct, they won't listen. This is a problem in our country. It's so much easier to just assume people with other points of view can't use reason or logic than it is to ask why they believe something and make the effort to understand it. The example I provided earlier of the physician who only knew firearms because of the gunshots she has to treat is an example. You could assume shes incapable of reasoned thought and has been indoctrinated, or you could look at her experiences and you would understand her attitude is based on real world, horrible circumstances and she's not indoctrinated or unreasonable at all, she just has narrow experience.
Click to expand...
So, somebody's experiences and attitude has to be taken into account when the person in question is a liberal....but that doesn't apply when the person in question is a conservative? The experiences of a conservative, who grew up around, using, and respecting firearms suddenly mean nothing when contrasted to mass-media trumpeting about "evil black AR-15s" and "more murdered children", even though that conservative person has been using guns all their life and has yet to take a human life or know anyone who has? The Left has made a career out of turning every argument into "RACIST" and "NAZI" instead of having actual discussions, and censoring/banning any conservatives who try to discuss topics that aren't "accepted".

Conservatives have been under attack for a long time. Whipped dogs have a tendency to bite.

I disagree with "gun control" ideas. However, the difference is I am not forcing anti-gun people to own guns. I am allowing them their choice. They owe me the same courtesy - them not liking guns does not mean they can force me to live without them.
 
benstt said:
That's an unfortunate attitude, though one a lot of anti-2A people also have toward gun owners, assuming they're idiots who are scared of everyday life so they rely on guns to feel tough. It's generally incorrect on both sides. You can reach most people if you're cool about it. Go in on the attack and you're correct, they won't listen. This is a problem in our country. It's so much easier to just assume people with other points of view can't use reason or logic than it is to ask why they believe something and make the effort to understand it. The example I provided earlier of the physician who only knew firearms because of the gunshots she has to treat is an example. You could assume shes incapable of reasoned thought and has been indoctrinated, or you could look at her experiences and you would understand her attitude is based on real world, horrible circumstances and she's not indoctrinated or unreasonable at all, she just has narrow experience.
Click to expand...
Her narrow experience should not trump my narrow experience. What's wrong with the anti-gun argument is they only consider one side. The media then compounds it by not properly explaining that the gunman wasn't stopped by any laws already on the books, he chose to ignore those laws just like he will continue to ignore gun bans, gun-free zones, and buybacks. As a responsible owner, I should not have my rights trampled because of emotion and misinformation. If you are not informed about a subject what gives you the right to create a policy or law about it.
 
benstt, you claim a valid point in that those who are so closed minded as to reject on the face any opinion not in alignment with theirs "is a total waste", but then you add this statement very early in your post ..... "People like me can read case law and articles and know that argument is flatout wrong." Now from that I'm inferring that you have read case law and articles and you have determined that the assertion made relative to any meaning of "shall not be infringed" in disagreement with yours is already "flat out wrong". Funny but I know many folks who also have read case law and articles and people like them have determined that phrase to mean exactly what it says. I explained in an earlier post that I have a somewhat softer understanding of the phrase so I'll just let the statement regarding that phrase end here.

I don't know, but it sure seems to me you're displaying exactly the thing you're advising against. Then there is also the fact there are points that are simply not debatable based on simple 'common sense'. There are many, but let's just consider this one .... why/how does it make any sense at all to deny me, or any other law-abiding citizen the right to keep and bear a 30rnd magazine? We all know the bad guys cannot be denied, yet the anti's insist I should be denied and are trying their level best to ensure that I am. There are many such as this where there is no reason for debate, it's what the anti's would call "common sense".

One even more readily apparent is this: semi-auto firearms were first available to the general public in the late 1880's. Generally speaking, the same rates of fire, the same magazine capacities, the same and/or more powerful loads, the same functionality, the same conceal-ability, etc, etc, etc. And up until the last few decades were never the problem we see today with mass shootings. The guns were basically the same through all those years with the bad issues only appearing in the last few, yet the anti's continue to blame the guns.

I could go all through where I used to buy guns at the local hardware store at almost any age with no BG check, or for that matter I could order guns through Sears and Ward's catalogs and have them delivered to my front door along with all the ammo I wanted, yet still no bad issues. Or how I used to drive to school and park my truck with guns hanging in the rear window all day long and never one bad issue from any of them. For the life of me I simply cannot see any need nor reason for any debate here. The only changes that have occurred on any of this is the anti's efforts to end it all by infringing on these and other sensible occurrences with guns.

Or think about how non-sensible it is to make a legal, concealed carrier, totally legal at 1000ft from a school, but in taking just one step closer to the school (now 999ft) he/she is in violation of law. The intent may have been good, but the actuality is asinine, non debatable and certainly not 'common sense'.

I can honestly say I've given much thought to any non debatable issues on the other side and simply am not aware of any. I'll be willing to listen if you know of any. And know that in the 'real world' I love the term 'common sense'.
 
Peglegjoe said:
So, somebody's experiences and attitude has to be taken into account when the person in question is a liberal....but that doesn't apply when the person in question is a conservative? The experiences of a conservative, who grew up around, using, and respecting firearms suddenly mean nothing when contrasted to mass-media trumpeting about "evil black AR-15s" and "more murdered children", even though that conservative person has been using guns all their life and has yet to take a human life or know anyone who has? The Left has made a career out of turning every argument into "RACIST" and "NAZI" instead of having actual discussions, and censoring/banning any conservatives who try to discuss topics that aren't "accepted".

Conservatives have been under attack for a long time. Whipped dogs have a tendency to bite.

I disagree with "gun control" ideas. However, the difference is I am not forcing anti-gun people to own guns. I am allowing them their choice. They owe me the same courtesy - them not liking guns does not mean they can force me to live without them.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm talking about how to reach people. And I acknowledged that anti-2A people have wrong impressions, too. I'm not talking to anti-2A people right now, I'm talking to gun people. Don't put words in my mouth or mischaracterize what I said.
 
lmgunner13 said:
Her narrow experience should not trump my narrow experience. What's wrong with the anti-gun argument is they only consider one side. The media then compounds it by not properly explaining that the gunman wasn't stopped by any laws already on the books, he chose to ignore those laws just like he will continue to ignore gun bans, gun-free zones, and buybacks. As a responsible owner, I should not have my rights trampled because of emotion and misinformation. If you are not informed about a subject what gives you the right to create a policy or law about it.
Click to expand...
And what do you consider about their side on your position? It's the person trying to win someone over that has to make the effort.
 
bensst is correct that we need to engage the opposition in dialogue rather than a perpetual pi$$ing contest. The further we stray from adult conversation, the less likely we are to ever reach an understanding. Trouble is, I am not sure there are enough rational adults in the right places to have a meaningful dialogue. It is why I again point the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as common ground. I once had a discussion with a liberal reporter who wanted to know if I was willing to give ground on the Second Amendment. I said sure, I will give precisely the same amount of ground on the Second that you are willing to give on the First. I believe he went away with a new perspective on Second Amendment supporters.
 
xdman said:
Lets please stay on the original post topic.
Click to expand...
Exactly. benstt’s comment has been debated to the point of now rehashing arguments. Refocus on Anni’s OP or let this one go.
D7E97F92-D5B7-48D4-A80F-B52B4EAB4EBB.jpeg
 
I'm thinking that only the folks who can honestly say that they're better off when 2024 rolls around than they were before the 2020 general election will want to vote for Dems. A lackluster economy, higher taxes, growing unemployment, and high inflation to mention just a few Biden debacles might just might push gun-control to the back burner for voters who have been sitting on the fence. Also it will be interesting to see if all of those millions of new gun owners ever realize that their gun ownership is a function of conservative values. If so these are the folks we can persuade to support the 2nd Amend. We have to support those candidates that support gun rights. In fact I plan to use money from my stimulus check to make a donation to the candidate running against the Dem from my district in the Nov election for the Virginia General Assembly. Irony at its best.
 
I suppose it is the result of social media being so prevalent in our lives these days that folks have become so divided and adamant about whichever particular position they hold on any issue. In my opinion, our elected representatives have contributed to the division by posting on "Facebook" and appearing on various television shows vilifying those in the opposing political party. Kind of like what we used to call "egging on." Name calling has replaced reasoned conversation.

Anni (as usual-thanks) posted a link to an interesting article. Benstt did a good job outlining his take on the best way to convince the uninitiated that shooting is fun and those who like guns are not necessarily a bunch of neanderthals. Maybe his reference to being highly educated leaned that way as well, but I can skip over that.

As I think could have been predicted, the post and benstt's response touched off a firestorm here among us who are pretty much all gun enthusiasts. It just demonstrates the division among those of us who hold similar beliefs. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and I believe even those of us who are pro-2A are divided. This cannot be a good thing. There are way too many folks living in urban areas who have never seen a gun up close and many others who have only seen a gun associated with violence. I think we may be beyond the tipping point, although I hope not. I think one can see from the gun sales data, that most people, even urbanites (although it would be interesting to see purchase data by cities) understand that when it gets down to the nitty gritty, a person needs something to even the odds, and a gun is the best tool out there. If they don't have a gun, they want someone there who does when trouble rears its ugly head.

Benstt was right that if someone is approached in a confrontational way, their defenses go up and their reason shuts down. I have seen that over and over in issues with nothing to do with guns or Constitutional rights. It is really a shame we no longer have statesmen (or stateswomen :) ) representing us in Washington. Despite what the Constitution says or what you believe it means, the folks in Washington can continue to chip away, as they have in the past, at those things which made the United States of America what it is today. We need to stop the incessant bickering and start talking to folks. Calm wins the day every time.

My $0.02 worth.
 
somorris said:
I suppose it is the result of social media being so prevalent in our lives these days that folks have become so divided and adamant about whichever particular position they hold on any issue. In my opinion, our elected representatives have contributed to the division by posting on "Facebook" and appearing on various television shows vilifying those in the opposing political party. Kind of like what we used to call "egging on." Name calling has replaced reasoned conversation.

Anni (as usual-thanks) posted a link to an interesting article. Benstt did a good job outlining his take on the best way to convince the uninitiated that shooting is fun and those who like guns are not necessarily a bunch of neanderthals. Maybe his reference to being highly educated leaned that way as well, but I can skip over that.

As I think could have been predicted, the post and benstt's response touched off a firestorm here among us who are pretty much all gun enthusiasts. It just demonstrates the division among those of us who hold similar beliefs. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and I believe even those of us who are pro-2A are divided. This cannot be a good thing. There are way too many folks living in urban areas who have never seen a gun up close and many others who have only seen a gun associated with violence. I think we may be beyond the tipping point, although I hope not. I think one can see from the gun sales data, that most people, even urbanites (although it would be interesting to see purchase data by cities) understand that when it gets down to the nitty gritty, a person needs something to even the odds, and a gun is the best tool out there. If they don't have a gun, they want someone there who does when trouble rears its ugly head.

Benstt was right that if someone is approached in a confrontational way, their defenses go up and their reason shuts down. I have seen that over and over in issues with nothing to do with guns or Constitutional rights. It is really a shame we no longer have statesmen (or stateswomen :) ) representing us in Washington. Despite what the Constitution says or what you believe it means, the folks in Washington can continue to chip away, as they have in the past, at those things which made the United States of America what it is today. We need to stop the incessant bickering and start talking to folks. Calm wins the day every time.

My $0.02 worth.
Click to expand...
It's less about firearms than the Constitution. The Constitution, which is mostly an unknown document these days, (including by Politicians/Judges/Educators/illegals) instructs/demands the government ( which is composed of all the citizens ) to not infringe on my (and your) .......here it is.........God given rights. When one plows up against an anti gunner / anti worder / anti white / anti male / anti God / anti Choice / anti this / anti that / anti anything / offended by everything citizen, they don't need "persuasion" on guns, they need education on the Constitution Of The United States Of America. I'm not an educator. And am utterly astonished to be asked (as a Citizen/Veteran/law abiding person) why/to explain/justify myself on something anyone should know I am entitled to.

The Congress and POTUS ( by their lack of Moral awareness/courage ) are merely a representation of the population at large that elected ( and puts up with their Krap ) them.
 
The God-given thing keeps coming up. Where does that come from? Neither the preamble to the Bill of Rights nor the Amendments themselves mention anything being God given. The Constitution itself never mentions any god or anything divine. The Declaration of Independence does, but that is not our governing document.
 
somorris said:
I suppose it is the result of social media being so prevalent in our lives these days that folks have become so divided and adamant about whichever particular position they hold on any issue. In my opinion, our elected representatives have contributed to the division by posting on "Facebook" and appearing on various television shows vilifying those in the opposing political party. Kind of like what we used to call "egging on." Name calling has replaced reasoned conversation.

Anni (as usual-thanks) posted a link to an interesting article. Benstt did a good job outlining his take on the best way to convince the uninitiated that shooting is fun and those who like guns are not necessarily a bunch of neanderthals. Maybe his reference to being highly educated leaned that way as well, but I can skip over that.

As I think could have been predicted, the post and benstt's response touched off a firestorm here among us who are pretty much all gun enthusiasts. It just demonstrates the division among those of us who hold similar beliefs. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and I believe even those of us who are pro-2A are divided. This cannot be a good thing. There are way too many folks living in urban areas who have never seen a gun up close and many others who have only seen a gun associated with violence. I think we may be beyond the tipping point, although I hope not. I think one can see from the gun sales data, that most people, even urbanites (although it would be interesting to see purchase data by cities) understand that when it gets down to the nitty gritty, a person needs something to even the odds, and a gun is the best tool out there. If they don't have a gun, they want someone there who does when trouble rears its ugly head.

Benstt was right that if someone is approached in a confrontational way, their defenses go up and their reason shuts down. I have seen that over and over in issues with nothing to do with guns or Constitutional rights. It is really a shame we no longer have statesmen (or stateswomen :) ) representing us in Washington. Despite what the Constitution says or what you believe it means, the folks in Washington can continue to chip away, as they have in the past, at those things which made the United States of America what it is today. We need to stop the incessant bickering and start talking to folks. Calm wins the day every time.

My $0.02 worth.
Click to expand...
Anni's post was indeed a great one, and I was only trying to expound on how to reach the people who vote for politicians so we could do what Anni's article was talking about. I mentioned my education to illustrate that aside from my pro-2A stance I'd be the person we need to win over to effect what politicians do. I was in no way insinuating that people here act like neanderthals. It was just my view on how to win people over and have a reasonably productive dialogue. Your post is well written and helpful, thank you for your input.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top